close
Browsing: Papers of John Adams, Volume 1
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0026
Recipient: Paine, Robert Treat
Date: 1759-12-06
To Robert Treat Paine
[dateline] Braintree Decr. 6th. 1759
[salute] Sir1
I was too much gratified with the Proposal you made me of writing to you, to neglect
it long. For as Nature and Fortune have conspired to strip me of all other means of
Pleasure I cannot think it either Vanity or Virtue to acknowledge, that the Acquisition
and Communication of Knowledge, are the sole Entertainment of my Life. I should therefore
be inattentive to my object, and stupidly forget my own designs, if I neglected the
Liberty you gave me of opening this Correspondence.
Such is the social Constitution of our Nature, that Conversation arouses Passions
in our Breasts, which give new Vigour and Freedom to our Thoughts, raises Hints and
Arguments which we should never find in solitude, and is at least the best scene to
gather Ideas, if not to compare and seperate them, and finally to settle a difficult
Enquiry. Conversation may promote Benevolence in general, as well as Friendship to
Individuals, raises a Spirit of Industry and Emulation, and evaporates the Spleen
which we are all too apt to contract, by long and close attention to Business or study.
{ 32 } But as we are seldom so happy, as to find Company much inclined to Speculation, and
as some of us, can find no Company at all, the only Method left, is that of Correspondences,
which, in my Opinion have all the Advantages of Conversation, with the Additional
ones of searching deeper into subjects, of crushing many vain and more offensive Thoughts,
and of perpetuating such as are useful and judicious.
How well or ill qualified you may be to maintain a Correspondence on the wisest Principles
and Motives you have forbidden me to tell you, and I had much rather say to other
People. If you condemn this as a Compliment I will not mention your Name in my next,
in the mean time, I will conclude this (after requesting your Answer to the Underwritten
Questions) with the Name of your honest Friend,
[signed] John Adams
A mortgages an House to B, conditioned for the Payment of a certain sum. A dies insolvent.
The House is apprized at £500 less than it was mortgaged for.—Q. In this Province
can B come in as a Creditor for the £500, and claim his proportional share, in the
Division with the other Creditors?
A mortgages an House in N to B, conditioned for the Payment of £1300, and another
House in O, conditioned for the Payment of £1000, and dies insolvent. The House in
N. is appraised at £500 less than it is mortgaged for; and the House in O is appraised
at £500 more than it is mortgaged for. Q. Is the Administrator of A entituled to his
Right of Redemption of the House in O, without paying the £500 deficient in the other
Mortgage?
These two Questions will fill a very sizeable Letter, without leaving Room for one
Compliment.2
1. Robert Treat Paine (1731–1814), Harvard 1749, of Taunton, JA's longtime colleague and rival at the bar; later a delegate to the Continental Congress
and signer of the Declaration of Independence; attorney general of Massachusetts and
from 1790 associate justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. See numerous
allusions to Paine, many of them not in the cordial tone of this letter, in JA's Diary and Autobiography and in his Legal Papers, where there is a sketch of Paine at 1:cv–cvi; see also DAB and Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates, 12:462–482. Paine's extensive papers are in MHi, and his correspondence is being edited for publication by the Society.
2. There is only the slightest evidence to show that the correspondence thus begun on
legal subjects was continued. On the cover page of William Crawford to JA, 13 Jan. 1760, below, appears the following fragment: “To Bob Paine / Since you will oblige me
to spin a Web out of my own Bowells take this, which has enta[n]gled me, these 6 months.”
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0027
Date: 1760-01-08
Date: 1761-07-10
Date: 1774-04-29
Will of Deacon John Adams, with Comments by His Son John
[dateline] [Braintree and Boston, 8 January 1760 – 29 April 1774]
In the Name of God Amen. The Eighth day of January in the year of our Lord one Thousand
Seven hundred and Sixty, and in the thirty third year of his Majestys Reign King George
the Second &c. I John Adams of Braintree in the County of Suffolk in the Province
of the Massachusetts Bay in New England Gentleman,1 being in Health of Body and of Perfect mind and Memory thanks be given to God therefor.
Calling to mind the Mortality of my Body and knowing that it is appointed for man
once to dye, Do make and ordain this my last Will and Testam[ent], That is to Say, Principally and first of all I Give and Recommend my soul into the
Hands of God that gave it, hopeing thro' the Merits, death and Passion of my saviour
Jesus Christ, to have full and free pardon and forgiveness of all my Sins and to Enherit
Eternal life. My Body I Commit to the Earth to be decently buried at the discretion
of my Executors hereafter named Believing that at the General Resurrection I shall
Receive the same again by the Mighty power of God. And as for such worldly Estate
where with it hath pleased God to bless me in this Life, I Give, devise and dispose
of the same in the following manner and form. That is to Say, First I Will that all
those Debts which I owe in right or Conscience to any Person or persons whatsoever
shall be well and truly paid in Convenient time after my decease by my Executors hereafter
named. Item I Give to Susannah my well beloved Wife2 to be enjoyed and Improved by her during her natural life one third of my Real Estate.
The third part of my Real Estate [is] to be understood as including not only what I shall be possessed of at my decease
but also such as I have made over to any of my Sons by deeds of gift. Also I Give
to my wife one third part of my personal Estate to her and her heirs and assigns.
Item I have given my Son John Adams a Libberal Education also I have given my Son
John Adams by deed of gift one half of the house that Doctr. Elisha Savel lives in
that I bought of Mr. John and Richard Billing with half the Barn and half the land
belonging to the said House which I Confirm to him and his heirs and Assigns forever
to which I add the other half of the above said House and Barn and land thereto belonging
the whole Containing about ten Acres { 34 } be it more or less3 also the Priviledge [of] drawing Water out of my Well, and I also give to my Son John Adams and his heirs
&c. twelve acres part orchard and part Pasture land, adjoyning to Mr. John Curtis's
land. Also about Eight Acres of Fresh Meadow adjoyning to Benjamin Vesey's land and
the Town Common. Also two small wood Lotts that I bought of Brother Owen one Esteemed
Six Acres and the other four.4 All which I give to him and his heirs and Assigns forever. Item I Give and Bequeath
to my Son Peter Boylston Adams5 and to his heirs and Assigns forever the house I live in with the Barn and other
buildings and all the Lands of the Remainder of my homestead Containing about thirty
five Acres.6 Also I Give to my Son Peter Boylston Adams and his heirs and assigns four Acres of
Salt Marsh two at Rock Island and two at the farms.7 Also a Quarter part of the Seventh Lott in the Six hundred acres so Called lying
in partnership with Brother Ebenezer Adams.8 Also the half of about ten Acres lying in partnership with Mr. Samuel Bass, also
a Share of Cedar Swamp in the Middle Swamp lying in partnership with Brother Ebenezer
Adams. Item I Give and Bequeath to my Son Elihu Adams9 and his heirs and assigns forever my farm in the South Precinct in Braintree Joyning
upon Lieut. Joseph Whites Land Easterly, North on Mr. Ruggles land and South on Noah
Whitcombs land and West on the River against Lieutenant Joshua Haywards Land.10 Also I Give to my Son Elihu and his heirs and assigns forever my Salt Meadow in Milton
at Penny fery so Called Containing two Acres and a half he paying ten pounds Lawfull
Money to my Executors in one year after my decease.11 Further my Will is that after my Wife hath had her third part of my personal Estate
the other two thirds be improved to pay debts if any be, otherwise to be Equally divided
between my three sons. Lastly I do hereby Constitute make and ordain my two sons John
Adams and Peter Boylston Adams Executors of this my last Will and Testament. And I
do hereby utterly disallow, Revoke and Disanull all and every other and former Testament,
Will, Legacies, Bequests and Executors by me in any wise before this time Named, Willed
and bequeathed, Ratifying And Confirming this and no other to be my last Will and
Testament. In Witness where of I have hereunto set my hand and Seal the day and year
above written.
[signed] John Adams and a Seal
[signed] Signed, sealed, published, pronounced and declared by the said John Adams to be his
last Will and Testament in Presence of us the Subscribers— Joseph Field, Elijah Belcher, Ebenezer Adams Junr.
Suffolk ss By the Honble. Thomas Hutchinson Esqr. Judge of Probate &c.
The afore written Will being presented for Probate by the Executors therein named
Joseph Feild, Elijah Belcher and Ebenezer Adams Junr. made Oath that they saw John
Adams the Subscriber to this Instrument sign the same and also heard him Publish and
declare it to be his last Will and Testament and that when he so did he was of sound
disposing Mind and Memory according to these Deponents best discerning, and that they
set to their hands as Witnesses thereof in the said Testators presence.
[dateline] Boston July 10–1761.
[signed] T Hutchinson12
[signed] Copy Examd.
Per Jno. Cotton Reg[iste]r
Per Jno. Cotton Reg[iste]r
[John Adams' Comments on Cover of Will]13
This Testator married Susanna Boylstone, a Daughter of Peter Boylstone, of Brooklyne,
who was a son of Thomas Boylstone, of the same Town a Physician, and Brother of Dr.
Zabdiel Boylston, the first Practiser of Inoculation for the Small Pox.14
This Match produced John, the Writer of this Memorandum, Peter Boylstone, and Elihu.
This Testator had a good Education, tho not at Colledge, and was a very capable and
usefull Man. In his Early Life he was an Officer in a Company of Militia—afterwards
a Deacon of the Church, and a select Man of the Town, almost all the Business of the
Town being managed by him in that Department for 20 Years together.—A Man of Strict
Piety and great Integrity: much esteemed and beloved, wherever he was known, which
was not far, his Sphere of Life being not extensive.
Boston April 29. 1774. This is a Copy of my Fathers Will. He lived in an House between the Episcopal Church
and the Foot of Penns Hill, in Braintree. This House in His Will is given to my Brother
Peter Boylston Adams, and of him was purchased by me, a few Months agone.
[signed] John Adams
What Fortune had he pray? His own:
And better got, than Bestia's from the Throne.
MS (Adams Papers, Wills and Deeds). Consists of three parts, of which the first and
third are printed here: (1) contemporary copy, in an unidentified { 36 } hand and worn at the edges, of Deacon John Adams' will, dated 8 Jan. 1760, with appended
copy, in same hand, of Judge of Probate Thomas Hutchinson's authentication of the
witnesses' attestation; the copy is signed and certified by the Register of Suffolk
Probate Court, John Cotton, and is docketed: “John Adams's Will Proved July 10–1761
Copy.” (2) Grant of probate, a printed form filled in, signed by Hutchinson, and certified
by Cotton; bears seal of the court and is wafered to upper left corner of first page
of will; not printed here, but see note 12. (3) Two memoranda in JA's hand about his father's life and character; one undated, the other dated 29 April
1774.
1. John Adams (1691–1761), father of JA, usually called Deacon John to distinguish him from his eldest son, held town, parish,
and militia officerships throughout his mature life and is warmly and gracefully eulogized
by his son in the comments following the will printed here. The will is sufficient
testimony that Deacon John often acted upon the maxim attributed to him, namely, “that
he never knew a Piece of Land run away or break” (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 3:286). The only connected account of this “typical New England yeoman," principally a
farmer but often mentioned in contemporary documents as a “cordwainer” (shoemaker),
is in CFA2, Three Episodes, 2:714–716, but there are numerous references to him in JA's Diary and Autobiography.
2. Susanna (Boylston) Adams (1709–1797) married the elder John Adams in 1734; long outliving him, she in 1766 married Lt.
John Hall. In his added comments, below, JA describes her connections with the Boylston family of Brookline; she appears with
some frequency in Diary and Autobiography, and in early volumes of Adams Family Correspondence.
3. This was the smaller of Deacon John Adams' two adjacent farmsteads, each having a
saltbox “cottage” upon it, separated by only a cartway. They remain in situ on Franklin Street in Quincy today, having been given by the Adams family to the
city in 1940, open to the public and administered by the Quincy Historical Society.
Deacon Adams acquired the older and more southerly of the two dwellings and the lesser
acreage adjacent to it from John and Richard Billings of Boston by a deed dated 13
April 1744 which is now among the Adams Papers, Adams Office Files. At an undetermined date Deacon Adams gave JA half of this house and farm; in his will be bequeathed him the remainder; and here
JA established his first law office and in 1764 brought his bride, Abigail (Smith) Adams
(AA). All their children were born in the house today known as the John Quincy Adams
Birthplace. See JA, Diary and Autobiography, passim, and especially editorial note at 1:15 and illustration facing p. 256; also early volumes of Adams Family Correspondence. A valuable illustrated account, now somewhat out of date, was published by HA2, The Birthplaces of John and John Quincy Adams, Quincy, 1936 (reprinted from Old-Time New England, 26:79–99 [Jan. 1936]); this carries the story into the 19th century. More up-to-date
and containing both more early and recent information is Waldo C. Sprague, The President John Adams and President John Quincy Adams Birthplaces, Quincy, 1959.
4. Deeds for some, possibly all, of these additional parcels survive in the original
Adams Papers or in the Adams Office Files. For example, the woodlots totaling ten acres were bought of Benjamin Owen of Braintree,
husband of Deacon Adams' sister Hannah, 2 Sept. 1736 (Adams Papers, Wills and Deeds).
5. Peter Boylston Adams (1738–1823), JA's next youngest brother, a farmer and land appraiser, was in 1768 to marry Mary Crosby,
by whom he had five children. In his long life he held various town offices, served
in the siege of Boston, and became Quincy's first representative in the General Court,
1792, 1794. But he emerged from obscurity only occasionally, for example in his disagreement
with his brother the ex-President over the War of 1812, Peter being an uncompromising
New England Federalist. See references to him in JA, Diary and Autobiography, { 37 } and in Adams Family Correspondence (including a notable letter on the climactic events of the siege of Boston, 1:371–372).
6. Deacon John Adams' principal farm, with the saltbox “cottage,” now known as the John
Adams Birthplace, on Franklin Street in Quincy. The dwelling, a barn, well, and six
acres of farm land had been purchased by Deacon John on 18 May 1720 from James Penniman
(original deed in Adams Papers, Adams Office Files). Susanna (Boylston) Adams probably continued to live in this house until her remarriage
in 1766, and Peter may have lived there both before and after his marriage, but in
a diary entry of 28 Feb. 1774JA records:
“I purchased of my Brother, my fathers Homestead, and House where I was born. The
House, Barn and thirty five acres of Land of which the Homestead consists, and Eighteen
acres of Pasture in the North Common, cost me 440£. This is a fine addition, to what
I had there before, of arable, and Meadow. The Buildings and the Water, I wanted,
very much.
“That beautifull, winding, meandering Brook, which runs thro this farm, always delighted
me.
“How shall I improve it?...
“I must ramble over it, and take a View.” (Diary and Autobiography, 2:87–88.)
7. That is, The Farms (sometimes called “Massachusetts Farms”), a common local name for
what is now North Quincy (Pattee, Old Braintree and Quincy, p. 56).
8. Ebenezer Adams (1704–1769), younger brother of Deacon John Adams; in 1729 he had married Anne, sister of Susanna
Boylston, who was later to marry Deacon John. Ebenezer, whose Braintree farm was about
a mile from his brother's Penn's Hill property, held numerous town offices over a
long period but is otherwise unknown to history. The land held “in partnership” by
the brothers had been inherited from their father, Joseph Adams (1654–1737); see his
will, 23 July 1731 (Adams Papers, Wills and Deeds).
9. Elihu Adams (1741–1775), third son and last child of Deacon John and Susanna (Boylston) Adams, was in 1765
to marry Thankful White, by whom he had three children. He died of “a contagious distemper”
while serving as an officer in the Massachusetts forces in the first summer of the
war. See the following note.
10. The South Precinct of Braintree where Elihu went to live upon the ample farm bequeathed
to him there was later (1793) set off as Randolph.
11. This “Piece of Salt Marsh or Medow Situate in Milton ... at Penny-Ferry (so-called)”
was conveyed by “Samuel Nightengal of Braintree . . . Clergyman” to “John Adams of
the same Braintree Cordwainer” by a deed of 10 April 1738 for £77 (Adams Papers, Adams Office Files). Elihu and his wife sold the same parcel to JA in 1769 for £26 13s 4d (same), the deed being recorded 5 Oct.
Penny Ferry, the origin of whose name is self-evident, crossed the Neponset River
on one common early route from Braintree to Boston. Deacon Adams' salt marsh there
played an important and novel part in JA's early education; see JA, Diary and Autobiography, 3:246–247, 257–258.
12. Upon the attestation of the three witnesses named above, Thomas Hutchinson, as judge
of probate for Suffolk co., issued on 10 July 1761 his certification of probate (a
printed form, filled in; see descriptive note), empowering the testator's sons John and Peter Boylston Adams, “to Execute the said
Will, and to Administer the Estate of the said Deceased,” and ordering them to bring
in to the court “a true and perfect Inventory” of the said estate on or before 10
Oct. 1761. This inventory is printed below under date of 9 Oct. 1761.
14. Peter Boylston (d. 1743), maternal grandfather of JA, was a substantial citizen of Muddy River (later called Brookline) until a few years
before his death, when he sold the family place to his brother Zabdiel and moved to
Boston. Their father, Thomas Boylston (ca. 1644–1696), owned extensive property in the village of Muddy River and practiced surgery. Thomas'
son Zabdiel Boylston (1679–1766) was a famous early American physician, for the reason JA gives.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0028
Recipient: Adams, John
Date: 1760-01-13
From William Crawford
[dateline] Shrewsbury, January. 13th 1760
[salute] My Friend
I am lately come from divine Service, if I may be allowed the Expression, performd
by the Revd. Mr. Cushing,1 whom you're not unaquainted with. He has fill'd my head brimfull, of Portions of
Sentences, concerning the spirituall and natural man. If what Mr. Locke says be true,
that an intent fixedness on any particular object, will cause an alienation of the
rational Faculties, I am under no concern that what I have heard this day will distract
me. Happy were it for me had I not been born to be plagu'd by words without Ideas.
Thus I am resolv'd to persecute you with a little, of that which I have had a great
deal of.
I received [a] few lines from you per favour Mr. Thayer,2 for which I am oblig'd to you. I am glad you are not yet, gone to perpetual silence,
as I had reason to fear, on account of my not hearing from you for these eight months
past. I purpos'd as you observ'd, to spend some Time with you, this winter, but I
have resolvd to go no where till I have finishd my physical study with the Doctor,
so I must omit it till next Spring at which Time I purpose to launch into the world
in the Character of a Physician. We expect with impatience that you will come and
see us as you mention'd.—With regard to our last Campaigne, I have little more to
say, but that we pursued a flying Enemy.—I wou'd not omit mentioning to you any part
of my Happiness. I lodge at Mrs. Eeger's, and enjoy their the Conversation of a young
Lady, of distinguishd merit, who in old Times was known by the Name of the fair Jilt.
Give my Compliment to the young Ladies where you think it proper. I am &ca.,
[signed] W Crawford3
1. Job Cushing (1694–1760), Harvard 1714, minister at Shrewsbury, Mass., from 1723 (Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates, 6:45–46).
2. Letter not found.
3. Crawford preached in the Worcester area while JA was a schoolmaster there (JA, Earliest Diary, p. 14).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0029
Recipient: Adams, John
Date: 1760-02-13
From Jonathan Sewall
[dateline] Charlestown 13th. Feby. 1760
[salute] My Friend
In my last, if I rightly remember, I joined with you in your panegyric on the superior
Rewards which ancient Rome proposed to Application and Study, and in your Satyre on
those despicable praemia, which we, whose Lot it is to live in the infant State of
a new World, can rationally expect.1 But perhaps we have both been too hasty in our Conclusions; possibly, if we peirce
through the Glare of false Glory, too too apt to dazzle and deceive the intellectual
Eye; if, in Order to the forming a just Estimate, we secrete the genuine from the imaginary Rewards, we may find the Difference much less than at first Sight we are apt to concieve.
For, let us, if you please my Friend, consider what was the palm for which the roman
Orator ran? It was, the plaudit of a people, at that Time, sunk into a most shameful
Effeminacy of Manners, governed by a Spirit of Faction and Licentiousness, to which
this Father of his Country, at length fell himself a Sacrifice;—It was, the highest Post of Honour in that august
Empire which hath since fallen an easy prey to Goths, Visigoths, Vandals and other barbarous and uncivilised Nations of the North;—It
was to be the first Man in that Roma Aeterna, which, but for the Names of Brutus, Caesar, Cicero, Cataline, and a few other Patriots, Tyrants, Orators and Conspirators, which have been perpetuated
by the Eminence of their Owners and their respective Employments, had been long since
buried in eternal Oblivion.
To be caress'd, applauded and deify'd by Roman Citizens, to be raised to the highest Honours which Rome, the Mistress of the World, could give, are Rewards, it must be confessed, in their
Nature more dazzling and, to an unthinking Mind, more captivating and alluring to
the Toils of indefatigable Study and close thinking; and in these, it will be acknowledged,
Cicero had greatly the Advantage of us. But are these the most striking? Are there not others,
which we, as well as Cicero, have in prospect, infinitely superiour, in their Nature,
more refined, more lasting? What think you my Friend of the inward pleasure and Satisfaction
which the human Mind receiveth from the Acquisition of Knowledge? What, of rational
Delight which the benevolent Man experienceth in the Capacity and Oportunity of doing
Good to his fellow Men? What, of the Heart-felt Joy which the Man { 40 } of Virtue overflows with in relieving and supporting distressed Innocence and Goodness,
and in detecting and punishing insolent Vice?
But Cicero's Name has been handed down thro' many Ages with Admiration and Applause;
so may yours. “Worth makes the Man,” form's the Character, and perpetuates his Memory:
Cicero is not revered because he was Rome's Consul; had his Orations been deliverd
in the little Senate of Lillybaeum or Syracuse, yet still they would have been esteemed
as they are, by all Men of Learning, and perhaps would have perpetuated the Names
of Lillybaeum and Syracuse, for many Ages after they shall now be forgotten, and had
A——n2 lived in Rome, it is more than probable we should never have heard his Name. It is
not the Place where a Man lives, nor his Titles of Honour in that Place, which will
procure him Esteem with succeeding Generations, tho perhaps, for the present it may
command the outward Respect of the unthinking Mob for the most part dazzled with the
Parade and Pomp of Nobility. But if in the Estimation of the World, a Man's Worth
riseth in proportion to the Greatness of his Country, who knows but in future Ages,
when New England shall have risen to its' intended Grandeur, it shall be as carefully
recorded among the Registers of the Leterati, that Adams flourishd in the second Century after the Exode of its first Settlers from Great
Brittain, as it is now, that Cicero was born in the Six-Hundred-&-Forty-Seventh Year after the Building of Rome?
A Man by Will gives his Negro his Liberty, and leave's him a Legacy. The Executor
consents that the Negro shall be free, but refuseth to give Bond to the Selectmen
to indemnify the Town against any Charge for his Support, in Case he should become
poor, (without which, by the Province Law he is not manumitted) or to pay him the
Legacy.
Quer. Can he recover the Legacy, and how?
I have just observed that in your last you desire me to say something toward discouraging
you from removing to Providence, and you say any Thing will do. At present I only
say, you will do well enough where you are. I will explain my self and add something
farther, in some future Letter. I have not Time to enlarge now, for which, I believe,
you will not be inconsolably grieved. So, to put you out of pain—I am, Your hearty
Friend,
[signed] Jonath. Sewall
P.S. I hope you'll write me soon, I think you are scrupulously exact in writing only
in turn.
P.P.S. I am now going thro Co. Litt. again, and I suppose you are likewise. If you
make any new Observations as you go along, or if any Questions arise in your Mind,
it may possibly be of mutual Advantage to communicate them. I shall do the same. This
may in some measure answer the End of reading him together, which I am persuaded would
be eminently beneficial, at least to,
[signed] J.S.
RC (Adams Papers); addressed: “To Mr. John Adams Atty. at Law In Braintree”; docketed in an unidentified
hand: “J Sewell—1760 13. Feb'y.”
1. Two or more letters between JA and Sewall must be missing after their last surviving exchange, Sept.–Oct. 1759, printed above. For other clues to their contents see the last paragraph of text
(preceding the postscripts) in the present letter and the opening sentence of and
postscript to JA's reply which follows.
2. Doubtless John Aplin (1709–1772), author of Verses on Dr. Mayhew's Book of Observation &c., a satirical attack on Rev. Jonathan Mayhew's criticism of the Society for the Propagation
of the Gospel. See Bailyn, ed., Pamphlets, 1:274–291. In JA, Diary and Autobiography, “Applin” (1:317) is erroneously identified in the Index as “James Aplin.”
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0030
Recipient: Sewall, Jonathan
Date: 1760-02
To Jonathan Sewall
[dateline] Feb. [] 1760
I am very willing to join with you, in renouncing the Reasoning of some of our last
Letters.1
There is but Little Pleasure, which Reason can approve to be received from the Noisy
applause, and servile Homage that is paid to any Officer from the Lictor to the Dictator,
or from the sexton of a Parish to the sovereign of a Kingdom: And Reason will despize
equally, a blind undistinguishing Adoration of what the World calls fame. She is neither
a Goddess to be loved, nor a Demon to be feared, but an unsubstantial Phantom existing
only in Imagination.
But with all this Contempt, give me Leave to reserve (for I am sure that Reason will
warrant) a strong affection for the honest Approbation of the wise and the good both
in the present, and in all future Generations. Mistake not this for an Expectation
of the Life to come, in the Poets Creed.—Far otherwise. I expect to be totally forgotten
within 70 Years from the present Hour unless the Insertion of my Name in the Colledge
Catalogue, should luckily preserve it longer.—When Heaven designs an extraordinary
Character, one that shall distinguish his Path thro' the World by any great Effects,
it never fails to furnish the proper Means and Opportunities; but the common Herd
of Mankind, who are to be born and eat and sleep and die, and be forgotten, is thrown
into the World as it were at Random, { 42 } without any visible Preparation of Accommodations.—Yet tho I have very few Hopes,
I am not ashamed to own that a Prospect of an Immortality in the Memories of all the
Worthy, to [the] End of Time would be a high Gratification to my Wishes.
But to Return, Tully, therefore, had but few Advantages, in the Estimation of Reason
more than We have, for a happy Life.—He had greater Political Objects to tempt his
Ambition, he had better Opportunities to force the Hozanna's of his Countrymen, but
these are not Advantages for Happiness. On the Contrary, the Passions which these
Objects were designed to gratify, were so many stings for ever smarting in his Mind,
which at last goaded him into that Excess of Vanity and Pusillanimity, for which he
has been as often blamed, as ever he was praised for his Genius and his Virtues. Tis
true, he had Abler Masters and more Opportunities for instructive Conversation, in
a City, so fruitful of great Men. But in other Respects the rational sources of Pleasure,
have been much enlarged since his Day.
In the Acquisition of Knowledge, without which it would be a Punishment to live, we
have much greater Advantages (whatever some ingenious Men may say) than he had or
could have. For the Improvements in Navigation, and the surprizing Augmentation of
Commerce, by spreading civilized Nations round the Globe, and sending Men of Letters
into all Countries, have multiplied the Means of Information concerning the Planet
we inhabit; and the Invention of the Art of Printing, has perpetuated and cheapened
the Means of every Kind of Knowledge, beyond what could have been immagined in his
Day.
Europe has been, ever since his Death, the Constant Theatre of surprizing Characters,
Actions, Events, Revolutions, which have been preservd in a sufficient Plenty of Memorials,
to constitute a series of Political Knowledge of a greater Variety of Characters,
more important Events, and more complicated Circumstances; and of Consequence better
adapted for an Agreable Entertainment to the Mind, than any, that the World had ever
known in his Times; and perhaps there never was before, nor has been since his Day,
a Period, abounding with greater Heroes and Politicians, or with more surprizing Actions
and Events, than that in which we live.
In Metaphysicks, Mr. Locke, directed by my Lord Bacon, has steered his Course into
the unenlightened Regions of the human Mind, and like Columbus has discoverd a new
World. A World whose soil is deep and strong producing Rank and unwholsome Weeds as
well as wholsome fruits and flowers; a World that is incumbered with unprofitable
Brambles, as well as stored with useful Trees; and in• { 43 } fested with motly Savages; as well as capable of furnishing civilized Inhabitants;
he has shewn us by what Cultivation, these Weeds may be Extirmined and the fruits
raised; the Brambles removed as well as the Trees grubbed; the savages destroyd, as
well as the civil People increased. Here is another Hemisphere of Science therefore
abounding with Pleasure and with Profit too, of which [Cicero]2 had but very few and we have many Advantages for learning.
But in Mathematicks, and what is founded on them, Astronomy and Phylosophy, the Modern
Discoveries have done Honour to the human Understanding. Here is the true sphere of
Modern Genius.—What a noble Prospect of the Universe have these Men opened before
us. Here I see Millions of Worlds and systems of Worlds, swarming with Inhabitants,
all engaged in the same Active Investigation of the great System of Universal and
eternal Truth, and overflowing with Felicity.
And while I am ravished with such Contemplations as these, it imports me little on
what Ground I tread or in what Age I live.
The Intention of the Testator to be collected from the Words, is to be observd in
the Construction of a Will—and where any Title to Lands or Goods, or any other Act
is devisd to any one, without any mention of something previous or concomitant, without
which the Act or Title is not valid, in such Case the Thing previous or concomitant
shall by Implication be devised too, e.g.
A Man devises Lands and Tenements to A.B., the said A.B. paying £100 out of the same
Lands to B.C.—Here are no Words of Inheritance or of Freehold you see, yet since The
Testator plainly intended, that £100 should be paid to B.C. out of the Land, it must
be presumed that he knew the Rule of Law which entitles a Devisee of Lands encumbered
with a Charge, to a Fee simple, and therefore a fee simple shall pass by Implication.
So also
A Man devisd Lands and Tenements to A.B. in Trust for C.D. and his Heirs. Here are
no Words of Inheritance, yet as he has established a Trust that may last forever,
he shall be presumed to have intended a Fee simple in his Devise, and the Devisee
shall hold the Tenements to himself and his own Heirs for ever, by Implication, altho
the Cestuy que Trust should die Heirless tomorrow. Now
En mesure le manner. The Testator intended plainly that his Negro should have his
Liberty, and a Legacy. Therefore the Law will presume that he intended his Executor
should do all that, without which he could have neither. That this Indemnification
was not in the Testators mind, cannot be proved from the Will, any more than it could
{ 44 } be proved in the 1st Case above that the Testator did not know a Fee simple would
pass a Will without the Word Heirs; nor than in the 2d Case, that the Devise of a
Trust that might continue for ever would convey a fee simple without the like Words.
I take it therefore, that the Executor of this Will is by Implication obligd to give
Bonds to the The Town Treasurer, and in his Refusal is a wrong doer, and I cant think
he ought to be allowed to take advantage of his own Wrong so much as to alledge this
Want of an Indemnification, to evade an Action of the Case brot for the Legacy, by
the Negro himself.
But why may not the Negro bring a special Action of the Case vs. Executor setting
forth the Will, the Devise of Freedom, and a Legacy, and then the Necessity of Indemnification
by the Province Law, and then a Refusal to indemnify and of Consequence to set free,
and to pay the Legacy.
Perhaps the Negro is free at common Law by the Devise. Now the Province Law seems
to have been made, only to oblige the Master to maintain his manumitted <slave> servant, not to declare a Manumission in the Masters lifetime or at his Death, void.
Should a Master give his Negro his freedom under his Hand and seal, without giving
Bond to the Town, and should afterwards repent and endeavour to recall the Negro into
servitude, would not that Instrument be sufficient discharge vs. the Master?
Dft or LbC (Adams Papers); at head of text: “To Sewal.” This and the next letter from JA to Sewall, printed below under the assigned date post 10 Sept. 1760, were written on two leaves torn from a small folio book resembling a letterbook
and very like the volume containing diary entries, letter copies, and miscellaneous
material published in the present edition as The Earliest Diary of John Adams (q.v. at p. 4), though the leaves are not exactly the same size as those of any known volume in
JA's hand of so early a period. The missing volume may have been such another miscellany
as the Earliest Diary; see note 4.
3. “And do not hate your friend because of a small sin.” From the Golden Verses of Pythagoras, written by disciples of Pythagoras in the first or second century b.c. (The editors are indebted to Professor Zeph Stewart of Harvard University for the
translation and attribution.) JA quoted a longer passage in his diary entry for 26 Nov. 1760 and at a later period read and annotated a French translation of this col• { 45 } lection of Neo-Pythagorean maxims (Diary and Autobiography, 1:174).
4. At the head of the text of this letter, and just possibly intended as an addendum
to it, but more likely part of a preceding (but missing) letter or even a wholly detached
thought, is a passage reading as follows: “A Project has just started into my Mind
of collecting the Anecdotes of the Lives of all the great Lawyers, ancient and modern.
The Character of Sulpitius suggested it to me. Vid. Middleton, V. 3 P. 134.”
Apparently nothing came of this passing thought. The reference is doubtless to Conyers
Middleton, The History of the Life of Cicero, of which JA owned a set, in 3 vols., London, 1755, now in MB, from which the third volume is missing. The set had been presented to JA as a Detur Prize at Harvard College (Catalogue of JA's Library).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0031
Date: 1760-05-29
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Draft of a Letter on the Evils of Licensed Houses
Braintree, 29 May 1760. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:128–129. For the context of this draft and its three sequels, Jan.?–May? 1761, none apparently published at the time, see note in same, p. 129–130, and JA's MS map of taverns, same, facing p. 65, with description and references at p. ix.
Printed: (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:128–129).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0032
Recipient: Sewall, Jonathan
Date: 1760-09-10
To Jonathan Sewall
[dateline] [Braintree, post 10 September 1760]1
[salute] Sir
You have perhaps expected from me (according to the Custom of the World) some Expressions
of my Condolance, in your <unfortunate> loss of Judge Sewal.2—To be plain, I always feel extreamly awkward, whenever I attempt, by Writing or in
Person, to console the sorrowful, or to rejoice with those that do rejoice. I had
rather conceal my own <Sympathy> fellow feeling in their Joys or Griefs, at the Hazard of being thought insensible,
than express any very great Degree of Either, at the Risque of being tho't insincere.—The
Loss is certainly great to you, and to the Province in general: But Providence can
neither be resisted, nor perswaded, nor fathomed. Implicit Resignation is our greatest
Wisdom, both as our Duty, and as the only sufficient source of Tranquility. Relying
on this foundation, we shall endeavour to turn our Thoughts as much as we can, from
irretrievable Misfortunes, and towards the means of procuring, according to the Probabilities
of Things, future Peace and Pleasure.
And in this View, instead of grieving excessively for what can never be avoided nor
diminished, I shall be so free as to ask your Opinion, and to set you on the search
(if at any loss) concerning the following Point of Law Practice.—If a Writt tryable
before a Justice, is served within six days or five if you pleas, of the Time of Tryal,
or one at { 46 } Court, within 12 or 13, what is the proper Method of taking Advantage of this Insufficiency?
Must this be pleaded in Abatement? or must the Action be dismissed? Must Advantage
be taken by motion or by Plea? The Law has provided that Court Writs shall be served,
14 days, and Justices, at least seven days before the Time of Tryal. And in general,
what is the Method of taking Advantage of Insufficient services, and Returns?
And Q[uery], also. Suppose A. leased an House, in 1756, for one Year to B, at ten Pounds Rent,
for that Year, and after that Year expired B. continued, in the House Another Year,
without any Renewal of the Lease, or any new Contract for any certain Rent. Would
Debt for Rent, in the common form lye, for the Year 1757, at £10 also for the Year.—Should
be glad of an immediate Answer to these Questions, especially the last, as upon that,
turns an affair of Importance to me.
In the mean time, wishing you, amidst all the Perplexities and Disappointments of
this uncomfortable state, as great a share of Happiness as your Genius and Virtues
may be said in the Language of Mankind to deserve, I subscribe as Usual your hearty
friend,
[signed] John Adams
Dft or LbC (Adams Papers); at head of text: “To Jona. Sewal.” Text is on fourth page of two leaves torn from
the (missing) letterbook or miscellaneous journal discussed in descriptive note on
JA to Sewall, Feb. 1760, above.
1. For the assignment of this date see following note.
2. Chief Justice Stephen Sewall (b. 1702), Harvard 1721, died on 10 Sept. 1760; he was
Jonathan Sewall's uncle (Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates, 6:561–567). The competition for succession to the vacancy in this high office had
profound effects on Massachusetts politics and family alignments that lasted into
the era of the Revolution. For JA's views on the issue, see his Draft of a Letter of the Succession, 5 Nov. and note, Diary and Autobiography, 1:167–168.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0033
Date: 1760-11-05
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Draft of a Letter on the Succession to the Chief Justiceship
Braintree 5 November 1760. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:167–168. See above, JA to Jonathan Sewall, post 10 Sept. 1760 and note there.
Printed: (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:167–168).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0034
Recipient: Parsons, Samuel Holden
Date: 1760-12-05
To Samuel Holden Parsons
[dateline] Braintree December 5th. 1760
[salute] Sir1
I presume upon the Merits of a Brother, both in the Academical { 47 } and legal family, to give you this Trouble and to ask the favour of your correspondence.
The Science which we have bound ourselves to study for Life, you know to be immensely
voluminous, perhaps intricate and involved, so that an arduous application to Books
at Home, a critical observation of the Course of Practice, and the Conduct of the
Elder Practicioners in Courts, and a large Correspondence with fellow students abroad,
as well as much conversation in private Companies upon legal subjects are needful,
to gain a thorough Mastery, if not to make a decent Figure in the Profession of the
Law. The Design of this Letter then is to desire that you would write me a Report
of any cause of Importance and Curiosity either in Courts of Admiralty or Common Law,
that you hear resolved in your Colony, and on my Part I will readily engage to do
the same of any such causes that I shall hear argued in this Province. It is an employment
that gives me pleasure, and I find that revolving a Case in my mind, stating it on
Paper, recollecting the Arguments on each side, and examining the Points thro' my
Books that occur in the Course of a Tryal makes the Impressions deeper on my memory,
and lets me easier into the Spirit of Law and Practice.
In view I send you the Report of a Cause argued in Boston last Term. And should be
glad to know if the Point “whether Statutes of Mortmain are to be extended to the
Plantations” was ever stirred in your Colony? And by what Criterion you determine
what Statutes are and what are not extended to you?2
Tr (Adams Papers); incomplete; in hand of Samuel H. Parsons of Middletown, Conn. (grandson of original
recipient); appended to the younger Parsons' letter to CFA, 10 Nov. 1856 and filed under that date.
1. Samuel Holden Parsons (1737–1789), Harvard 1756, at this time was studying law with an uncle in his native village
of Lyme, Conn. An early patriot, he became a Continental brigadier general in 1776
and major general in 1780. After the war he invested in Ohio lands and settled in
Marietta (Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates, 14:50–73; see also JA, Diary and Autobiography, 3:444–449).
2. Here appears in parentheses a note signed “S.H.P.,” the transcriber: “Here follows
the case which [is] too long to be transcribed at this time.”
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0035
Date: 1761-01
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Draft of a Letter from an Old Man on the Evils of Licensed Houses
Braintree, January? 1761. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:190–192 Unsigned, but the author introduces himself as “an old Man, seventy odd.” See entry
for the earliest draft in this series, 29 May 1760, above, and references there.
Printed: (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:190–192).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0036
Date: 1761-01
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Draft of a New Year's Address to His Nieces
Braintree, January? 1761. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:193–196. The letter is of course pseudonymous; at this time JA had no nieces.
Printed: (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:193–196).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0037
Recipient: Chardon, Peter
Date: 1761-01
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
To Peter Chardon
Braintree, January? 1761. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:196–197. On Chardon (d. 1766), see JA's admiring characterization in same, p. 47, and note at p. 48.
Printed: (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:196–197).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0038
Date: 1761-03
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Draft of a Letter from an Old Man on the Evils of Licensed Houses
Braintree, March? 1761. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:204–206. Third in the series of (unpublished) newspaper contributions on this subject. See
entry for the earliest draft in the series, 29 May 1760, above, and references there.
Printed: (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:204–206).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0039
Recipient: Quincy, Samuel
Date: 1761-04-22
To Samuel Quincy
[dateline] April 22d. 1761
[salute] Dr. Sir
Since you claim a Promise I will perform as well as I can. The Letter so long talked
of, is but a Mouse though the offspring of a pregnant Mountain. However, if amidst
the cares of business, the gay diversions of the Town, the sweet refreshments of private
study, and the joyful expectations of approaching Wedlock,1 you can steal a moment to read a letter from an old Country-friend, I shall chearfully
transcribe it, such as it is, without the least alteration, or the least labor to
connect this preamble to the subsequent Purview.
The Review of an old Letter from you upon original Composition and original Genius,
has raised a war in my mind.2 “Scraps of Verse, sayings of Philosophers,” the received opinion of the World, and
my own reflections upon all, have thrown my imagination into a Turmoil, like the reign
of Rumour in Milton, or the jarring elements in Ovid, Where
a picture of which I am determined to draw.
“Nulli sua forma manebat
Obstabatque alliis aliud.”3
Most writers have represented Genius as a rare Phenomenon, a { 49 } Phoenix. Bolingbroke says, “God mingles sometimes among the societies of Men, a few
and but a few, of Those on whom he is graciously pleased to bestow a larger portion
of the aetherial spirit, than in the ordinary Course of his Providence he bestows
on the Sons of Men.” Mr. Pope will tell you, that this “vivida vis animi, is to be
found in very few, and that the utmost stretch of study, learning, and industry, can
never attain to This.” Dr. Cheyne4 shall distinguish between his Quick-thinkers, and Slow-thinkers, and insinuate that
the former are extreamly scarce.
We have a becoming Reverence for the authority of these Writers, and of many Others
of the same Opinion—but we may be allowed to fear that the vanity of the human heart,
had too great a share in determining these Writers that Opinion.
The same vanity which gave rise to that strange religious Dogma, that God elected
a precious few (of which few however every Man who believes the doctrine is always
One) to Life eternal without regard to any foreseen Virtue, and reprobated all the
Rest, without regard to any foreseen Vice—A doctrine which, with serious gravity,
represents the world, as under the government of Humour and Caprice, and which Hottentots
and Mohawks would reject with horror.
If the orthodox doctrine of Genius is not so detestable as that of unconditional Election,
it is not much less invidious, nor much less hurtful. One represents eternal life,
as an unattainable Thing without the special favor of the Father—and even with that
attainable by very few, one of a Tribe or two of a Nation, and so tends to discourage
the practice of virtue. The other represents the talents to excell as extreamly scarce,
indulged by Nature to very few, and unattainable by all the Rest, and therefore tends
to discourage Industry. You and I shall never be persuaded or frightened either by
Popes or Councils, Poets or Enthusiasts, to believe that the world of nature, learning
and grace is governed by such arbitrary Will or inflexible fatality. We have much
higher Notions of the efficacy of human endeavours in all Cases.
It is not improbable (as some Men are taller, stronger, fairer &c., than Others) that
some may be by the Constitution of their bodies more sensible than others, so some
may be said to be born with greater geniuses than others—and the middle point between
that of the most perfect organization and the least perfect, in an healthy Child,
that is not an Idiot nor a Monster, is the point of Common Sense. It is therefore
likely, there are as many who have more than Common Sense, and so may be in different
degrees denominated great { 50 } geniuses, as there are who have less, and these surely will not by Mr. Pope, my Lord
Bolingbroke, or Dr. Cheyne, be thought extreamly few.—The falacy seems to lie here.
We define Genius to be the innate Capacity, and then vouchsafe this flattering Title
only to Those few, who have been directed, by their birth, education and lucky accidents,
to distinguish themselves in arts and sciences, or in the execution of what the World
calls great Affairs, instead of planting Corn, freighting Oysters, and killing Deer,
the worthy employments in which most great Geniuses are engaged—for in truth according
to that definition the world swarms with Them.
Go down to the Market-place, and enquire of the first Butcher you see, about his birth,
education and the fortunes of his Life, and in the course of his rude history, you
will find as many instances of Invention (Mr. Pope's Criterion of genius) as you will
find in the works of most of the celebrated Poets. Go on board an Oyster-boat, and
converse with the Skipper, he will relate as many instances of invention, and intrepidity
too, as you will find in the lives of many British Admirals, who shine in history
as the ornaments of their Country. Enquire of a Gunner in Braintree-bay, or of an
Hunter upon the Frontiers of this Province, and you will hear of as many artful devices
to take their Game, as you will read in the lives of Caesar, or Charles or Frederick.
And as genius is more common, it seems to me it is much more powerful than is generally
thought. For this mighty favour of Nature, of which the Poets and Orators, Philosophers
and Legislators of the world, have been in all ages so proud and which has been represented
as sufficient of itself to the formation of all those Characters—is so far otherwise,
that if you pick out your great Men, from Greek or Roman, and from English history,
and suppose them born and bred in Eskimeaux or Caffraria, Patagonia or Lapland, no
Man would imagine that any great effects from their genius would have appeared.
Mr. Pope tells us, that De la Motte5 confesses, in whatever age Homer had lived, he must have been the greatest Poet of
his Nation—but in my humble opinion, Mr. Waller6 was nearer the truth when he said, that in certain Circumstances.
The gods sell all Things to Industry, and Invention among the Rest. The Sequel upon
Industry, you may possibly have sometime or other, but remember it is not promised
by,
“The Conqueror of the world had been,
But the first Wrestler on the Green.”
[signed] J. A.
Early Tr (Adams Papers); apparently in Samuel Quincy's later hand; addressed: “To Mr. Saml. Quincy Attorney
at Law. Boston”; docketed: “Copy of Mr. Adams's Letter to me, Samuel Quincy [name inserted in a different hand] on original Composition &c. April 22d. 1761.” For provenance of this text see CFA's note in JA, Works, 1:645. Obvious errors made in copying have been silently corrected.
1. Samuel Quincy married Hannah Hill of Boston on 16 June 1761.
2. No earlier letter from Samuel Quincy to JA has been found, but that they had been in the habit of correspondence since leaving
college in successive years is indicated by plentiful evidence. Apparently JA had long promised an answer to a letter from Quincy “upon original Composition and
original Genius”—subjects, or, rather, a subject much discussed in literary and philosophical
circles in the 18th century. (A discussion by JA himself is in his Earliest Diary, p. 72–73.) The present effusion, characterized by JA as “but a Mouse” from “a pregnant Mountain,” is his attempt to fulfill his promise.
3. “Nothing remains in the same shape; each was at odds with all the others” (Metamorphoses, bk. I, lines 17–18).
4. George Cheyne (1671–1743), British physician and a prolific writer of popular medical works (DNB). JA had for a time followed Cheyne's rigorous dietary regimen (Diary and Autobiography, 3:269).
5. Antoine Houdart de La Motte (1672–1731), French poet and critic (Hoefer, Nouv. biog. générale).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0040
Date: 1761-05
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Draft of a Letter to the Boston Gazette on the Evils of Licensed Houses
Braintree, May 1761. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:212–215. Fourth and last in the series of newspaper communications on this subject. See entry
for the earliest draft in the series, 29 May 1760, above, and references there.
Printed: (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:212–215).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0041
Date: 1761-10-09
Inventory of Deacon John Adams' Estate
[dateline] [Boston, 9 October 1761]
A true Inventory1 of the Estate whereof John Adams late of Braintree Gent. dec[ease]d died seized and Appraised according to the best skill and Judgment of Elisha Savil,
Joseph Feild and Elijah Belcher, Viz.
| An House Out Houses and 35 Acres | } | 366 | 13 | 4 |
| Land belonging to it | ||||
| An House & Barn 10 Acres Land | 186 | 1 | 34 | |
| An House 92 Acres land | 400 | 0 | 0 | |
| { 52 } | ||||
| 7 Acres Salt Marsh | 56 | 0 | 0 | |
| 8 Acres fresh Meadow | 40 | 0 | 0 | |
| 12 Acres Upland | 80 | 0 | 0 | |
| 22 Acres Woodland | 73 | 6 | 0 | |
| 2 Acres Cedar Swamp | 5 | 7 | 0 | |
| A Pew in the North Precinct Meeting House | 6 | 13 | 4 | |
| An House [£] 1: 6/. 6 Cows £17 | 18 | 6 | ||
| 1 Yoke of Oxen | 12 | |||
| 3 Steers | 8 | 16 | ||
| 5 Sheep | 1 | 7 | ||
| 3 Hogs | 4 | 12 | ||
| 1 Cart & Wheels & Wheel Timber | 1 | 12 | ||
| 3 Chains 1 Plow & Horse Gears | 1 | 6 | 0 | |
| 4 Hoes 3 Rakes 5 Forks 2 Iron Bars | 1 | 17 | 0 | |
| 4 Axes a Beetle & Wedges | 0 | 12 | 0 | |
| A Chest with Draws | 0 | 10 | 0 | |
| An Oval Table | 0 | 16 | 0 | |
| A small round Table | 1 | 4 | 0 | |
| A small Desk | 0 | 10 | 0 | |
| eight Chairs | 0 | 16 | 0 | |
| A looking Glass | 1 | 8 | 0 | |
| 1 Silver Spoon 2 small Dito | 0 | 16 | 0 | |
| A Chest of Draws | 2 | 13 | 0 | |
| 1 Oval Table | 0 | 12 | 0 | |
| A looking Glass | 0 | 10 | 0 | |
| 6 Chairs | 0 | 12 | 0 | |
| A Bed Bedstead & Beding | 5 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 Beds | 9 | 0 | 0 | |
| 8 Blankets 1 Quilt | 2 | 5 | 0 | |
| 2 Beadsteads 2 Cords | 0 | 14 | 0 | |
| A Suit of Curtains | 2 | 8 | 0 | |
| Wearing Apparel | 7 | 9 | 0 | |
| 30 Yards Homespun Cloth | 6 | 0 | 0 | |
| 9 Sheets 3 table Cloths 3 Towels 4 Pellow Cases | 2 | 15 | 0 | |
| 38 Ld. Sheeps Wool | 1 | 18 | 0 | |
| A Clock | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 Tables | 0 | 12 | 0 | |
| 9 Chairs | 0 | 9 | 0 | |
| { 53 } | ||||
| a small Glass | 1 | |||
| 2 warming Pans | 10 | |||
| Sundry Books & Pamphlets | 2 | 10 | ||
| an Hone & Rasor | 0 | 5 | 0 | |
| A Gun sword & Amunition | 0 | 4 | 0 | |
| An Iron Box and heaters | 0 | 5 | 0 | |
| 2 Pair Tongs 1 Shovel 1 H Pair andirons | 0 | 16 | 0 | |
| 2 Tramels | 0 | 12 | 0 | |
| 1 Iron Kittle 1 Skillet 2 Pots | 12 | |||
| 1 Hatchil [Hatchel] 2 Wheels | 13 | |||
| 2 Brass Kittles 1 Skillet | 0 | 2 | 8 | |
| A Tea Kittle | 13 | |||
| A Frying Pan Iron pan & Spitt | 10 | |||
| 10 pewter Dishes 19 plates 3 Basons 1 Cran2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | |
| a pr. Steelyards | 10 | |||
| Carpenters & Shoemakers tools | 11 | |||
| 7 Cyder Casks sundry dry Casks & tubs | 2 | 5 | ||
| an old Bed & Beding | 1 | 6 | ||
| [Total] | [£1,330] | [3] | [8] |
[signed] Elisha Savil, Joseph Field, Elijah Belcher
Suffolk ss. John Adams one of the Executors presented the afore-written and made Oath
that it contains a true and perfect Inventory of the Estate of John Adams deceased
so far as has come to his hands and knowledge, and that if more appears hereafter
he will Cause it to be added. The Subscribing Appraisers were sworn as the Law directs.
[dateline] Boston Octo. 9. 1761.
[signed] T. Hutchinson
[signed] A true Copy Examd.
Per
Wm. Cooper Reg.
Per
Wm. Cooper Reg.
MS (Adams Papers); contemporary copy in an unidentified hand, including appended certification by
Probate Judge Thomas Hutchinson; attested and signed by William Cooper, Register;
docketed by JA: “Inventory.”
1. This Inventory was required by the grant of probate, 10 July 1761, to be presented
to the court on or before 10 Oct.; see above, Will of Deacon John Adams, &c., under
date of 8 Jan. 1760–29 April 1774.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0042
Date: 1762-04-12
Report of the Braintree Town Committee for the Sale of the South Common
[dateline] [Braintree,]1762 April 12th.
The Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the Town of Braintree Qualifyed by Law to
vote in Town affairs being assembled by adjournment from the Twenty ninth of March
last.1
The Bonds of Arbitration between the Towns Committee and the Leasees of the South
Commons with the award were read before the Town.2
Then the Committee Respecting the South Comons offered their Report thereon to the
Town which is as follows (viz.)
We the Subscribers the Committee appointed to consider and report what method appears
most advantageous to the Town relative to the disposal of the South Commons beg leave
to report that having considered that Subject as thoughroughly as we were able it
appears to us that the Town would reap very considerable advantages in the alleviation
of their Taxes and the removal of jealousies and animosities by proceeding to appoint
and impower a Committee to make sale of the whole of said South Commons in such Lotts
and Divisions as shall be thought proper at public vendue and we beg leave further
to Report as our opinion that the Proceeds of the sale of the Lands within said Commons
formerly Sett apart for the Ministry be appropriated to that use.3
[signed] John Adams
[signed] Samll. Niles
[signed] Thomas Wales
[dateline] Braintree, April 12th. 1762.
The above Report being read before the Town was Voted accepted Benjamin Cleverly4 entered his Dissent against the proceedings of the meeting.
Voted. That the vote Respecting accepting the Committees Report as above be Reconsidered
and Null.
Voted That the first Clause in the Committees report Relative to the Sale of the South
Commons be accepted.
Voted That a Committee be appointed and impowered to proceed to the sale of the said
South Commons, Agreeable to the Committees report and to make and execute good and
Lawfull Deeds of the same in the Name and behalf of the Town.
{ 55 } Then Collo. Josiah Quincy, Samll. Niles Esqr. and Captn. Thomas Wales were appointed
a Committee for the purposes aforesaid.
Voted, A Committee be appointed to consider in what manner the proceeds that may Arise
by the Sale of the South Commons be Secured to the Town as a fund that the Town may
Reap the annual benefit and if possible be under no Capacity of being allienated.
Then Voted Messrs. John Adams, Samuel Bass, John Hayward, Deacon James Penniman, Deacon
Jona. Allen be a Committee to consider that affair and Report to the Town.5
MS (Braintree Town Records, 1731–1783, p. 214); in hand of Elisha Niles, town clerk.
1. Uncertainty exists concerning JA's earliest official participation in Braintree town affairs. In his Autobiography
he wrote at length of his appointment as a surveyor of highways “In March” of an undesignated
year, apparently shortly after he had “become a Freeholder,” which was certainly by
1761, when he inherited substantial property from his father. The town records do
not list him among the appointees to this office until 1765. However, as the town
customarily named at least a dozen surveyors each year, and as only ten are listed
for 1763 and only three for 1764, it is possible that several names were omitted from
the lists entered by the clerk in the town records for these years, and JA's may have been among them (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 3:278–279; Braintree Town Records, p. 399). At the very least, we know that in March 1761 he was gathering extensive
information, presumably offered to the town, on customs, procedures, and laws respecting
the maintenance of highways; see Diary and Autobiography, 1:203.
It was in a different capacity, a year later, that JA first indisputably appears as a servant of the town. At a meeting held on 29 March
1762 the town considered the report of a committee which had met with the lessees
of Braintree's South Common lands. The committee had found that the lessees were “unwilling
to fulfill the conditions of their Lease” and submitted a “Representation” of the
lessees' grievances. This Representation closed with the proposal that, if the Town
would not release the lessees from the terms of their leases, the dispute be left
to arbitration by “three or five indifferent Men” to be chosen by the lessees and
a Town committee. JA, Samuel Niles, and Thomas Wales were named a committee to “join issue with the Leasees,”
and the same committee was to report, “at the adjournment” of the 29 March meeting
(that is to say, at the next town meeting), on “what may be proper for the Town to
act Respecting the South Commons either by Renting or Selling the same” (Braintree Town Records, p. 382–383). The committee made the present Report on the South Common (or “Comons”)
on 12 April. For the history of the Commons as an issue in Braintree, see note 3, below, and entries of 19 May 1762, 1 April, 30 Sept. 1765, below.
2. These papers have not been found.
3. The “jealousies and animosities” surrounding Braintree's common lands are ably described
in CFA2's Three Episodes, 2:661–665. These 1800 acres, divided between the North and South Commons, demanded
attention at “almost every town-meeting,” and CFA2 tabulated “no less than 180 votes” on the subject in the Braintree Town Records. (His copy of Bates' text, heavily marked in the margins, is in the Adams Papers Editorial Office.) Proposals to sell the Commons were made as early as 1753, but in Nov. 1754, the
town voted instead to lease the lands. This proved no solution, for public ways were
laid out through the North and South { 56 } Commons in 1755, and the lessees' efforts to maintain walls along these paths and
to protect their lands from trespassers resulted in numerous complaints to the town
and to modifications of the original leases to compensate the leaseholders (Braintree Town Records, p. 326, 338–339, 350–351, 352, 361).
South Common lessees may have been more impatient than their counterparts in North
Common, for the South Common group received less generous terms in settlements made
with the town as these disputes arose. Too, the South Common, which “included that
high ridge of rocky hills directly south of the easterly end of Water street” in modern
Quincy, may have been less profitable to its lessees than the North Common, which
ran from the town lands on Granite Street and included quarries as well as arable
acres, extending through modern Adams Street and including the “Blue Hill” lands (Pattee, Old Braintree and Quincy, p. 37–40; and map in CFA2, Three Episodes, vol. 2, following p. 578).
4. The Cleverlys were an Anglican family and thus found unacceptable the proposed allotment
of the proceeds of the sale to the Congregational “Ministry.” Benjamin's brother,
Joseph Cleverly, though not ordained, for many years conducted services at Christ
Church in Braintree as a “teacher.” On the Cleverlys see JA, Diary and Autobiography, vols. 1 and 3.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0043
Date: 1762-05-19
Report of the Braintree Committee on the Proceeds of the Sale of the South Common
[dateline] [Braintree, 19 May 1762]
The Committee appointed to Consider in what manner the Proceeds of the Sale of the
South Commons may be Secured as a fund to the Town1 made their Report as follows, (viz.)
We the Subscribers appointed a Committee to consider in what manner the Proceeds that
may arise by the Sale of the South Commons be Secured to the Town as a fund that the
Town may Reap the annual Benefit of the Same and if possible be under no Capacity
of being alianated Humbly report that the late Committee for Sale2 be desired and directed to take of the purchasers either the money or obligations
for the money with good and Sufficient Security Personall Real or both at their best
Discretion said Money to be payable to the Town Treasurer and his Successor in said
office at and not before the Day of the Expiration of the North Common Lease3 and to be upon Interest. And in Case the Committee should take of the Purchasers
any Cash said Cash to be placed out on good Security in like manner. That the { 57 } Town may if they see Cause after the Expiration of said North Common Lease Petition
the General Court to Incorporate certain Trustees and impower them to take Bonds and
Mortgages to themselves and their Successors in said office that so the Town may reap
the annual Interest of said Money for ever without having any power to alienate the
Principal.
[dateline] Braintree, May 19th. 1762.
[signed] Samll. Bass
[signed] James penniman
[signed] Jona. Allen
[signed] John Hayward
[signed] John Adams
CommitteeThe above Report being Read before the Town was Voted Accepted with this Amendment
that any of the Purchasers of the above said Lands shall have Liberty to Pay their
Respective Dues to the Town in one or Two years as they see Cause and that the Same
be placed out as above directed.
Then Mr. John Adams was appointed and impowered by the Town to draw Conveyances and
Securities respecting said South Commons.
MS (Braintree Town Records, 1731–1783, p. 215–216); in hand of Elisha Niles, town clerk.
3. In 1756 the lessees of North Common agreed to erect fences along the public way through
their lands in return for concessions which included a three-year extension of their
leases (Braintree Town Records, p. 350–351). The North Common lands remained leaseholds until 1765; for the settlement
reached on the expiration of these leases, see below, Reports of 1 April and 30 Sept. 1765, relative to laying out and sale of the North Common.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0044
Date: 1763-02
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Draft of a Letter to All Young Gentlemen on the Evils of Factionalism
Braintree, February 1763. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:242–243. Incomplete and evidently not published contemporaneously, this satirical fragment
anticipates one of the themes developed in JA's newspaper pieces signed “Humphry Ploughjogger”; see the following entry.
Printed: (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:242–243).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0045-0001
Editorial Note
In 1763, John Adams made his first verifiable entry into print with the publication
of his “Humphrey Ploughjogger” letter in the Boston Evening-Post on 14 March (No. I, below). He was to use the pseudonym several more times—twice that summer, once in
1765, and twice in 1767. His authorship of the 1763 Ploughjogger pieces is attested
to in his own words, written long after the fact and inaccurate in detail, but convincing
nonetheless.
In an enumeration of his published works prepared for the Abbé de Mably, 17 January
1783, Adams listed “2 or 3, fugitive peices written in the [year] 1762 or 3., under the Signature of Humphrey Ploughjogger, not worth mentioning” (LbC, “never sent,” Adams Papers, Microfilms, Reel No. 108). On 13 February 1792, in a letter to his son Charles, Adams recollected
writing only one Ploughjogger letter, but he now gave a better report of its reception:
“That my Confessions may be compleat I must tell you that I wrote a very foolish unmeaning
thing in Fleets Paper in 1762 or 1763 under the signature of Humphrey Ploughjogger.
In this there was neither good nor Evil, yet it excited more merriment than all my
other writings together” (MHi: Seymour Coll. of Charles Adams Letters).
{ 59 } Adams made only one other reference to Humphrey Ploughjogger in extant documents,
considerably earlier than either of those just cited, but probably arising out of
his 1765 use of the pseudonym. In his Diary, 10 January 1766, he wrote: “Humphry Ploughjogger received a Letter from a Friend, thanking him for
his good Advice and presenting him with a Crimson, Homespun Cap to wear with his Hide,
as a Reward” (Diary and Autobiography, 1:290). Since it was customary for 18th-century contributors to newspapers who used
a pseudonym to continue to employ the same one, a practice insisted upon by colonial
printers who wanted to be able to identify contributors in the event of prosecution
for libel, writers only very rarely used a pseudonym already claimed by another. This
practice was followed even if the pseudonym was used at long intervals over a period
of years (Roger B. Berry, “John Adams: Two Further Contributions to the Boston Gazette, 1766–1768,” NEQ, 31:94–95 [March 1958]). Thus, Adams' authorship of the Ploughjogger pieces would
seem well substantiated.
The pseudonymous pieces signed “U,” appearing in the Boston Gazette between July and September 1763, were also claimed by Adams in the listing he prepared
for Abbé de Mably. Adams recalled that he composed these letters “in answ[er] to a Tory-Writer, who subscribed himself J [Jonathan Sewall].” Actually Adams' intention was more complicated than he remembered, for he sought
to serve several purposes, not all of them related to “J.”
The Humphrey Ploughjogger letters are in an American tradition of humor that arises
from illiterate phonetic spelling and rustic dialect, and that is meant to cover an
undertone of serious purpose. One thinks, for example, of James Russell Lowell's Hosea
Biglow. In his first Ploughjogger letter, Adams sought to ridicule “grate men [who] dus nothin but quaril with one anuther and put peces in the nues paper” and to poke
fun at bugbears of the day—a standing army, popery, and the Pretender. For months
the Boston press had been filled with vituperative charges and countercharges of two
factions, one that gathered around James Otis Jr. and his cause, and the other that
supported Gov. Francis Bernard and Lt. Gov. Thomas Hutchinson. The quarrel had its
origin in the Governor's naming Hutchinson to the post of chief justice, despite his
not being a lawyer and despite the promise made by a Bernard predecessor to name Otis
Sr. to the next vacancy. Young Otis saw an insult to his family and, more important,
the gathering in Hutchinson's hands of a multiplicity of offices, some of which would
lead to a conflict of interests. Within a month or two of his appointment, Hutchinson
participated in the famous writs of assistance case that Otis pleaded unsuccessfully
before the Superior Court (JA, Legal Papers, 2:106–147). After that, Hutchinson had been involved, unintentionally and to his detriment,
in the dispute between the Governor and the House over the naming of a new colonial
agent (Bailyn, Thomas Hutchinson, p. 51–60). By 1763 these were already old quarrels, but it took little to revive
them in young Otis' con• { 60 } tinuing campaign of harassment against the Lieutenant Governor. The immediate spark
setting off fresh controversy was Otis' criticism of the Governor for spending money
on a gunboat in the fall of 1762, in Otis' eyes a threat to legislative prerogative.
The door was then opened to rehearsal of old grievances (Berkin, Jonathan Sewall, p. 29–30).
The intemperate language and abusive tone of these publications would have disturbed
John Adams in any case (see Diary and Autobiography, 1:243), but his concern deepened when one of his closest friends entered the fray. On 14
February 1763 in the Boston Evening-Post appeared Jonathan Sewall's first effort in a defense of the Bernard-Hutchinson administration
which grew into a series of newspaper contributions, the last published June 13. Writing
as “J,” Sewall satirized the Otises and their allies in terms no worse than other
newspaper combatants, but his enthusiasm and commitment to his task aroused Adams
(Berkin, Jonathan Sewall, p. 167). Thus, it was no accident that he wrote the first Ploughjogger letter only
seventeen days after Sewall had made his debut as “J.”
One can only speculate that the humorous first letter of Ploughjogger was a mild attempt
to reprove Sewall and other disputants, but when Sewall continued, wholly committed
to one side, his good friend felt betrayed. In this period Adams was an exemplar of
the Anglo-American tradition that considered blind factionalism detrimental to the
public good. Thus sometime in the spring of 1763, but most likely after Adams' first
newspaper article appeared, he wrote an outraged and outrageous letter to his friend,
identified only as Jonathan, which he broke off abruptly and apparently never copied
and sent (No. II, below). The writing of it vented his spleen; keeping the letter prevented, for the
time being at least, what would probably have been an irreparable breach in their
friendship.
Shortly after the last of Sewall's “J” pieces appeared in print, Humphrey Ploughjogger
came back after a three-month absence, still complaining about newspaper quarrels
but directing his energies now to a call for agricultural diversification, particularly
the cultivation of hemp. His postscript suggests he was driven to take up his pen
once more by the outbreak of fisticuffs between two members of the legislature.
Gen. William Brattle of the Council and Col. John Murray, representative from Rutland,
got into a scuffle outside the Town House on 8 June when Murray demanded an apology
for a slighting remark he claimed Brattle had made some time before. When Brattle
denied the accusation, Murray called him a liar and attacked him. The sheriff separated
the two men, but when they met again the same afternoon another scuffle broke out.
Although Murray apologized for his conduct the next day before the Council and was
pardoned by the governor and the councilors, Brattle was not satisfied. Before the
end of June, he retained John Adams as counsel in his suit for trespass against Murray,
and the case first came to court in Boston on 5 July. (For JA's legal notes on the case, see No. V, note 2, below.) Brattle's suit was not disposed of until 1766, with Adams acting as attorney
through the whole process. Brattle won token damages of £30, { 61 } although he had sued for £1,500. The episode was important for Adams as an instance
of resort to unwritten law in defense of honor, a custom he was to attack in several
of the “U” letters.
The first of the “U” letters, however, was an answer to Ploughjogger's request for
information about the cultivation of hemp (No. IV, below); thus, Adams began a dialogue with himself carried on in two different newspapers.
His original purpose was not as he remembered it many years later, when he told the
Abbé de Mably the “U” letters were written to answer a tory. It was characteristic
and understandable for Adams to shove farther back in the past his dedication to whig
principles and his strong opposition to tory ideas. Sewall, of course, could not be
called a tory in 1763. Although “U” began by posing as a learned gentleman who would
satisfy Ploughjogger's desire to turn men's minds away from factional strife and toward
the practical and needful matter of agricultural diversification, Adams was deflected
from his purpose after the first letter by the Brattle-Murray imbroglio and by Sewall's
dedication to one side in the political clash between the Otis and Bernard-Hutchinson
factions. Subsequent “U” letters bemoan the writer's failure to get back to agricultural
reform; only two, one of them unpublished, are addressed directly to “J” (Nos. VI and VII, below). Adams' lengthy treatment of the immorality of private revenge grew out of
deep personal conviction, but he may have sought also to sway public opinion to his
side as the plaintiff's attorney in Brattle's suit against Murray, who had sought
directly to defend his honor.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0045-0002
Recipient: Boston Evening Post (newspaper)
Date: 1763-03-03
I. Humphrey Ploughjogger to the Boston Evening-Post
[dateline] Bostun, the thurd of March 17631
[salute] Lofing Sun
Thes fue Lins cums to let you no, that I am very wel at prisent, thank God for it,
hoping that you and the family are so too. I haf bin here this fortnite and it is
fiftene yeres you no sins I was here laste, and ther is grate alterashons both in
the plase and peple, the grate men dus nothin but quaril with one anuther and put
peces in the nues paper aginst one anuther, and sum sayes one is rite, and others
sayes tuther is rite and they dont know why or wherefor, there is not hafe such bad
work amumgst us when we are a goin to ordane a minstur as there is amungst these grate
Fokes, and they say there is a going to be a standin armey to be kept in pay all pece
time and I am glad of it Ime sure for then muney will be plenty and we can sell off
our sauce2 and meat, but some other peple says we shall be force to pay um and that wil be bad
on tuther hand becaus we haf pade taksis enuf alredy amungst us, and they say we are
despretly in det now but howsomever { 62 } we dont pay near upon it so much as bostun folks and thats som cumfurt but I hop our
depetys will be so wise as to take care we shant pay no more for that, the Bostun
peple are grone dedly proud for I see seven or eight chirch minsturs3 tuther day and they had ruffles on and grate ty wigs with matter4 a bushel of hair on um that cums haf way down there baks, but I dont wonder they
go so fin for there is a parcel of peple in Lundun that chuses um as they say and
pays um, but our m—— thinks themselfs well off if they can get a toe shirt to go to
Leckshun in,5 but that is not their sorts for if they ant well pade they cant help it and they
ort to be for the bible says the laburrer is wurthy of his hier and they that prech
the Gospel should live by the Gospel, but Ime dredful afrade that now there is so
many of these minsturs here that they will try to bring in popiree among us and then
the pritandur will come and we shal all be made slaves on.6 I have bote your juse harp and intend to come home next week and tell your mother
so. so no more at prisent but that I am Your lofeing father
[signed] Humphry Ploughjogger
MS not found. Reprinted from ((Fleet's) Boston Evening-Post, 14 March 1763).
1. This is the only letter in this group for which the author assigned a date of composition.
3. Anglican clergymen. Americans had to go to England for ordination by a bishop.
5. That is, Congregational ministers think they are well off if they can afford a coarse
linen shirt to wear to Election Day ceremonies. These were held in Boston on the last
Wednesday in May, when the General Court convened and elected the Governor's Council.
It was a day “of 'treats' and feasts as well as sermons and politics” (A. W. Plumstead,
ed., The Wall and the Garden: Selected Massachusetts Election Sermons 1670–1775, Minneapolis, 1968, p. 11).
6. Period editorially supplied.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0045-0003
Recipient: Sewall, Jonathan
Date: 1763
II. To Jonathan Sewall
[dateline] [Braintree, Spring 1763?]
[salute] My Dear Friend
For so I must call you, tho your late Behaviour, in Point of Ill Nature, and Jealousy,
has savoured too much of the Instigations of the Devil. Jonathan, thou art1 become, an Artful Designing fellow.—Cunning, left handed, crooked Wisdom, is the
highest Excellence thou canst <aspire> justly pretend to.—Had I but known this, three Years agone, I would have seen thee,
gizzarded eer I would have honourd thee with my Friendship.
{ 63 } Thou Fool, To praise, as thou dost, one side of the Question, in political Disputes,
and to execrate as thou dost the other. Thou art Either an hireling Scribbler, and
prostitutest thine Head, thine Heart and thy fingers to blacken every Feature of one
Party, however fair some of them may be, and to whiten every feature of the other,
how foul or swarthy soever [some] of them may be, or else thou art a silly, undistinguishing Jack Tar, on board the
ship, who never lookest into the Right and the Wrong the True or the false, but eer
fightest valiantly, whenever the Master gives a dram and pointeth out an Antagonist.
Oh the perpetual Hankerings of France after universal Monarchy, cry, the Polititians
of an English Coffee house, and an English Gazette.—Oh all grasping Ambition!—oh punic
Perfidy, &c. &c. &c. Poor, virtuous, modest, Pious Phylosophical England, allways
attentive to the Interests of human Nature, the Rights and Liberties of Mankind but
especially of Christians is from these Considerations purely, not at all from Avarice,
Ambition or self Love, excited to controul and destroy the [Powers?] of France and all other Powers, and to Monopolize, all the Trade, Wealth, Business
and Power of the Universe.
Such senseless, such pittyful Stuff and Trash, I did not expect from thee friend Jonathan.
I do not blame thee at all for satirizing and execrating one side, that side I believe
as fully as thou dost, deserves it. But I blame thee, for praising the other. Both
Parties deserve Curses.—Both Parties will sacrifice the good of their Country, <in small Th[ings?]> to their own Malice, Envy, Revenge, Avarice Ambition, or Lust. Thou knowest this
to be true, and God knoweth it to be true. And yet to talk as thou dost—thou art almost
a Devil.
Dft (Adams Papers, Microfilms, Reel No. 601); on the verso of this unfinished, undirected, and unsigned MS are some legal notes by JA unrelated to the text of the letter.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0045-0004
Recipient: Boston Evening Post (newspaper)
Date: 1763-06-20
III. Humphrey Ploughjogger to the Boston Evening-Post
[dateline] [20 June 1763]
[salute] To the Publishers of the Boston Evening-Post.
Plese to put this following, in your next Print.I Arnt book larnt enuff, to rite so polytly, as the great gentlefolks, that rite in
the News-Papers, about Pollyticks. I think it is pitty, they should know how to rite
so well, saving they made a better use ont. { 64 } And that they might do, if they would rite about something else. They do say we are
a matter a million of muney in det. If so be the matter be so, I dont see but the
Cunstibles must dragg two thirds on us to goal, for our land and housen and creeturs
wont pay tacksis, without ther is muney to sell them for. And I am shure ther arnt
haff a million of muney amongst us. And now the war is done, we cant bring in any
more amungst us.—In the war time I could sell my fatt ocksen, and sheep, and every
thing I could raise on my place, for a pretty good round price in muney. So that the
war did me some good, 'tho' I lost by it two of my sons, as stout young fellows as
ever took a man by the sholders. But now I cant sell any thing, because nobody has
no muney hardly. And they do say that amost all the muney folks can rake and scrape,
is sent away by water to buy Corn and Hemp and such like, besides that that is sent
to buy fine cloths. As to finery gentlefolks may do what they ples, for we cant make
um so fine here as they bring um from Lunnun. But I know we can raise as good Ingean
corn here as they can in Virginny, and as good Wheet as they can in Connetticut, and
folks say we could raise as good Hemp, as they raise in any part of the world. And
if so be, this be true we might raise anuff amongst us, to send to Lunnun to pay for
our fine cloths; for they do say, it fetches a nation1 price, and they want abundance of it ther, about their shipping, but no body amungst
us knows how to raise it.
What I'me ater is, to get some great larnt gentleman, who has been to Old Ingland,
and knows how they raise Hemp there, and can read books about it, and understand um,
to print in your News, some direckshon, about it, that we may go to trying, for we
cant afford to run venters, by working, may be, a month and then have nothing come
of it for want of working right.2—I'le affirm it, a little short piece in the print, no bigger than these few lines
I send you at this present riting, if it did but tell us how to raise Hemp, how to
fitt our land and feed, how and when to sow it, how to gather the crop and when, and
how to dress it, and suck like would do a thousand pounds worth of good.
Seems to me folks must have a queer kind of souls to love to study, to fling dirt
and play hide and seek in the News, better to walk or ride about the country, in good
weather, and study like King Solomon, the Herbs from the Cedar of Lebanon to the Hysop
in the wall. I'le avouch it I've took more delight in looking upon a bunch of leeves,
or blossoms, or sprigs of grass for two hours together, to see how nice and pretty
it is made, than I ever did last winter, or spring in reeding any of them scolding
pieces in the News, and yet tho' I want bro't up to College I love to reed.
{ 65 } I wonder why folks will rite so as they do in the News, they make amost all the world
hate um for it. whereas I'le say it they could make every body love um if they would
rite about farming, and teech country folks how to pay their rates by rasing hemp
and such like. For it would be strange, if we in a land of light were not as good
as Heathens, and I've seen it in a sermon book, that they worshipt, even arter he
was dead, that man that taut um how to use Grapes, and tother too that taut um how
to sow corn and such like. Thes Pagans were fools to worship um, tho it shows that
they lov'd and honour'd the man that did um good, which we Chrischans dont always
do, tho I hope most of us should.—Sum of our ministers say that none of thes heathens
are sav'd, which I cant hardly beleeve.
I do say that our great knowing rich men cant answer it to a good conshence, if they
dont take sum panes and spend sum muney too, to learn us little ignorant poor folks
how to pay our rates, and get a living, dont they remember the parable of the Talents!—besides
we have work'd hard and lost our sons and brothers in the war, to defend them in hole
skins, and got so far in det that we cant pay saving they contrive sum way for us.—I
wonder whether they ever sit alone and medetate.—If they did their bowels would yerne
toward us.—I sit up sumtimes till 12 a Clock at night thinking about myself and Naibours
our land and stock and rates, and about the war, and about my too poor dear sons,
one of um died of a camp fevur, and tother was skalp'd by the Ingeans, till my hart
is redy to burst and my eyes run over. I'm shure if I had as much larning, books and
time to spaer from my labor, with my poor abillitys, thof3 I say it, I could find out 20 ways of teeching mankind things they want to know,
and helping um pay their dets and live comfortable.
Good Mr. Elliot did rite sumthing once about farming, but not enuff about Hemp.4—I see his book tother day, poor man he's ded now, but our loss in his gain.—I red
a good deel in his book, and like it extrordinary well. I wish I had one of um. I
suppose I could get one for haff a dollur. I think I'le leeve off tacking the News
papers for haff a yeer, and bye one, and in haff a yeer I hope the News will get cleer
again of so much wicked langage, and ripping and rending of one grate man agenst another!
There's sundry leeves at the end ont, put out by a fine man, folks say I know him,
I've seen him ride by my house, and thof I durst not speek to him yet I'm a fool for
it, for they say he's a nice good-natur'd free Gentleman, yet I love him for the pains
he has took to make folks ditch their meadows, and sow Wheet and Hemp and such like.5
{ 66 } I do say it would be a nice thing if we could raise enuff Hemp to pay our rates, and
bye a little rum and shuger, which we cant well do without, and a little Tea, which
our Wifes wont let us have any peace without.
I've been as long as a sarmon amost, so I wont rite no more at present. Sumbody put
a lettur of mine into the print tother day that I was asham'd to see there, so I wanted
to let the world know I could if I try'd both spell and word a lettur, abundance better
than that was, and I have told um sum things they would do well to think on, when
they go to bed and when they get up, if their Wifes dont pester um too much. So I
remain your's to sarve.
[signed] Humphrey Ploughjogger
P.S. Seems to me if grate Men dont leeve off writing Pollyticks, breaking Heads, boxing
Ears, ringing Noses and kicking Breeches, we shall by and by want a world of Hemp
more for our own consumshon.6
MS not found. Reprinted from ((Fleet's) Boston Evening-Post, 20 June 1763).
1. Short for damnation; used as an adjective and an adverb for great, extremely, &c. “All Chiefly Dial.” (Webster's, 2d edn.).
4. Rev. Jared Eliot (1685–1763), Yale 1706, F.R.S., of Killingworth (now Clinton), Conn., published Essays upon Field-Husbandry in New England, As It Is or May Be Ordered, Boston, 1760 (Sabin, No. 22136), originally issued in parts, New London and N.Y., 1748–1759, “the most
widely read and prized agricultural essays in America” before the Revolution (DAB).
5. The “sundry leeves at the end” are an appendix (p. [159]–166) containing laudatory
comments on Eliot's book and some added notes on New England agriculture. The author,
the “Gentleman” mentioned, was Peter Oliver, later chief justice of the Superior Court,
whom JA (if not “Humphrey Ploughjogger”) knew; see Diary and Autobiography, 1:225–227 and passim. Oliver and Eliot corresponded on agricultural and scientific subjects, and Oliver
urged and oversaw the publication of his friend's book in Boston; see Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates, 8:740. A copy of the Essays once owned by Rev. Ezra Stiles and now in MHi bears at p. [159] the notation “By the Hon. Judge Oliver of Middleborough,” and the
appendix includes the several points of advice mentioned in Ploughjogger's letter.
6. Hemp for hanging.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0045-0005
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1763-07-18
IV. “U” to the Boston Gazette
[dateline] [18 July 1763]
[salute] Messieurs Edes & Gill,
Please to give the following a Place in your next.Among the Votaries of Science, and the numerous Competitors for literary Fame, Choice
and Judgment, about the Utility of their Studies, and the Interest of the human Race,
have been remarkably { 67 } neglected. Mathematicians have exerted, an obstinate Industry, and the utmost Subtilty
of Wit, in demonstrating, little Niceties, among the Relations of Lines and Numbers,
of Surfaces and Solids; and in searching for other Demonstrations, which, there is
not the least Probability, will ever be found. Great Advantages of Genius, Learning,
Wealth, and Leisure, have been improved by Philosophers, in examining and describing
to the World, the Formation of Shells and Pebbles, of Reptiles and Insects, in which
Mankind has no more Concern, than it would have in sage Conjectures about the Weight
of the Indian's Elephant and Tortoise. Many Pens have been employed, and much Mischief
and Malevolence occasioned, by Controversies concerning Predestination.—The original
of Evil.—And other abstruse Subjects, which, having been to no good Purpose, under
learned Examination, for so many Centuries, may by this Time, be well enough concluded
unfathomable by the humane Line.
But Agriculture, the nursing Mother of every Art and Science, every Trade and Profession
in Society, has been most imprudently, and ungratefully despised. It has been too
much so, till of late in Europe; but much more so in America; and perhaps not the
least so, in the Massachusetts-Bay.
With Advantages of Soil and Climate, which few Countries under Heaven can pretend
to rival; we have never raised our own Bread.—Capable as we are, of making many wholsome
and delicious Liquors, at a small Expence, we send abroad annually, at a very great
Expence, for others that are less wholesome agreable and delicate.—When it is in our
Power, without any Difficulty, to raise many other Commodities, in sufficient Plenty,
not only for our own Consumption, but for Exportation, we send all the Globe over,
Yearly to import such Commodities for our own Use!
All these Facts are indisputably true: But Things cannot long continue in the same
Course. Many Sources of our Wealth are dried away; and unless we seek for Resources,
from Improvements in our Agriculture, and an Augmentation of our Commerce, by such
Means, we must forego the Pleasure of Delicacies, and Ornaments, if not the Comfort
of real Necessaries, both in Diet and Apparel.
The Intention of this Paper then, is to intreat my worthy Countrymen, who have any
Advantages, of Leisure, Education, or Fortune, to amuse themselves, at convenient
Opportunities, with the study, and the Practice too, of Husbandry. Nor let any who
have Ability, to think and act, tho' in narrow Circumstances, be discouraged, from
exerting the Talents that have been given them, in the same Way.
{ 68 } Haud facile emergunt, quorum Virtutibus Obstat
Res angusta Domi,1
With all its Truth and Pathos, has been the occasion of greater Evil, by Soothing
the Pride and Indolence of Genius; than it ever was of Good, by prompting the rich
and powerful, to seek the solitary Haunts of Merit, and to amplify her Sphere. In
making Experiments, upon Soils and Manners [Manures],2 Grains and Grasses, Trees and Bushes; and in your Enquiries into the Course of Nature
in producing them: You will find as much Employment for your Ingenuity, and as high
a Gratification to a good Taste, as in any Business or Amusement you can choose to
pursue. I said as high a Gratification to a good Taste; for, believe me, the finest
Productions of the Poet or the Painter, the Statuary, or the Architect; when they
stand in Competition with the great and beautiful Works of Nature, in the Animal and
Vegetable Kingdoms; must be pronounced mean, and despicable Baubles—In such Inquiries
as these, the Mathematician, the Philosopher, the Chymist and the Poet, may all improve
their favourite Sciences to the Advancement of their Health, the Increase of their
Fortunes, and the Benefit of their Country.
If I might descend, without Presumption, to Particulars, I would recommend such Enquiries
to Divines and Physicians, more than to any other Orders. For, without enquiring into
the Truth of the Observation, that the Lawyers among us, are the most curious in Husbandry,
which, if true, is unnatural and accidental,—Divines, having more Leisure, and better
Opportunities for Study than any Men, will find, in that Science, an agreeable Relaxation
from the arduous Labours of their Profession, an useful Exercise for the Preservation
of their Health, a Means of supplying their Families with many Necessaries that might
otherwise cost them dear, and an excellent Example of Ingenuity and Industry, removing
many Temptations of Vice and Folly, to the People under their Charge.—Besides, their
Acquaintance with the Sciences subservient to Husbandry, will give them great Advantages,
and in the Prosecution of such studies, they will find their Sentiments raised, their
Ideas of divine Attributes display'd in the Scenes of Nature, improved, and their
Adoration of the great Creator, and his Providence exalted.—Physicians have many Advantages,
not only of the World in general, but of other liberal Professions—The Principles
of those Sciences, which subserve more immediately their peculiar Occupation, are
at the same Time the Foundations of all real, and rational Improvements in Husbandry.
Necessitated as they are to much Travel and frequent Conversations, with many sorts
of People, { 69 } they might, for their own mere Diversion, remark the Appearances of Nature, and store
their Minds with many useful observations, which they might disperse among their Patients,
without the least Loss of Time, or Interruption to the Duties of their Profession.
These Reflections have been occasion'd, by a late Piece in the Evening-Post, signed Humphrey Ploughjogger.—Who was the Writer of that Piece, what were his Intentions, whether to do good or
to do Evil, for what Reasons he chose that Manner of Conveyance to the Public, or
whether the whole was written to introduce the Postscript,
I am not at Leisure to inquire. And indeed, since Mr. J. with his noble and ignoble Trumpeters, has propagated an universal Jealousy, of
every Writer in your Paper, I shall leave the important Questions, whether this Publication
springs from Benevolence or Vanity, a public Spirit or seditious Views, a Love of
Money, or Desire of Fame, to the sage Discussion of Mr. J and his adherents.
And “to shew by one Satyric Touch
No Country wanted Hemp so much”
My professed Design, as well as that of Mr. Ploughjogger, is not only innocent but important. There is no Subject less understood, or less
considered, by Men in general even of the learned Orders, than the Theory of Agriculture.
And the Writer, who should direct with Success, the Attention of inquisitive Minds,
to that Branch of Learning, whether he intended to befriend the Public, or to blow
it into Flames, would certainly be the occasion of much publick Utility. The particular
Subject which, that Writer has chosen to recommend to the Consideration of the Province,
promises, more fairly than any other, private Profit to the Farmer, and the Merchant,
public Benefit to this Province, and perhaps to the Provinces in general, as well
as to Great-Britain, (the Parent and Protector of them all) whose Society of Arts
&c.3 have discovered their kind Concern for us, as well as their wise Provision for their
native Country, among many other Instances, by offering Encouragement for raising
this Commodity, in New-England. It has been said that “a thousand Weight to an Acre
is an ordinary Crop of Hemp,” that “several Hundred Thousand Pounds worth of foreign
Hemp, is yearly expended, in New-England,” that “Hemp may be raised, on drained Lands;”
and that “if we can raise more than to supply our own Occasions, we may send it home.”4 It has been said too, by another good Authority, “that an Acre of Land well tilled,
will produce a Ton Weight, and that a Ton of it is worth Sixty Pounds of Lawful Money.”5
It is not without Reason then, that I embrace with Pleasure, the { 70 } Opportunity of seconding Mr. Ploughjogger, in his Attempt, to recommend, to the Labours of the Farmer, the Enquiries of the
Curious, and the Encouragement of Statesmen, a subject so important to this Province,
to New-England in general, to Great-Britain herself, to the present Age, and to future
Generations.
Hemp, is a Plant of great Importance, in the Arts and Manufactories, as it furnishes
a great Variety of Threads, Cloths, and Cordage. It bears the nearest Resemblance
to Flax, in its Nature, the manner of its Cultivation, and the Purposes to which it
serves. It must be annually sown afresh. It arises, in a little space of Time, into
a tall, slender, shrub, with an hollow Stem. It bears a small round seed, filled with
a solid Pulp. Its Bark is a Tissue of Fibres, joined together with a soft substance,
which easily rots it.—There are two Kinds of it, male, and female, the former only
bears the seed, and from that seed arises both male and female. The seed should be
sown in the Month of May, in a warm Sandy rich soil. They begin to gather it about
the first of August, the Female being soonest ripe. The Proofs of its Ripeness are an Alteration of the
Colour of its Leaves to Yellow, and its Stalks to White. It must be pulled up by the
Roots and then bound in Bundles. The Male should stand Eight or Ten Days in the Air,
that the Seed may ripen, which they afterwards get out, by cutting off, the Heads,
and threshing them. It must then, be watered, by laying it, about a Week, in a Pond,
in order to rot the Bark. I said, a Pond, tho' a Brook would be better if it did not
give the Water an unwholsome Quality. After it is taken out, and dry'd, the woody
Part of the Stem, must be broken from the Bark which covers it, by Crushing it, in
an Instrument, called a Brake, beginning at the Roots. After it has been sufficiently
broken, the small shivers, must be swingled out, as we swingle Flax. When this is
done it must be beaten on a Block, or in a Trough with an Hammer, or with Beetles,
till it becomes soft and pliable. When it has been well beaten it must be huckled,
or passed thro' a toothed Instrument, like the Clothier's Comb, to seperate the shorter
Tow, from that which is fit to be spun.6
This is a very short Answer to Mr. Ploughjogger's Enquiries, extracted from Writers, upon this excellent Plant; But if he or any other
Person has a Curiosity to see a more particular Account of it (and give me Leave to
tell him and them there is not an Herb, from the Cedar to the Hyssop, that may be
studied to more Advantage) let them consult the Praeceptor, Nature delineated, Chamber's
Dictionary, and above all the Compleat Body of Husbandry.7
And that I may add no more, Let the World in general consider, { 71 } that the Earth, the Air, and Seas, are to furnish all Animals with Food and Raiment:
That mere Animal Strength, which is common to Beasts and Men, is not sufficient to
avail us, of any considerable Part of the bountiful Provision of Nature: That our
Understandings, as well as our Limbs and Senses, must be employed in this service.
And let the Few, who have been distinguished by greater Intellectual Abilities, than
Mankind in general, consider that Nature intended them for Leaders of Industry. Let
them be cautious, how they suffer their Talents to sleep or rust, on one Hand; and
of certain Airs of Wisdom and Superiority, on the other, by which some Gentlemen of
real Sense, Learning and public Spirit, giving offence to the common People have in
some Measure defeated their own benevolent Intentions. Let them not be too sparing
of their Application or Expence, lest, failing of visible Profit and Success, they
expose themselves to ridicule, and rational, useful Husbandry itself, to Disgrace,
among the common People.—The Example of the few, if skilfully and judiciously set,
will soon be admir'd and followed. For human Nature is not so stupid, or so abandoned
as many worthy Men imagine, nor the common People if their peculiar Customs and Modes
of Thinking are a little studied, so ungrateful or intractible, but that their Labours
may be conducted by the Genius and Experience of a Few, to very great and useful Purposes.
[signed] U.
Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 18 July 1763). Dft suggesting that JA originally planned to publish this letter in the Boston Evening-Post printed in JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:245–250. JA probably submitted the letter to the Gazette instead of to the Evening-Post as a means of concealing that the “Humphrey Ploughjogger” and the “U” letters were
by the same author.
1. From Juvenal. “Those people do not easily emerge from obscurity whose abilities are
cramped by narrow means at home.”
3. The Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacture, and Commerce, established
in England in 1754 to promote the development of new ideas in science (J. Steven Watson,
The Reign of George III, 1760–1815, Oxford, 1960, p. 28).
4. The quotations are taken directly from or are paraphrases of material in Eliot, Essays upon Field Husbandry, p. 10, 11.
5. The “good Authority” has not been identified.
6. This account is a close paraphrase of the article on hemp in Ephraim Chambers (ca.
1680–1740), Cyclopaedia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, London, 1728, and later editions.
7. Robert Dodsley (1703–1764), ed., The Preceptor: Containing a General Course of Education, 2 vols., London, 1748, and later editions.
[Noël Antoine Pluche (1688–1761)], Le spectacle de la nature, ou entretiens sur les particularités de I'histoire naturelle, Paris, 1732–1735; transl. as Nature Delineated . . . , John Kelly, D. Belamy, J. Sparrow, 3d edn., 4 vols., { 72 } London, 1743–1744. Also transl. as Nature Displayed, both titles appearing in JA, Diary and Autobiography, index.
A Compleat Body of Husbandry, Containing Rules for Performing, in the Most Profitable
Manner, the Whole Business of the Farmer and Country Gentleman . . . Compiled from
the Original Papers of the Late Thomas Hale, 4 vols., London, 1756, 1758–1759. This source corrects the misinformation that the
male plant bears the seed.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0045-0006
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1763-08-01
V. “U” to the Boston Gazette
[dateline] [1 August 1763]
[salute] To the Printers.
Man, is distinguished from other Animals, his Fellow-Inhabitants of this Planet, by a
Capacity of acquiring Knowledge and Civility, more than by any Excellency, corporeal,
or mental, with which, mere Nature, has furnished his Species.—His erect Figure, and
sublime Countenance, would give him but little Elevation above the Bear, or the Tyger:
nay, notwithstanding those Advantages, he would hold an inferior Rank in the Scale
of Being, and would have a worse Prospect of Happiness, than those Creatures; were
it not for the Capacity, of uniting with others, and availing himself of Arts and
Inventions, in social Life. As he comes originally from the Hands of his Creator,
Self Love, or Self-Preservation, is the only Spring, that moves within him.—He might
crop the Leaves, or Berries, with which his Creator had surrounded him, to satisfy
his Hunger—He might sip at the Lake or Rivulet, to slake his Thrist—He might screen
himself, behind a Rock or Mountain, from the bleakest of the Winds—or he might fly
from the Jaws of voracious Beasts, to preserve himself from immediate Destruction.—But
would such an Existence be worth preserving? Would not the first Precipice, or the
first Beast of Prey, that could put a Period to the Wants, the Frights and Horrors,
of such a wretched Being, be a friendly Object, and a real Blessing?
When we take one Remove from this forlorn Condition, and find the Species propagated,
the Banks of Clams, and Oysters, discovered, the Bow and Arrow, invented, and the
Skins of Beasts, or the Bark of Trees, employed for Covering: altho' the human Creature
has a little less Anxiety and Misery than before; yet each Individual is independent
of all others: There is no Intercourse of Friendship: no Communication of Food or
Cloathing: no Conversation or Connection, unless the Conjunction of Sexes, prompted
by Instinct, like that of Hares and Foxes, may be called so: The Ties of Parent, Son,
and Brother, are of little Obligation: The Relations of Master and Servant, the Distinction
of Magistrate and Subject, are totally unknown: Each Individual is his own Sovereign,
accountable to no other upon Earth, { 73 } and punishable by none.—In this Savage State, Courage, Hardiness, Activity and Strength,
the Virtues of their Brother Brutes, are the only Excellencies, to which Men can aspire.
The Man who can run with the most Celerity, or send the Arrow with the greatest Force,
is the best qualified to procure a Subsistence. Hence to chase a Deer over the most
rugged Mountain; or to pierce him at the greatest Distance, will be held, of all Accomplishments,
in the highest Estimation. Emulations and Competitions for Superiority, in such Qualities,
will soon commence: and any Action which may be taken for an Insult, will be considered,
as a Pretension to such Superiority; it will raise Resentment in Proportion, and Shame
and Grief will prompt the Savage to claim Satisfaction, or to take Revenge. To request
the Interposition of a third Person, to arbitrate, between the contending Parties,
would be considered, as an implicit Acknowledgment of Deficiency, in those Qualifications,
without which, none in such a barbarous Condition, would choose to live. Each one
then, must be this own Avenger. The offended Parties must fall to fighting. Their
Teeth, their Nails, their Feet or Fists, or perhaps the first Clubb or Stone that
can be grasped, must decide the Contest, by finishing the Life of one. The Father,
the Brother, or the Friend, begins then to espouse the Cause of the deceased; not
indeed so much from any Love he bore him living, or from any Grief he suffers for
him, dead, as from a Principle of Bravery and Honour, to shew himself able and willing
to encounter the Man who had just before vanquished another.—Hence arises the Idea
of an Avenger of Blood: and thus the Notions of Revenge, and the Appetite for it,
grow apace. Every one must avenge his own Wrongs, when living, or else loose his Reputation:
and his near Relation must avenge them for him, after he is dead, or forfeit his.—Indeed
Nature has implanted in the human Heart, a Disposition to resent an Injury, when offered:
And this Disposition is so strong, that even the Horse, treading by Accident on a
gouty Toe, or a Brick-batt falling on the Shoulders, in the first Twinges of Pain,
seem to excite the angry Passions, and we feel an Inclination to kill the Horse and
to break the Brick-batt. Consideration, however, that the Horse and Brick were without
Design, will cool us; whereas the Thought that any Mischief has been done, on Purpose
to abuse, raises Revenge in all its Strength and Terrors: and the Man feels the sweetest,
highest Gratification, when he inflicts the Punishment himself.—From this Source arises
the ardent Desire in Men to judge for themselves, when and to what Degree they are
injured, and to carve out their own Remedies, for themselves.—From the same Source
arises that obstinate Disposition { 74 } in barbarous Nations to continue barbarous; and the extreme Difficulty of introducing
Civility and Christianity among them. For the great Distinction between Savage Nations
and polite ones, lies in this, that among the former, every Individual is his own
Judge and his own Executioner; but among the latter, all Pretensions to Judgment and
Punishment, are resigned to Tribunals erected by the Public: a Resignation which Savages
are not without infinite Difficulty, perswaded to make, as it is of a Right and Priviledge,
extremely dear and tender to uncultivated Nature.1
To exterminate, from among Mankind, such revengeful Sentiments and Tempers, is one
of the highest and most important Strains, of civil and humane Policy: Yet the Qualities
which contribute most, to inspire and support them, may, under certain Regulations,
be indulged and encouraged. Wrestling, Running, Leaping, Lifting, and other Exercises
of Strength, Hardiness, Courage and Activity, may be promoted, among private Soldiers,
common Sailors, Labourers, Manufacturers and Husbandmen, among whom they are most
wanted, provided sufficient Precautions are taken, that no romantic cavalier-like
Principles of Honor intermix with them, and render a Resignation of the Right of judging
and the Power of executing, to the Public, shameful. But whenever such Notions spread,
so inimical to the Peace of Society, that Boxing, Clubbs, Swords or Fire-Arms, are
resorted to, for deciding every Quarrel, about a Girl, a Game at Cards, or any little
Accident, that Wine, or Folly, or Jealoussy, may suspect to be an Affront; the whole
Power of the Government should be exerted to suppress them.2
If a Time should ever come, when such Notions shall prevail in this Province to a
Degree, that no Priviledges shall be able to exempt Men from Indignities and personal
Attacks; not the Priviledge of a Councellor, not the Priviledge of an House of Representatives
of “speaking freely in that Assembly, without Impeachment or Question in any Court
or Place,” out of the General Court; when whole armed Mobs shall assault a Member
of the House—when violent Attacks shall be made upon Counsellors—when no Place shall
be sacred, not the very Walls of Legislation,—when no Personages shall over awe, not
the whole General Court, added to all the other Gentlemen on Change—when the broad
Noon-Day shall be chosen to display before the World such high, heroic Sentiments
of Gallantry and Spirit—when such Assailants shall live unexpelled from the Legislature—when
slight Censures and no Punishments shall be inflicted,—there will really be Danger
of our becoming universally, ferocious, barbarous and { 75 } brutal, worse than our Gothic Ancestors, before the Christian Aera.
The Doctrine that the Person assaulted “should act with Spirit,” “should defend himself,
by drawing his Sword, and killing, or by wringing Noses and Boxing it out, with the
Offender,” is the Tenet of a Coxcomb, and the Sentiment of a Brute.—The Fowl upon
the Dung-Hill, to be sure, feels a most gallant and heroic Spirit, at the Crowing
of another, and instantly spreads his Cloak, and prepares for Combat.—The Bulls Wrath
inkindles into a noble Rage, and the Stallions immortal Spirit, can never forgive
the Pawings, Neighings, and Defiances, of his Rival. But are Cocks, and Bulls and
Horses, the proper Exemplars for the Imitation of Men, especially of Men of Sense,
and even of the highest Personages in the Government!3
Such Ideas of Gallantry, have been said to be derived from the Army. But it was injuriously
said, because not truly. For every Gentleman, every Man of Sense and Breeding in the
Army, has a more delicate and manly Way of thinking; and from his Heart despises all
such little, narrow, sordid Notions. It is true, that a Competition, and a mutual
Affectation of Contempt, is apt to arise among the lower, more ignorant and despicable,
of every Rank and Order in Society. This Sort of Men, (and some few such there are
in every Profession) among Divines, Lawyers, Physicians, as well as Husbandmen, Manufacturers
and Labourers, are prone from a certain Littleness of Mind, to imagine that their
Labours alone, are of any Consequence in the World, and to affect, a Contempt for
all others. It is not unlikely then, that the lowest and most despised Sort of Soldiers
may have expressed a Contempt for all other Orders of Mankind, may have indulged a
Disrespect to every Personage in a Civil Character, and have acted upon such Principles
of Revenge, Rusticity, Barbarity and Brutality, as have been above described. And
indeed it has been observed by the great Montesquieu, that “From a Manner of Thinking
that prevails among Mankind (the most ignorant and despicable of Mankind, he means)
they set an higher Value upon Courage than Timourousness, on Activity than Prudence,
on Strength than Counsel. Hence the Army will ever despise a Senate, and respect their
own Officers; they will naturally slight the Orders sent them by a Body of Men, whom
they look upon as Cowards; and therefore unworthy to command them.”—This Respect to
their own Officers, which produces a Contempt, of Senates and Counsels, and of all
Laws, Orders, and Constitutions, but those of the Army, and their Superiour Officers,
tho' it may have prevailed among some Soldiers of the illiberal Character, above described,
is far from being universal. It is not found in one Gentleman { 76 } of Sense and Breeding in the whole service. All of this Character know, that the Common
Law of England, is Superiour to all other Laws Martial or Common, in every English
Government; and has often asserted triumphantly, its own Preheminence against the
insults and Encroachments of a giddy and unruly Soldiery. They know too, that Civil
Officers in England hold a great Superiority to Military Officers; and that a frightful
Despotism would be the speedy Consequence of the least Alteration in these Particulars.—And
knowing this, these Gentlemen who have so often exposed their Lives in Defence of
the Religion, the Liberties and Rights of Men and Englishmen, would feel the utmost
Indignation at the Doctrine which should make the Civil Power give Place to the Military;
which should make a Respect to their superior Officers destroy or diminish their Obedience
to Civil Magistrates, or which should give any Man a Right, in Conscience, Honor,
or even in Punctilio and Delicacy, to neglect the Institutions of the Public, and
seek their own Remedy, for Wrongs and Injuries of any Kind.
[signed] U.
Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 1 Aug. 1763); Dft among MSS docketed by CFA: “Original Draughts of Newspaper Articles, signed U. 1763” (Adams Papers, Microfilms, Reel No. 343).
1. In the draft, the paragraph ends at this point also. The first sentence of the following
paragraph in the Gazette text was composed on the last page of the draft and apparently inserted at this point
during final revision of the essay.
2. In the draft, this paragraph is followed by the cryptic comment: “Rusticity, is not
Barbarity, was the late instances, Rusticity, Barbarity, or Brutality.” Probably this
comment is a reference to the altercation between Murray and Brattle (see Editorial Note, above). JA's notes on the legal case that resulted survive, erroneously endorsed by CFA: “Draught of part of an Article upon the attack made by Colonel Murray upon General
Brattle” (Adams Papers, Microfilms, Reel No. 343, filmed under conjectural date of Aug. 1763). These notes were probably
made shortly before the hearing on 5 July 1763 in the Inferior Court of Common Pleas.
Records of the case are found in Suffolk County Court House, Early Court Files, &c., Office of the Clerk, Mass. Superior Court of Judicature, 577:100740, and M-Ar: Executive Council Records, 1761–1765, p. 255–257.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0045-0007
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1763-08-29
VI. “U” to the Boston Gazette
[dateline] [29 August 1763]
[salute] To the PRINTERS.
My worthy and ingenious friend, Mr. J, having strutted and foamed his hour upon the stage and acquired as well as deserved
a good reputation as a man of sense and learning, some time since made his exit, and
now is heard no more.1
{ 77 } Soon after Mr. Js departure, your present correspondent made his appearance; but has
not yet executed his intended plan.—Mr. J inlisted himself under the banners of a faction, and employed his agreable pen, in the propagation of the principles and prejudices of a party: and for this purpose he found himself obliged to exalt some characters and depress
others, equally beyond the truth—The greatest and best of all mankind, deserve less
admiration; and even the worst and vilest deserve more candour, than the world in
general is willing to allow them.—The favourites of parties, altho' they have always
some virtues, have always many imperfections. Many of the ablest tongues and pens,
have in every age been employ'd in the foolish, deluded, and pernicious flattery of
one set of partisans; and in furious, prostitute invectives against another: But such
kinds of oratory never had any charms for me.—And if I must do one or the other, I
would quarrel with both parties, and with every individual of each, before I would
subjugate my understanding, or prostitute my tongue or pen to either.
To divert mens minds from subjects of vain curiosity or unprofitable science, to the
useful as well as entertaining speculations of agriculture,—To eradicate the Gothic
and pernicious principles of private revenge, that have been lately spread among my countrymen, to the debasement of their character,
and to the frequent violation of the public peace,—and to recommend a careful attention
to political measures, and a candid manner of reasoning about them; instead of abusive insolence, or uncharitable imputations upon men and characters, has, since I first undertook the employment of entertaining the Public,
been my constant and invariable point of view. The difficulty or impracticability
of succeeding in my enterprize, has often been objected to me, by my friends: but
even this has not wholly disheartened me—I own it would be easier to depopulate a
province, or subvert a monarchy; to transplant a nation, or enkindle a new war; and
that I should have a fairer prospect of success, in such designs as those: But my
consolation is this, that if I am unable by my writings to effect any good purpose
I never will subserve a bad one. If engagements to a party, are necessary to make a fortune, I had rather make none at all, and spend the remainder
of my days like my favourite author, that ancient and immortal husbandman, philosopher,
politician and general, Xenophon, in his retreat; considering kings and princes as shepherds, and their people and
subjects like flocks and herds, or as mere objects of contemplation and parts of a
curious machine in which I had no interest; than to wound my own mind by engaging
in any party, and spreading prejudices, vices or follies.—Notwithstanding this, { 78 } I remember the Monkish maxim, fac officium taliter qualiter, sed sta benè cum priore.2 And it is impossible to stand well with the Abbot, without fighting for his cause thro' fas and nefas.3
Please to insert the foregoing and following, which is the last Deviation I purpose
to make from my principal and favourite Views of writing on Husbandry and Mechanic Arts.
[signed] U.
There is nothing in the science of human nature, more curious, or that deserves a
critical attention from every order of men, so much, as that principle, which moral
writers have distinguished by the name of self-deceit. This principle is the spurious offspring of self-love; and is perhaps the source of far the greatest, and worst part of the vices and calamities
among mankind.
The most abandoned minds are ingenious in contriving excuses for their crimes, from
constraint, necessity, the strength, or suddenness of temptation, or the violence
of passion; which serves to soften the remordings of their own consciences, and to
render them by degrees, insensible equally to the charms of virtue, and the turpitude
of vice. What multitudes, in older countries, discover, even while they are suffering
deservedly the most infamous and terrible of civil punishments a tranquility, and
even a magnanimity, like that, which we may suppose in a real patriot, dying to preserve
his country!—Happy would it be for the world, if the fruits of this pernicious principle
were confined to such profligates. But if we look abroad, shall we not see the most
modest, sensible and virtuous of the common people, almost every hour of their lives,
warped and blinded, by the same disposition to flatter and deceive themselves! When
they think themselves injured, by any foible or vice in others, is not this injury
always seen thro' the magnifying end of the perspective: When reminded of any such
imperfection in themselves, by which their neighbours or fellow citizens are sufferers,
is not the perspective instantly reversed? Insensible of the beams in our own eyes,
are we not quick in discerning motes in those of others?—Nay however melancholy it
may be, and how humbling soever to the pride of the human heart, even the few favourites
of nature, who have received from her clearer understandings, and more happy tempers
than other men; who seem designed under providence to be the great conductors of the
art and science, the war and peace, the laws and religion of this lower world, are
often seduced by this unhappy disposition in their minds, to their own destruction,
and the injury, nay often to the utter desolation of millions of their fellow-men.—Since
truth and virtue, as the means of { 79 } present and future happiness, are confessed to be the only objects that deserve to
be pursued; to what imperfection in our nature or unaccountable folly in our conduct,
excepting this of which we have been speaking, can mankind impute the multiply'd diversity
of opinions, customs, laws and religions, that have prevailed, and is still triumphant,
in direct opposition to both? From what other source can such fierce disputations
arise concerning the two things which seem the most consonant to the entire frame
of human nature?—Indeed it must be confessed, and it ought to be with much contrition
lamented, that those eyes which have been given us to see, are willingly suffered
by us to be obscured; and those consciences, which by the commission of God almighty
have a rightful authority over us, to be deposed by prejudices, appetites and passions,
which ought to hold a much inferior rank in the intellectual and moral system.—Such
swarms of passions, avarice and ambition, servility and adulation, hopes, fears, jealousies,
envy, revenge, malice and cruelty are continually buzzing in the world, and we are
so extremely prone to mistake the impulses of these for the dictates of our consciences;
that the greatest genius, united to the best disposition, will find it hard to hearken
to the voice of reason, or even to be certain of the purity of his own intentions.
From this true but deplorable condition of mankind, it happens that no improvements
in science or literature, no reformation in religion or morals, nor any rectification
of mistaken measures in government can be made, without opposition from numbers, who, flattering themselves
that their own intentions are pure (how sinister soever they may be in fact,) will
reproach impure designs to others; or fearing a detriment to their interest, or a
mortification to their passions from the innovation, will even think it lawful directly
and knowingly to falsify the motives and characters of the innovators.
Vain ambition and other vicious motives, were charged by the sacred congregation,
upon Gallilaei, as the causes of his hypothesis concerning the motion of the earth, and charged
so often and with so many terms, as to render the old man at last suspicious, if not
satisfy'd that the charge was true: tho' he had been led to this hypothesis by the
light of a great genius, and deep researches into Astronomy.—Sedition, rebellion,
pedantry, desire of fame, turbulence and malice, were always reproached to the great
reformers, who delivered us from the worst chains that were ever forged by Monks or
Devils, for the human mind.—Zozimus4 and Julian could easily discover, or invent annecdotes, to dishonour the conversion of Constantine, and his establishment of Christianity, in the empire.
{ 80 } For these reasons, we can never be secure in a resignation of our understandings,
or in confiding enormous power, either to the Bramble or the Cedar; no, nor to any mortal, however great or good: And for the same reasons, we should always be upon our guard
against the epithets and reflections of writers and declaimers, whose constant art
it is to falsify and blacken the characters and measures they are determined to discredit.
These reflections have been occasioned by the late controversies in our News-Papers,
about certain measures in the political world.—Controversies that have this, in common
with others of much greater figure and importance; and indeed with all others (in
which numbers have been concerned) from the first invention of letters to the present
hour: that more pains have been employed in charging “desire of popularity, restless
turbulence of spirit, ambitious views, envy, revenge, malice, and jealousy,” on one
side: and servility, adulation, tyranny, principles of arbitrary power, lust of dominion,
avarice, desires of civil or military commissions on the other; or in fewer words,
in attempts to blacken and discredit the motives of the disputants on both sides;
than in rational enquiries into the merits of the cause, the truth and rectitude of
the measures contested.
Let not writers nor statesmen deceive themselves. The springs of their own conduct
and opinions are not always so clear and pure, nor are those of their antagonists
in politics, always so polluted and corrupted as they believe, and would have the
world believe too. Mere readers, and private persons, can see virtues and talents
on each side: and to their sorrow they have not yet seen any side altogether free
from atrocious vices, extreme ignorance, and most lamentable folly.—Nor will mere
readers and private persons be less excuseable, if they should suffer themselves to
be imposed on by others, who first impose upon themselves.—Every step in the public
administration of government, concerns us nearly. Life and fortune, our own, and those of our posterity, are not trifles to be neglected or totally entrusted to other hands: And these, in the vicissitudes of human things, may be rendered in
a few years, either totally uncertain, or as secure as fixed Laws and the British constitution well administered can make them, in consequence of measures that seem at present but trifles, and to many scarcely worth attention. Let us not be bubbled then out of our reverence
and obedience to Government, on one hand; nor out of our right to think and act for ourselves, in our own departments, on the other. The steady management of a good government
is the most anxious arduous and hazardous vocation on this side the grave: Let { 81 } us not encumber those, therefore, who have spirit enough to embark in such an enterprize, with any kind of opposition, that the preservation
or perfection of our mild, our happy, our most excellent constitution, does not soberly demand.
But on the other hand, as we know that ignorance, vanity, excessive ambition and venality, will in spight of all human precautions creep into government, and
will ever be aspiring at extravagant and unconstitutional emoluments to individuals; let us never relax our attention, or our resolution to keep these unhappy imperfections
in human nature, out of which material, frail as it is, all our rulers must be compounded, under a strict inspection, and a just controul.—We Electors have an important constitutional power placed in our hands: We have a check upon two branches of the legislature,
as each branch has upon the other two; the power I mean of electing, at stated periods,
one branch, which branch has the power of electing another. It becomes necessary to every
subject then, to be in some degree a statesman: and to examine and judge for himself of the tendency of political principles and measures. Let us examine them with a sober, a manly, a British, and a Christian spirit. Let us neglect all party virulence and advert to facts. Let us believe no man to be infallible or impeccable in government, any more than in religion: take no man's word against evidence, nor
implicitly adopt the sentiments of others, who may be deceived themselves, or may be interested in deceiving us.
[signed] U.
MS not found. Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 29 Aug. 1763). In JA, Works, 3:432–437, CFA reprinted the two “U” letters in this issue of the Boston Gazette as a single essay with the title “On Self-Delusion.” The first is a kind of preamble
to the second and directly precedes it in the newspaper.
1. Jonathan Sewall's last article as “J” in 1763 was published in the Boston Evening-Post, 13 June.
2. Do what is required as it should be done, but stand well with the abbot.
3. Through fair means and foul.
4. Zosimus, Zosimi Com. Historiarum libri VI, Procopius [sic] De bell. Justiniani libri totidem . . . MDCV. Recensuit . . . D.D. [sic] 1736 (Catalogue of JA's Library). Zosimus, a professed pagan, covered the history of Rome to the time of its fall
before Alaric (The Cambridge Medieval History, N.Y., 1911, 1:passim).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0045-0008
Date: 1763-08-29
VII. An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, with the Author's Comment in 1807
All Men would be Tyrants if they could.
[dateline] [post 29 August 1763]
My Brother J and my self have been very liberal of our Promises to the Publick and
very Sparing of Performance: but I shall take the { 82 } Liberty to suspend the Execution of my Plan of Essays upon Agriculture, and entertain
my Readers with an Explanation in some greater Detail of the moral and political Principles,
contained [in] my former Essay upon Self Decipt.—“Self Deceipt is perhaps the source of far the
greatest and worst Part of the Vices and Calamities among Man kind.”—The Love of Pleasure
and Aversion to Pain, our affections for all Things that have Power either in Reality
or in our own Imaginations only to give us the former, and our Hatred of all Things
that communicate the later, our Senses, our Appetites, our Passions, and all our Habits
and Prejudices, nay even our very Virtues and useful Qualities, our Piety towards
God and our Benevolence to Mankind, The Reverence for our Parents and Affection to
our Children, our Desires of Fame and aspirations after Independence, have all of
them in their Turns a Tendency, unless more cautiously watched than the Condition
of Humanity will allow, to deceive us into Error.—This is the great and important
and melancholy Truth that is conveyd to us by the old Maxim, that I have chosen for
the Motto of this Paper, that all Men would be Tyrants if they could.—The Meaning
of that Maxim is not so uncharitable, as to suppose that all the sons of Adam, are
so many abandond Knaves regardless of all Morality and Right, who would violate their
Consciences, and oppress, mangle, burn, butcher and destroy their fellow Men, in direct
opposition to their Judgments. It means, in my opinion no more than this plain simple
observation upon human Nature which every Man, who has ever read a Treatise upon Morality,
or conversd with the World or endeavord to estimate the comparative strength of the
different springs of Action in his own Mind, must have often made, vist. that the
selfish Passions, are stronger than the social, and that the former would always prevail
over the latter in any Man, left to the natural Emotions of his own Mind, unrestrained
and uncheckd by other Power extrinsic to himself.—i. e. that any Man, the best, the
wisest, the brightest you can find, would after all external awe, and Influence should
be taken away i.e. after he should be intrusted with sufficient Power, would soon
be brought to think, by the strong Effervescence of his selfish Passions against the
weaker Efforts of his social in opposition to them, that he was more important, more
deserving, knowing and [necessary?] than he is, that he deserves more respect and Reverence Wealth and Power than he
has, and that he was doing but his Duty in Punishing with great Cruelty those who
should esteem him no higher and shew him no more Reverence and give him no more Money
or Power than he deservd.
{ 83 } This which is no new Discovery, but has been many thousands of Years consid[ered] by thinking Men, seems to have given rise to the wisest and best of Governments which
seems to be calculated on Purpose, to controul and counteract the Ruinous Tendency
of this Imperfection in our Natures.
Power is a Thing of infinite Danger and Delicacy, and was never yet confided to any
Man or any Body of Men without turning their Heads.—Was there ever, in any Nation
or Country, since the fall, a standing Army that was not carefully watched and contrould
by the State so as to keep them impotent, that did not, ravish, plunder, Massacre
and ruin, and at last inextricably inslave the People,—Was there ever a Clergy, that
have gained, by their Natural Ascendancy over private Consciences, any important Power
in the State, that did not restlessly aspire by every Art, by Flattery and Intrigues,
by Bribery and Corruption, by wresting from the People the Means of Knowledge, and
by inspiring misterious and awful apprehensions of themselves by Promises of Heaven
and by Threats [of] Damnation, to establish themselves in oppulence, Indolence and Magnificence, at the
Expence of the Toil, and Industry, the Limbs, the Liberties and Lives of all the rest
of Mankind.
Aware of this usurping and encroaching Nature of Power, our Constitution, has laid
for its Basis, this Principle that, all such unnatural Powers, as those of Arms and
those of Confessions and Absolution for sin, should always bow to the civil orders
that Constitute the State.—Nor is this the only Precaution she has taken. She has
been as sensible of the Danger from civil as from military or casuistical Power, and
has wisely provided against all.
No simple Form of Government, can possibly secure Men against the Violences of Power.
Simple Monarchy will soon mould itself into Despotism, Aristocracy will soon commence
an Oligarchy, and Democracy, will soon degenerate into an Anarchy, such an Anarchy
that every Man will do what is right in his own Eyes, and no Mans life or Property
or Reputation or Liberty will be secure and every one of these will soon mould itself
into a system of subordination of all the moral Virtues, and Intellectual Abilities,
all the Powers of Wealth, Beauty, Wit, and Science, to the wanton Pleasures, the capricious
Will, and the execrable Cruelty of one or a very few.
This last Paragraph has been the Creed of my whole Life and is now March 27 1807 as much approved as it was when it was written by John Adams.
{ 84 } Dft (Adams Papers); docketed by JA, 27 March 1807: “Enthusiastic Remark upon long J. Some Sound Principles too.” JA clearly intended the essay as a successor piece to No. VI, above, or, as he here refers to it, the “Essay on Self Decipt.” Available sources
permit no guess about why it was not published.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0045-0009
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1763-09-05
VIII. “U” to the Boston Gazette
To the PRINTERS.
[dateline] [5 September 1763]
[epigraph]
Impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer
Jura neget sibi nata; nihil non arrogat Armis.
Hor.1
It seems to be necessary for me, (notwithstanding the declaration in my last)3 once more to digress from the road of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts; and to enter the list of disputation with a Brace of writers in the Evening Post, one of whom has subscribed himself, X, and the other, W.4—I shall agree with the first of these Gentlemen, that “to preach up non resistance, with the zeal of a Fanatick,” would be as extraordinary as to employ a Bastile in support of the freedom of speech or the Press; or an inquisition, in favour of Liberty of conscience: But if he will leave his own imagination, and recur to what I have written he will not find a syllable against resistance—Resistance
to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs and life,
but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature, which I never surrendered to the public by the compact of society; and which, perhaps, I could not surrender if I would. Nor is there any thing in the common law of England (for which Mr. X supposes I have so great a fondness) inconsistent with that right—On
the contrary, the dogmas of Plato, the maxims of the Law, and the precepts of Christianity, are precisely coincident, in relation to this subject.
Plato taught that revenge was unlawful, altho' he allowed of self-defence. The divine Author of our religion has taught
us, that trivial provocations are to be over look'd; and that if a man should offer
you an insult by boxing one Ear rather than indulge a furious passion, and return
blow for blow, you ought even to turn the other also. This expression however, tho'
it inculcates strongly the duty of moderation and self-government upon sudden provocations, imports nothing against the right of resistance or of self-defence. The sense of it seems { 85 } to be no more than this: that little injuries and insults ought to be born patiently
for the present rather than run the risque of violent consequences by retaliation.
Now the common law seems to me, to be founded on the same great principle of philosophy and religion.—It will allow of nothing as a justification of blows, but blows—Nor will it justify
a furious beating, bruising and wounding, upon the provocation of a fillip of the
finger, or a kick upon the shins: But if I am assaulted, I can justify nothing but
laying my hands lightly upon the aggressor for my own defence; nothing but what was absolutely necessary for my preservation. I may parry, or ward off, any blow: But a blow received is no
sufficient provocation for fifty times so severe a blow, in return.—When life, which
is one of the three favourites of the law, comes into consideration we find a wise
and humane provision is made for its preservation. If I am assaulted by another, sword
in hand, and if I am even certain of his intention to murder me, the common law will not suffer me to defend myself by killing him, if I can avoid
it—Nay, my behaviour must absolutely be what would be called cowardice, perhaps, by Messirs X and W, tho' it would be thought the truest bravery, not only by the greatest philosophers and legislators, but by the best generals of the world: I must run away from such an assailant, and avoid him, if I have room, rather than stand my ground and defend myself: But if I have
no room to escape, or if I run and am pursued to the wall or into a corner, where
I cannot elude his fury, and have no other way to preserve my own Life from his violence but by taking his, there, I have an
indisputable right to do it, and should be justified in warding thro' the blood of
an whole army, if I had power to shed it and had no other way to make my escape.
What is said by Mr. W, that “if a gentleman should be hurried by his Passions, so
far as to take the life of another, the common law5 will not adjudge it murder or manslaughter, but justifiable homicide only,” by which
he must mean, if in truth he had any meaning at all, that killing upon a sudden Provocation,
is justifiable homicide, is a Position in comparison of which the observations of
the grave-digger upon the death of the young lady in Shakespear's Hamlet ought to be ranked among the responsa prudentum.
Every chatechumen in law, nay every common man, and even every porter upon the dock,
that ever attended a trial for murder, knows, that a sudden provocation, raising a
violent passion, where there is no precedent malice, is in consideration of human frailty, allowed to { 86 } soften killing, from murder down to manslaughter; but manslaughter is an heinous crime, and subjected to heavy Punishments.
Such is the wisdom and humanity of English law; upon so thorough a knowledge of human nature is it founded; and so well is it
calculated to preserve the lives and limbs of men, and the interior tranquility of
societies!—I shall not dispute with Mr. X. my affection for this law, in preference to all other systems of law, that have ever yet appeared in the
world.—I have no connection with parishioners, nor patients, nor clients, nor any dependance upon either for business or bread; I study law as I do divinity and physick; and
all of them as I do husbandry and mechanic arts, or the motions and revolutions of the heavenly bodies; or as I do magistracy
and legislation, viz. as means and instruments of human happiness. It has been my amusement for many years past, as far as I have had leisure, to examine
the systems of all the legislators, ancient and modern, fantastical and real, and
to trace their effects in history upon the felicity of mankind: And the result of this long examination is a settled opinion that the
liberty, the unalienable, indefeasable rights of men, the honor and dignity of human
nature, the grandeur and glory of the public, and the universal happiness of individuals,
was never so skilfully and successfully consulted, as in that most excellent monument
of human art, the common law of England. A law that maintains a great superiority, not only to every other system of laws,
martial, or cannon, or civil, but to all officers, and magistrates civil and military,
even to majesty itself—It has a never sleeping jealousy of the cannon law, which in many countries, Spain in particular, has subjected all officers and orders, civil and military, to the
avarice and ambition, the caprice and cruelty of a Clergy—And it is not less watchful over the martial law which in many cases, and in many countries, France in particular, is able to rescue men from the justice of the municipal laws of the kingdom.—And I will own that to revive in the minds of my countrymen a reverence
for this law, and to prevent the growth of sentiments that seemed to me to be in their tendency
destructive of it, especially to revive a jealousy of martial laws and cavelier like tempers, was the turn which I designed to serve for myself and my friends, in that Piece which has given
offence to X and W.
A certain set of sentiments have been lately so fashionable, that you could go into
few companies without hearing such smart sayings as these: “If a man should insult
me, by kicking my shins, and I had a sword by my side, I would make the sun shine thro'
him.”—“If any man, let him be as big as Goliah, shou'd take me by the nose, I would
{ 87 } let his bowels out with my sword, if I had one; and if I had none, I would beat his
brains out with the first club I could find.”—And such tempers have been animated by some inadvertent expressions that have fallen from persons of higher rank and better sentiments, some of these have been heard to say, that “should a man offer
a sudden insult to them, they could not answer for themselves, but they should lay
him prostrate at their feet in his own blood.”—Such expressions as these, which are
to be supposed but modest expressions of the Speaker's diffidence of his own presence
of mind and government of his passions, when suddenly assaulted, have been taken for
a justification of such returns to an insult, and a determination to practice them, upon occasion. But such persons as are watching the lips of others for wise speeches, in order to utter them afterwards as their own sentiments, have generally as little of understanding, as they have of spirit, and
most miserably spoil, in reporting, a good reflection.—Now what I have written upon
this subject was intended to shew the inhumanity of taking away the life of a man, only for pulling my nose, or boxing my ear; and
the folly of it too, because I should be guilty of an high crime, that of manslaughter at least, and forfeit all my goods, besides receiving a brand of infamy.
But I have not yet finished my history of sentiments. It has been said by others, that “no man ought to receive a blow, without returning
it.”—“A man ought to be despised that receives a cuff, without giving another in return.”—This
I have heard declared for a sober opinion by some men of figure, and office, and importance.—But I beg leave to repeat it; this is the tenet of a coxcomb, and the sentiment of
a brute; and the horse, the bull and the cock, that I mentioned before, daily discover
precisely the same temper and the same sense of honor and decency.—If in walking the streets of this town, I should be met by a negro, and that negro should lay me over the head, with his cudgell should I think myself
bound in honor, or regard to reputation, to return the blow with another cudgell? to put myself
on a level with that negro, and join with him in a competition which was most expert and skilful at cudgells?—If a mad dog shou'd meet me and bite me,
should I think my self bound in honor (I mean before the poison had worked upon me enough to make me as mad as the dog
himself) to fall down upon that dog and bite him again?—It is not possible for me
to express that depth of contempt that I feel for such sentiments, and for every mortal
that entertains them. And I should chuse to be “the butt, the jest, and contempt”
of all companies that entertain such opinions, rather than to be in their admiration
or esteem.—I would take some { 88 } other way to preserve myself and other men from such insolence and violence for the
future; but I would never place myself upon a level with such an animal for the present.
Far from aiming at a reputation for such qualities and accomplishments as those of boxing or cuffing, a man of sense would hold even the true martial qualities, courage, strength and skill in war, in a much lower estimation than the attributes of wisdom and virtue, skill in arts and sciences,
and a true taste to what is right, what is fit, what is true, generous, manly, and
noble in civil life. The competition between Ajax and Ulysses is well known:
and we know in whose favour the prize was deem'd.
Tu vires sine mente geris, mihi cura futuri.
Tu pugnare potes:
Tu tantum corpore prodes;
Nos animo.
Pectora sunt potiora manu. Vigor omnis in illis.6
[signed] Ovid Met.
I shall not be at the pains of remarking upon all the Rhodomontade, in the two pieces under consideration, and Mr. X and Mr. W. and the whole Alphabet of Writers may scribble as many volumes as the twenty-four letters are capable of
variations, without the least further notice from me unless more reasoning and merit
appears, in proportion to the quantity of lines, than is to be found in those two
pieces.—But since I have made some remarks upon them it will perhaps, before I conclude
be worth my while to mention one thing more in each.—Mr. X tells us “that cases frequently
occur where a man's person or reputation suffer to the greatest degree, and yet 'tis
impossible for the Law to make him any satisfaction.”
This is not strictly true, such cases but seldom occur; tho' it must be confessed,
they sometimes do.—But it seldom happens very seldom indeed, where you know the man
who has done you the injury, that you can get no satisfaction by law—And if such a
case should happen nothing can be clearer than that you ought to sit down and bear
it.—And for this plain reason, because it is necessary, and you cannot get satisfaction
in any way.—The law by the supposition cannot redress you—And you cannot, if you consider
it by any means redress yourself—A flagilation in the dark would be no reparation of the injury, no example to others, nor have any tendency to reform the subject of it, but rather a provocation to him to contrive some other way to
injure you again; and of consequence would be no satisfaction at all to a man even
of that false honour and delicacy of which I have been speaking; { 89 } unless he will avow an appetite for mere revenge, which is not only worse than brutal, but the attribute of Devils—And to take satisfaction by a flagilation in public, would be only, in other words, taking a severe revenge upon yourself.— For this would be a trespass and a violation of the peace, for which you would expose
yourself to the resentment of the magistrate, and the action of the party: and would
be like running your sword thro' your own body, to revenge yourself on another for
boxing your ears; or like the behaviour of the rattlesnake, that will snap and leap
and bite at every stick that you put near him, and at last when provoked beyond all
honourable bearing, will fix his sharp and poisonous teeth into his own body.
I have nothing more to add, excepting one word of advice to Mr. W, and all his readers,
to have a care how they believe or practice his rule about “passion and killing” lest the halter and the gibbet should become
their portion: for a killing that should happen by the hurry of passion would be much
more likely to be adjudged murder, than justifiable homicide only.—Let me conclude
by advising all men to look into their own hearts, which they will find to be deceitful
above all things and desperately wicked. Let them consider how extreamly addicted
they are to magnify, and exaggerate the injuries that are offered to themselves, and
to diminish and extenuate the wrongs that they offer to others.—They ought therefore to be too modest and diffident of their own judgment, when
their own passions, and prejudices, and interests are concerned, to desire to judge for themselves in their own causes, and to take their own satisfactions for wrongs and injuries of any kind.
[signed] U.
MS not found. Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 5 Sept. 1763).
1. Tireless, quick to anger, inexorable, fierce, / Let him deny that laws are made for
him; / Let him think that everything must yield to force of arms. (Horace, Ars Poetica, I. 121–122.)
2. The author of these lines has not been identified.
4. “X” and “W” were two otherwise unidentified writers who emphatically disagreed with
JA's veiled criticism of Murray's attack on Brattle (see Editorial Note, above). “X” sneered that “U” wanted “to convince the world, that an injured person
ought never to demand satisfaction but by a law-suit—a doctrine truly serviceable
to lawyers, but not always so comfortable to the injured person,” and pointed to “the
many and various salutary effects club-logick has produced in the world in every period of life” (Boston Evening-Post, 22 Aug.). “W,” on the other hand, argued that even if “U” were correct in saying
that the law afforded a remedy for every wrong, nevertheless men of honor were not
obliged to obtain satisfaction for personal insult or injury through legal channels,
because “there are those of a different character, who know how to resent, and to punish men for ill usage, without troubling a magistrate or a court of justice” (Boston Evening-Post, 29 Aug.).
6. You have strength without intelligence; I have concern for the future. / You are able
to fight: / You are outstanding only in body; I am outstanding in intellect. / My
mind is superior to my hand. All my force is in my mind. (Ovid, Metamorphoses, 13:363–369, with some lines and parts of lines omitted.)
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0045-0010
Recipient: Boston Evening Post (newspaper)
Date: 1763-09-05
IX. Humphrey Ploughjogger to the Boston Evening-Post
[dateline] [5 September 1763]
[salute] To the Publishers of theBoston Evening-Post.
Plese to print this in your next,[signed] Humphry Ploughjogger.
It is a pleasant Thing to see ones Works in print.—When I see the news, with my letter
int about Hemp, I do say it made me feel as glad, as a glass full of West India rum,
sweetned with loaf shugar, would.—But yet, even then I want so presumptious, as to
hope hardly, that such a fine ellokent gentleman, as Mr. U. would stoop to take so much notice of me.—He is a noble, high flown riter, like Mr.
Harvey, amost. I've red Mr. Harvey's meditations, our minister lent it to me.1—But tho' I will own Mr. U. is a wonderful, lofty, sublyme riter, yet I cant join with him, in a good many things.
I hope his honor, wont be offended, if I tell him what they be.
1st. I dont like his advice to leeve off studying the decrees, and original sin.—for
tho I cant hardly beleeve, that heathens and infants are all lost, for Adams first
transgreshon, yet them doctrines are great misterees, that we ought to pry into, as
far as the word can guide us.—I do declare I would not leeve off reeding Mr. Willard,
Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Taylor, and Dr. Whitby2 about them points, for all my knowledge in farming, added to Mr. U's knowledge too.
2dly. Next comes one thing that I do like, that is the line of latin. I love to see,
now and then, some latin, in the books I reed. I amost think I understand it sumtimes,
especially when I see it in Mr. Flavels works,3 it comes in so natural.—I ask our ministur to conster it to me, and our schoolmaster
sumtimes. But I find they dont understand every thing, they get plunged, now and then.
I got our school-master to conster that line in Mr. U's piece. He made bungling work ont, but as well as I cou'd pick out it ment “that
a man could not swim above water, that had poverty pulling him downwards at his heels.”—This
is a queer picture, it made me laff, tho I tho't it was hard-hearted too for poverty
to keep pulling a man down under water that try'd to keep { 91 } up.—And I dont know, since my ritings have been taken so much notice off, but I should
have been a great larnt man if it had not been for this cruel jade poverty, that has
allways been striving mite and main to drown me.—Nevertheless it put me in mind of
a rogue's trick, I used to play when I was a boy.—I used to catch a grate pout, and
put a wyth in his gills, and then put him in the water.—He would swim and struggle
about the top of the water, but could not dive down deep. Now seems to me, we mite
as well conster that latin thus. “The pout can't dive to the bottom that has a wyth
in his gills.”—Poverty can be signify'd by a wyth in his gills, keeping the pout at
the top of the water, as well as by an old rinkled hagg at a man's heels, pulling
him under. But conster it which way you will there is a deel of sense int.—Seems to
me there's more sense in sum of these latin skraps, that I get our larnt men to conster,
than in so much Inglish any where.—I wonder how tis! I allways rite best about what
I dont understand.—Ive rit a deel about this latin, and it sounds very well too, seems
to me, considering.
3dly. Next comes one thing that I cant bare, i.e. advising ministurs to study farming
and work at it too.—Our ministurs are wordly-minded enuff, aready, and they dont give
themselves haff enuff to reeding and study now—I'm sure, many of um dont make so good
sarmons, as I could with my poor abilities, thof I say't.—But if they should take
to farming they would not reed at all hardly.—they would not reed their bibles enuff,
I'm afeard, and they would leeve off reeding of Mr. Dodridge's works, and Mr. Harvey's,
and Sandyman's4 and such like wonderful works, and would do nothing but grind sarmons, in that sarmon-mill
a Concordance.—Their duty is to provide food and cloathing for our souls not our bodies,
to feed the spiritual sheep and lambs, not to spend time in taking care of the herds
and flocks of the field—to sow the seed of the word, and pray for the preparation
of the spiritual soil in mans hart to receeve it, not to till the carnal ground.—I
do avouch it, this tho't of Mr. U's is worse than poperee, and I had rather ministurs
should be as lazey as they do say monks are in other countries and unmarried like
them, that they mite give themselves wholly to reeding and study and prayer, than
have um careful about farming.
4thly. But I do like his advice to doctors wonderful well. I wonder how Mr. U. could
think of all them sensible remarks he made about the doctors. They mite do a world
of good by taking his advice. Yet I'm afeard they wont, for if they should they would
cure or prevent a grate many destempurs, that now fetch um good fees,—Yet I do raly
beleeve { 92 } they would do more good to mens health, by making um drink good, cleer, well-made,
well-kept cydur, and good currunt wine, and cherry wine, and such like, insteed of
rum and brandy and wine made of haff rum and haff cydur, as they do now, than they
can by all their pills and drops and rubub. And yet I beleeve they do a grate deel
of good with these things, too.—Mr. U. does but just mention Lawyers, and indeed I
dont know what bisness he had to mention them at all when riting about farming, or
any thing else that is good, unless theyre grown better than they were when I was
a young man. My great grandfather was one of Oliver Cromwell's men, and I've heard
it, in our family by tradishon, that good, pious, larnt Mr. Hugh Peters5 us'd to say, it would never be good times, till the nation got rid of 150.—Sumbody
asked what he ment by 150?—He said three L's.—and when he was asked what he ment by
three L's? he said, the Lords, the Levites and the Lawyers.—About 30 years ago, when
I us'd to go to court sumtimes, I used to be of Mr. Peters's mind amost about Lawyers,
sumtimes.—But they do say, Lawyers are grown much better now, and stand up stoutly
for liberty.—Indeed I've heard my grandfather say, his father told him, there was
abundance of lawyers, that bawled out for liberty, and fought for it too, in his day,
tho most of um went over o' t'other side to that calf the holy martir.
5thly. The next thing I dont altogether like.—Mr. U seems to run quite out of his
way, to pick a quarrel with Mr. J.—I cant devise what his reason was.—I guess several
things.—Sumtimes I think he has studied oratary, and oratary, our ministur says, is
the art of gaining attenshon. And he mite think there was no way of gaining attenshon
so shure, as to make fokes think him a party-man. For he would get the attenshon of
one haff the world thro love, and of tother thro hatred.—Sumtimes I think he made
a pass at Mr. J. to let fokes know his reason for signing himself U.—But upon the
whole, I beleeve it most likely Mr. U. has been a deputy for sum town, and been made
a justice by the Governor and then was dropt by his town, and so forsooth tho't his
town was angry with him for taking a favour from the Governor, and now is turning
about to tother side in order to get in again.—But I beleeve he is out in his pollyticks,
for country fokes love to have their deputys in good understanding with the Governor,
and I guess Mr. U's town turn'd him out for sumthing else.—Nevertheless I dont know
but Mr. U is rite to quarrel a little, for there is sumthing in man that delites in
fighting.—When I was a boy, I used to love to see boys box it, and cocks fight, and
rams too.—I see two rams fight once, they would run back two or three rod, and then
run head to { 93 } head, till one of them split the skull rite in two, and down he dropp'd, as dead as
a herring.—This was a dredful cruel fight, yet I do say, I lov'd to see it.—And they
do say, that in other countries, grate gentelfokes keep dogs, and bares, and bulls,
a purpose to see um fight. Now just so our grate fokes do seem to love to see newspaper
fighting among us, deerly. And Mr. U. by fighting a little this way, might hope to
make fokes take more notice about our fine plant Hemp.—So that his quarrelling may
do sum good.—But if he rites again I hope he'll go farther—For I've alter'd my mind
since I rit my tother letter, and I amost think, he and I may rite, in a good natur'd
way, to all itarnity, about any thing to do good, and our works will never be read
twice.—But there is one sartain way of making fokes reed and study our works as larnt
men do latin books, and that is by drawing plaguy, black, ugly pictures of sum grate
men, as the Governor, Lt. Governor, sum Counsellors or Judges, or of Bluster and Whackum,6 and Gamuts and Chaplains.—Let us pick out sum rite down clever man, no matter what
side he is of, and tell a parcel of rouzing lies about him, and our ritings will be
got by heart, and by this meens we may slide into mens minds sum knolledge about hemp.—My
mind is alter'd by what I since see in good Mr. Flavell's works, that “man is more
wrathful than grateful.”
6thly. I dont know what bissness he had to suspect me of bad designs in what I rote.—I'le
take my corporal oath, I never went to meeting of a sabbath day, nor never followed
a corps to the grave in my life, with less mallice in my heart, and less designs of
doing hurt, than I had when I rote that lettur, let U, or J, or he, or they suspect
or beleeve what they will.
But I dont never know when to stop, hardly, matter comes in to my noddle so fast.—I've
read abundance in my day, but I did not begin to read a grate deel till I was matter
of 35, and I cant larn to spell nicely. But since I married this second wife, that
is a young woman, I dont love to go to bed so soon as she does, so I reed and rite
a world now, and I do spell better and better.
I've rambled about so long that I've no room hardly to say any thing about hemp, and
I'm resolved I wont never rite a piece without sum stroke or other about hemp.—Mr.
U has convinced me more than ever of the worth ont, and I'm resolved to sow an acre
or two out next May, and if I make it do pritty well I'le send you an account ont,
for I do desine to reed and rite and study and work about hemp, till I get it into
fashon.—Our deputy tells me that a ropemaker told him, the best hemp he uses all the
year round, grows in this country. I wish { 94 } I knew where it grows.—When I go to Boston I'le ask the ropemakers what town it is
raised in, and then rite a lettur (not to be printed tho) to sumbody in that town,
and ask him a few more questions about it, for Mr. U hant made every thing quite cleer
to me.—I want to know whether they sow it in rows, and so plough amongst it, or whether
they sprinkle it over all the land.—Whether they plough the land at first deep or
shallow.—And how they brake and swingle and hatchel it.—It is such grate long trade
I cant devise how they handle it. And I want to know whether they use such brakes
and swingle boards and knives as we do about flax.—As for beeting with beetles or
hammers I dont understand that very well.
They do say, they raise abundance ont, at Phyladelphy. I wish sum of our rich men
would send there and hire a man that knows about it, and could do the labour to come
here and teech us.—He would find his account int, and prove himself a grate paytrot.—But
sum how or other I will find out how to manage it, if I spend a month in a year every
year about it.—For it is a thing of grate value.—One thing I know, if we'd rais'd
a little more ont for 20 years past, and made a proper use ont, I'll be hang'd with
the first hemp I can raise, if we should have had so big rates to pay.
So no more at present, Cousin Fleets,7 from your lofing kinsman
[signed] Humphry Ploughjogger
MS not found. Reprinted from the (Boston Evening-Post, 5 Sept. 1763).
1. JA's library included the posthumous edition of A Collection of Letters of James Hervey, London, 1760, but the catalogue does not list that English devotional writer's more
popular Meditations and Contemplations, London, 1746–1747 (Catalogue of JA's Library).
2. Samuel Willard (1640–1707), A Compleat Body of Divinity, Boston, 1726 (Catalogue of JA's Library); probably John Taylor (1694–1761), A Scheme of Scripture-Divinity, London, 1762 (a 1785 edn. in Catalogue of JA's Library). Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758). Daniel Whitby (1638–1726), English divine who gained fame for anti-Catholic writings and notoriety for arguing
in favor of concessions to nonconformists; author of A Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament, London, 1703 (DNB).
4. Philip Doddridge (1702–1751), English minister noted for his ability to unite nonconformists in common beliefs,
author of On the Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul, London, 1745, his most popular work, and a writer of hymns (DNB). Robert Sandeman (1718–1771), a follower of the independent Presbyterian preacher John Glas and a founder of Glassite
churches in New England (DNB). See also Williston Walker, “The Sandemanians of New England,” Amer. Hist. Assoc.,
Ann. Rpt. for 1901, 1:131–162.
6. “Bluster” and “Whackum” were names “J” used for James Otis Jr. and Oxenbridge Thacher.
JA himself appropriated “Bluster”; see JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:243.
7. Thomas and John Fleet, publishers of the Boston Evening-Post after their father's death in 1758 (Col. Soc. Mass., Pubns., 9 [1907]:475).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0046
Recipient: Adams, John
Date: 1763-07-04
From William Crawford
[dateline] Worcester July 4th 1763
[salute] My Friend
I hope you enjoy mens sana in Corpore Sano: My Body for more than six months past
has been in some degree more than common tending to dissolution. I seem to have gain'd
some better Health since the warm weather. I hear that you are like to make yourself
happy, by a conjunction with one of the fairest parts of the fair part of the Creation.
I picture in my Imagination how you sooth and soften the rigid Philosophic reasonings
of your mind, with a rapturous and genial intercourse with the most soft and delicate
piece of Natures workmanship.1 Mr. Putnam told me he wrote you, to Send some Books, if you cou'd put mine with his.2 I shall be glad if it is in your Power. I should be glad if you wou'd call at Mr.
Bowmans in Dorchester, his son when in the army had a volume of Mahews Sermons and
one volume of Byshe's Art of English Poetry, told me he left them with his father.3 If you can procure them and Send them along you'll oblige your,
[signed] W Crawford
RC (Adams Papers); address leaf torn with this portion of JA's endorsement remaining: “W. Craw . . . July . . . .”
1. A reference to JA's courtship of AA; for their correspondence during this period, see Adams Family Correspondence, 1:3–9.
2. JA's letter from James Putnam (1726–1789), under whom he had studied law in Worcester, has not been found. For numerous references
to Putnam, see JA, Diary and Autobiography.
3. Jonathan Bowman (1703–1775), pastor of the First Church of Dorchester, was the father of JA's Harvard classmate Jonathan Bowman Jr. (1735–1804). Although historians of the Bowman
family make no reference to the younger Bowman's military career, it appears from
this letter that he and Crawford became acquainted during Crawford's service as surgeon
and chaplain in various companies during the French and Indian War (Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates, 7:312–317, 13:545–550, 561–563), and that Crawford had seen Bowman's copies of Jonathan
Mayhew, Seven Sermons . . . , Boston, 1749, and Edward Bysshe, The Art of English Poetry, London, 1702, during one of these campaigns.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0047
Recipient: Adams, Zabdiel
Date: 1763-07-23
To Zabdiel Adams
[dateline] July 23d. 1763
[salute] My old Friend1
Your kind Letter I received,2 and after an Interval occasioned by Commencement, am seated to return an Answer.
I acknowledge the Justice of your Rebuke for not answering your former Letters, and
for not Writing you since your Departure from happy Braintree.
Matrimony, my dear Friend is yet at a greater Distance from me, than nine Months.3 I wish it was not Nine minutes off.—Affairs in { 96 } Church and State, are in a situation, you know not the most consonant to my Wishes
and Way of thinking.—But Resignation is my Retreat, and Resource. “Quid supra Nos,
nil ad Nos.”4 —“Erunt Vitia donec Homines.”5 —&c.—The–take Politicks for me.—Give me Bacon, and Cyder, and Books and Girl and
Friend, and I will frisk it, like a Lambkin among the Clover, whether H—t—n [Hutchinson] or O—t—s [Otis], or neither of them, are in or out of Power.
But there is one Part of your Letter, demands a serious Answer.—The repeated Proof
of the Approbation of Mankind, of which your Letter informed me, gave me Pleasure,
for the same Reason that all other Instances of your success, have done the same,
vizt. because, you know, I love you, and I think you deserve success.—But considered
as laying you under (what shall I call it) an obligation or a Temptation to settle,
at such a Distance from me and your other Friends, it gave me much friendly Anxiety.
You ask my Advice, and you shall have it, with the Utmost Sincerity.—It is, by no
means to think of settling, at that Place.6
You ask my Reasons, and you tell me, you may hearken perhaps too often to me and your
other Friends, in refusing first a Church of England and then a good dissenting Parish.—My
Reasons are these. You are yet young enough to settle by, some Years.—You have a Reputation
as a Preacher which will not suffer you to want Business.—You have Talents and Abilities
which entitle you to a better, and more conspicuous Theatre than George Town, and
the same Talents and Abilities will, in no unseasonable Length of Time, procure you
one.—One that lies nearer to Science, Wealth, Sense, Politeness and Happiness than
George Town can be supposed to be.7
These you may take for the Ebullitions of Affection [but?] they are sincere, if they are not disinterested.—a C[hoice] nay an unanimous Choice, does not (talk of Vox Populi Vox Dei as long as you will)
lay any obligation on any Man to act any Part which will in all Probability, diminish
his Happiness, or his Usefulness, especially, that will diminish both.
Frankness, you know has always been used between you and me, and will always I hope
continue. Clear and certain Foresight, is the Attribute of No Man.—It is not impossible
you may be a looser, by taking this Advice, but I assure you with the utmost freedom
it is the best that I can give, at present, let what will take Place hereafter.
I hope to see you soon at Braintree and am your assed. Friend & most hml. sert.
[signed] John Adams
P.S. If you should not come soon to Braintree write me,—I am in great Haste. Hay,
Corn, Barley, Law, Love, and Politicks, plague me to death, coming all together so
in a Huddle.
N.B. dont let this P.S. be seen by Girl nor Politician, nor heard of, by Either.
RC (ICN:Strauss Collection); addressed: “For Mr Zabdiel Adams George-Town These”; MS mutilated, and missing material supplied by the editors. Although properly a part
of the Adams Family Correspondence, this letter has been included here because the discovery of the MS came too late for inclusion in the regular sequence of the family correspondence,
and its contents seemed too significant to postpone its publication until the appearance
of a supplement to the Adams Family Correspondence. A facsimile of the letter was published in a limited edition, Boston, 1967, with
the title, “John Adams on Matrimony, Church, State, and His Own Temperament, in a
Letter of Advice to His Cousin Zabdiel Concerning His Settlement as a Minister of
the Gospel 1763.” L. H. Butterfield's commentary on the facsimile is the source of
the notes below.
1. Zabdiel Adams (1739–1801), JA's double first cousin, kept “the Latin School” in Braintree for three years after
his graduation from Harvard in 1759. At the time this letter was written, Adams, who
had received his M.A. degree, was filling pulpits on a temporary basis and seeking
a permanent parish of his own.
2. Not found.
4. Freely: What is beyond us, we can do nothing about.
5. There will be vices as long as there are men.
6. Zabdiel Adams had received a call from Georgetown, an island community near Bath,
Maine.
7. In Jan. 1764, Rev. Adams received a call from the First Congregational Society in
Lunenburg, a village in Worcester co. He accepted this call and served as Lunenburg's
minister for the remainder of his life.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0048
Recipient: Quincy, Samuel
Date: 1764-01-02
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
To Samuel Quincy
Braintree2 January 1764. RC (MHi:Misc. Bound Coll.). John Adams requests “Brother Quincy” to enter some legal actions
for him and promises to bring Quincy's books to town next week. About forty actions
are listed; of these, about half have been crossed out.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0049
Recipient: Adams, John
Date: 1764-02-15
From Jonathan Sewall
[dateline] Boston 15th. Feby. 1764
[salute] Dear Brother John
You may remember we had some Confab. together about having the Small Pox in Concert.
I intend next week (Thursday) to be inoculated by Doctr. Joseph Gardner at Point Shirley,1 and I expect to have Brother Thacher's Company;2 —now if we could make a Triumvirate, I am perswaded it would be for our mutual Support,
Com• { 98 } fort and Edification—but if Brother Thacher should not have Courage enough, yet it
would be a singular pleasure to me if you and I could be pockey Companions. I want
three Weeks close Conversation with you, which will be about the Time we shall have,
as I suppose. I can have a warm convenient Room, and a fine Woman to look after us,
(Mrs. Bennet,) and Doctor Gardner will be in the House with us, till we are safe thro'.
John I beg you would accompany me, and pray let me know your Resolution imediately,
by a Letter unless you can come to Town which you may do with the utmost Safety. If
you are not down before the Court, let me know as soon as possible whether I shall
secure you a Birth with me. If you can come to Town imediately upon the Rect. of this,
it would be best, as we can conjointly settle preliminaries with the Doctr. &c. I
think it much best to take it soon, and the Doctor is of this Opinion likewise. Brother,
I feel a longing Desire to have you with me, and once more intreat and Command you
not to let want of Courage, or any other Cause prevent your Complying with this Request
from your Brother and Friend3
[signed] JonSewall
RC (Adams Papers); addressed in Jonathan Sewall's hand: “To John Adams Esqr. in Braintree”; docketed
in an unidentified hand: “J Sewell 1764 Feby 15th did not go—but went to Boston and
had it the same year.”
1. Gardner (1727–1788) was a prominent Boston physician and patriot, one of the fourteen founders of the
Massachusetts Medical Society in 1781. He with three others had intended to establish
a smallpox hospital on Point Shirley in Chelsea (now Winthrop) (Walter L. Burrage,
A History of the Massachusetts Medical Society, privately printed, 1923, p. 25).
2. Oxenbridge Thacher Jr. (1719–1765), prominent and popular Boston attorney, who served with James Otis Jr. on the writs
of assistance case in 1761. JA thought highly of his character, as did many in Boston, but less so of his intellectual
powers. A political enemy of Thomas Hutchinson and a vigorous opponent of the Sugar
Act, he was rated by JA as second only to Otis in importance in the early Revolutionary movement (Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates, 10:322–328; JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:passim).
3. No written reply to Sewall's invitation has been found. JA was inoculated for smallpox by Dr. Nathaniel Perkins and left a detailed record of
his experience (Adams Family Correspondence, 1:16–17, 22–24, 28–30, 32–36, 39–401:16–17, 22–23, 23–24, 24–25, 28–29, 29–30, 32–35, 36, 39–40). The relative scarcity of Series III documents for 1764 is accounted for partly
by JA's inoculation and his marriage to Abigail in October 1764, although he continued
to be very active in legal work.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0050
Date: 1764-05-21
Report of the Braintree Committee for Repairing Highways
[dateline] [Braintree,]1764 May 21st.
The Committee appointed to Consider of Some Plan for Repairing the High ways1 having taken the Same into Consideration Report as follows (viz.)
{ 99 } That there be a Tax laid on Polls and Estates this present year for that purpose.
That the Tax on Polls be two shillings per Poll and the Same proportion on Estates
according to the Last Town Tax.2
That the assessors be directed as soon as may be to assess the Inhabitants accordingly
and to deliver to the Several Surveyors a List of those Persons that are or may be
assigned to their Respective districts with the Several Sums each one shall be Respectively
assessed and that each Person so assessed shall have Liberty if he See Cause to pay
the Sum he is assessed in said List or Tax in working on the High ways at the Rate
of Two Shillings Per Day for a Man, Two Shillings Per Day for a pair of oxen, and
eight pence Per Day for a Cart and Two Shillings Per Day for a Horse and Horse Cart.
And if any Person or Persons shall refuse or neglect to work out his or their proportion
at the Rates aforesaid on their being Legally Notified by the Surveyor in that Case
the Surveyor or Surveyors shall return a List of Such Delinquent or Delinquents by
the first of November next to the assessors with the Sum due from each one Respectively
which Sum or Sums of Money remaining due on said Tax the assessors are directed when
they make the next Town Rate to add to Such Delinquents Town Tax in a distinct Collumn
by it Self and to impower the Several Constables in their Warrants to them to collect
the Same and pay it in to the Town Treasurer. Excepting as hereafter expressed (viz.)
That if it should be found unnecessary to Expend the full of that Proportion on the
ways in the North Precinct that one half of Such Surplusage be returned to the Precinct
Treasurer of that Precinct and for the use of that precinct and that the other half
be returned to the Town Treasurer. And further. That all such Sums of money as shall
come in this Way into the Town Treasury be appropriated to the Reparation of High
ways in the Town and to no other purpose.3 And that each Surveyor be impowered to hire Persons at Customary Reasonable wages
to work on the High ways to the amount of the Sum to be worked out by his district
which Persons shall be paid by draughts on the Town Treasurer.
[salute] All which is Submitted.
[signed] Saml. Niles
[signed] Joshua Hayward
[signed] John Adams
The above Report being Read was voted accepted and the Reparation of the High ways
within said Town to be managed in Conformity thereto the ensuing year.
MS (Braintree Town Records, 1731–1783, p. 227–228); in hand of Elisha Niles, town clerk.
1. As early as 1730, Braintree's town meeting had considered proposals to substitute
a system of tax-supported road maintenance for the traditional reliance on annually
appointed surveyors who were expected to get out the inhabitants to labor, or furnish
labor, on the roads (CFA2, Three Episodes, 2:674–676). On 1 March 1756, the town adopted such a plan, but the decision was
reversed by another vote two weeks later. Although the question was revived in 1760
and 1761, Braintree did not actually approve the experiment of “Repairing the Highways
by a Tax” until the town meeting of 19 March 1764 (Braintree Town Records, p. 346–347, 370, 376, 395).
JA was instrumental in winning this reform in Braintree in 1764, and his 21 March 1761
memorandum on local conditions and legal authorities respecting the question of road
assessments (Diary and Autobiography, 1:203) demonstrated his long-standing interest in the subject. In later years, JA recalled that the old system left the roads “very bad, and much neglected,” and that
he considered “a Tax a more equitable Method and more likely to be effectual.” Thus,
at the town meeting of 19 March 1764, he joined advocates of the road tax “in a public
Speech, carried a Vote by a large Majority and was appointed [to] prepare a By Law to be enacted at the next Meeting.” Having learned that Roxbury
and Weymouth had already instituted the maintenance plan under discussion in Braintree,
JA continued: “I procured a Copy of their Law and prepared a Plan for Braintree, as
nearly as possible conformable to their Model, reported it to the Town [on 21 May] and it was adopted by a great Majority” (same, 3:279).
2. The last tax, set 24 Aug. 1763, was £300 (Braintree Town Records, p. 393). The proportion of town taxes to be paid by estates has not been ascertained;
but if Braintree in apportioning town taxes followed the customary practice in Massachusetts
with regard to province taxes, it would expect to raise two-thirds of the total tax
from estates, the other third from polls.
3. The plan adopted by Braintree differed slightly from the Weymouth model as to rates
of assessment and of valuation of labor and draft animals, but JA's plan preserved the basic principles of the Weymouth system: townsmen might fulfill
their obligations by either labor or taxes, and the proceeds of such tax payments
were reserved for bridge and highway maintenance. See Weymouth Hist. Soc., History of Weymouth, Massachusetts, Boston, 1923, 2:568.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0051
Date: 1765-04-01
Report of the Braintree Town Committee to Lay Out the North Common
[dateline] [Braintree,]1765 April 1st.
The Committee who was directed to take a Plan and make Division of the North Commons
(so called) at the Meeting of the Town in March last past having proceeded on that
affair1 and have taken a Plan thereof Excepting the following peices (viz.) about Three acres
taken off by the Road at the Swamp called purgatory swamp, about { 101 } four acres taken off by the Road or Towns Way between Benja. Savels and Joseph Crains,
about one acre opposite to William Fields House part of which is fenced and improved
by said Field, about four acres near the Lane leading from said Commons, to Deacon
Joseph Neals, and about four acres taken off by the Towns Way East of Capts. Bridge
so called and have Divided said Commons (the above mentioned peices Excepted) in the
manner described on the Plans herewith presented.2
Concerning the fence the Committee find rail fence in some Places where by the Leases
stone wall was to be built and in other parts the stone wall not according to the
Leases. But that in general the wall is well built and stands well. The Committee
also find by the accounts of Mr. Elisha Niles Town Treasurer that said Lease[e]s have not accounted or Settled with him for any stones taken off said Commons since
the Expiration of the first Lease. All which is Submitted by
[signed] Saml. Niles
[signed] John Adams
[signed] Jonathan Bass
CommitteeThe above Report being read before the Town was Voted accepted.
Then Samuel Niles Esqr., Mr. John Adams, and Mr. Jonathan Bass, were Seperately Chosen
a Committee to Settle with the Leasees of the North Commons respecting their obligation
to the Town and Provided said Committee and the Leasees do not agree then said Committee
and the Leasees mutually to agree on Men from some other Town or Towns to determine
the Same.3
Voted The above said Committee inform themselves in the best manner they can Respecting
stones carried off said Commons since the Commencement of the Last Lease and that
they Settle with such Persons as have carried off stones on the Same Condition as
sett in the first Lease.
Voted the abovesaid Committee Proceed as soon as Conveniently may be to the Sale of
the said North Commons the Lotts as Exhibited on the Plan of said Lands to be sold
Seperately at Publick Vendue to the highest bidder.
Voted The abovesaid Committee have full Power in the Name and Behalf of the Town to
make and Execute good and authentic Deeds of said Lands to the Purchasers.
Voted That said Committee take obligations of the Purchasers of said Lands said Obligations
to be made to the Treasurer of Said Town of Braintree or to his Successor in said
office for the use of the Town { 102 } and that there be two Sureties to the Satisfaction of said Committee bound with each
purchaser, Except where Cash is paid.
Voted said Committee make Sale of those peices of Common Lands that are not included
in the Plan Exhibited to the Town but Described in their Report to the Town.
MS (Braintree Town Records, 1731–1783, p. 231–232)); in hand of Elisha Niles, town clerk. In entering the day's proceedings,
Niles erroneously copied the first of two resolutions adopted in pursuance of the
committee's Report before the text of the Report itself. Realizing his error, he noted: “The Report of the
Towns Committee which was omitted in its proper place as it preceeded the votes Respecting
the Commons is as follows (viz.).” He then copied the Report and continued his entry
with the last five votes taken thereon. The Report and votes are here printed in their
correct order.
1. As the date for the expiration of the leases on Braintree's North Common approached,
the town considered the wisdom of selling these lands outright. The agenda for the
town meeting of 5 March 1764 included this question, but no action was taken that
year (Braintree Town Records, p. 393–394). As JA recalled the controversy, the South and Middle Precincts of the town favored the
sale, while the North Precinct opposed it. As for himself, JA thought “the Lands in their common Situation . . . of very little Utility to the
Public or to Individuals” and supported their sale when the issue was once again brought
before the town meeting in March 1765 (Diary and Autobiography, 3:279). On 5 March, the town voted to sell the North Common, “as soon as conveniently may
be after expiration of the Leases,” and named JA, who had just begun his term as a surveyor of highways, Samuel Niles, and Jonathan
Bass a committee to divide the Common into salable lots as well as “to observe how
far the Leasees . . . have or have not fulfilld the conditions of their Lease” (Braintree Town Records, p. 399, 400). To lay out the lots, JA, Niles, and Bass spent “three or four Weeks” with “Chainmen” and surveyors as they
“rambled . . . over Rocks and Mountains and through Swamps and thicketts” so that
they might submit their final plan for division of the Common on 1 April (Diary and Autobiography, 3:280). For the town's earlier sale of South Common and for the background of the problem
of common lands in Braintree politics, see Reports of 12 April and 19 May 1762, above.
2. The plan or plans mentioned here and above have not been found.
4. Driftway: “Local, Eng. A common way or path for driving cattle” (Webster's, 2d edn.).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0052-0001
Editorial Note
“A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law,” published unsigned and untitled
in the Boston Gazette, 12, 19 August, 30 September, 21 October 1765, was at once John Adams' first effort to determine the significance
of New England in American history and his initial contribution to the literature
of the American Revolution. Seen from the first perspective, this work belonged to
a genre which had begun at least as early as 1630 with John Winthrop's famed “Citty
upon a Hill” sermon aboard the Arbella; while viewed from the second, it was a forceful justification of American opposition
to the Stamp Act. From a strictly literary point of view, moreover, the “Dissertation,”
written as it was in clear, concise, ringing tones, was the most satisfying of Adams'
published works.
The “Dissertation” derived its dual character from the fact that Adams composed it
in 1765 at widely different times, under widely different circumstances, and for widely
different reasons. He first conceived the idea for it through his participation in
the Sodality, a private club of provincial lawyers consisting, in addition to Adams
himself, of Jeremiah Gridley, Samuel Fitch, and Joseph Dudley, which began to meet
informally “for the study of Law and oratory” once a week starting in January 1765
(JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:251). Despite their original intention to strive for self-improvement by pursuing both
legal and rhetorical { 104 } studies, in practice the members of the Sodality confined themselves almost exclusively
to discussing the historical significance of feudal law. These conversations prompted
Adams to set down in fragmentary form—possibly as a prelude to presenting his colleagues
in the Sodality with a finished essay for their private consideration—some random
thoughts about the historic function of canon and feudal law as systems, respectively,
of clerical and secular tyranny, the importance of the settlement of New England as
a decisive episode in the chronicle of liberty's struggle against these two particular
forms of despotism, and the role of popular education as a bulwark of freedom in colonial
New England (same, p. 255–258; No. I, below). Written at various times between February and July 1765, these “Hints for
future Enquiries,” as Adams described them, subsequently went through considerable
refinement and expansion until at length they appeared in print in the first three
published segments of the “Dissertation” (Diary and Autobiography, 1:255; Nos. III–V, below).
Adams decided to expand the “Dissertation” for newspaper publication rather than submit
it as a private communication to the Sodality owing to Parliament's approval of the
Stamp Act in March 1765, news of which reached Boston the following May. As a result
of these events, Adams' abstract speculations suddenly took on new meaning, for in
the Stamp Act he saw nothing less than an “enormous Engine, fabricated by the british
Parliament, for battering down all the Rights and Liberties of America” (Diary and Autobiography, 1:263). Thus, what had begun as an essay in historical analysis now became, in addition,
an eloquent justification of American resistance to alleged British tyranny, as Adams
devoted part of the third and all of the fourth published sections of the “Dissertation”
to the argument that the passage of the Stamp Act, when taken in conjunction with
the efforts of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts to convert
New England Dissenters to the Anglican communion, represented a resurgence of political
and ecclesiastical oppression which Americans could ignore only at their peril (Nos.
V and VI, below).
Although Adams was later to claim that the “Dissertation” was the spark which ignited
New England's opposition to the Stamp Act, in fact it did no such thing, resistance
to this measure having developed in this region prior to and independent of the appearance
of Adams' work (JA to Edmund Jenings, 20 April 17781780, Adams Papers). In a more modest moment Adams probably more accurately described the effect of
his “Dissertation” on the Revolutionary controversy when he referred to it as a “Production
. . . written at Random weekly without any preconceived Plan, printed in the Newspapers,
without Correction, and so little noticed or regarded here [Massachusetts] that the Author never thought it worth his while to give it Either a Title or a signature”
(JA to Catherine Macaulay, 9 Aug. 1770, Diary and Autobiography, 1:360–361).
Despite its failure to make an immediate impact in America, the “Dissertation” enjoyed
a long and involved bibliographical history during the { 105 } era of the American Revolution. Before the outbreak of the War for Independence it
was reprinted in England three times, on each occasion without Adams' prior knowledge
or consent. In 1765 Thomas Hollis, an English radical determined to bring about the
repeal of the Stamp Act, procured the republication of this work in the London Chronicle, 23, 28 Nov., 3, 26 Dec., under the title of “A DISSERTATION on the Feudal and the Canon Law” (same, 1:258, n. 1). Three years later Hollis also had it reprinted in the pamphlet The True Sentiments of America, London, 1768, in this instance with the more familiar title, “A Dissertation on
the Canon and the Feudal Law.” It was this reprinting that Charles Francis Adams used
in his edition of his grandfather's works, incorporating the several corrections noted
by John Adams in his copy of True Sentiments, which is now in the Stone Library at the Old House in Quincy. In this edition, however,
Hollis mistakenly ascribed the authorship of the “Dissertation” to Jeremiah Gridley,
who had died the previous year. Hollis was speedily disabused of this error by the
Rev. Andrew Eliot, one of his correspondents in Boston, who advised him that Adams
was the real author (Andrew Eliot to Thomas Hollis, 27 Sept., 17 Oct. 1768, MHS, Colls., 4th ser., 4 [1858]:426–427, 434). In his copy John Adams wrote in a palsied hand
in the margin opposite Hollis' date of 1765, “Month of August”; and after Hollis'
brief identification of Gridley, Adams wrote in a firm hand, “By John Adams.” The
last reprinting of the “Dissertation” in England before the beginning of armed conflict
with the colonies took place five years afterward, when it appeared in the second
volume of A Collection of Tracts on the Subjects of Taxing the British Colonies in America, 4 vols., London, 1773. The responsibility for this edition has yet to be determined.
During the next decade two other editions of the “Dissertation” were printed, the
first with Adams' full cooperation and support and the second possibly without them.
In order to dispose English public opinion to support peace negotiations on terms
the American commissioners thought favorable, Adams secured the publication in London
in 1782 of A of State-Papers, Relative to the First Acknowledgment of the Sovereignty of the
United States of America, and the Reception of Their Minister . . . by . . . the States
General of the United Netherlands. To which is Prefixed the Political Character of
John Adams, Ambassador . . . to . . . the Netherlands. By an American. Likewise an
Essay on Canon and Feudal Law, by J. Adams, Esq. (MBAt pamphlet copy). Adams did this largely through the agency of Edmund Jenings, a native
Marylander with contacts among English printers; he probably also wrote the laudatory
sketch of Adams in the above pamphlet (JA to Edmund Jenings, 28 April, 19–28 Aug. (LbC), 30 Aug., 16 Sept. 1782, Adams Papers; Edmund Jenings to JA, 22, 29 Aug. 1782, same). In the following year, on the other hand, a pamphlet appeared in Philadelphia
containing John Baker Holroyd, 1st Earl of Sheffield's “Observations on the Commerce
of the American States . . . ,” Adams' “Dissertation,” and Jenings' “Political { 106 } Character” (Evans, No. 17976). So far the responsibility for this edition has not been determined.
The present edition of the “Dissertation” comprises some fragmentary notes Adams evidently
wrote in connection with it as well as all four segments which were published in the
Boston Gazette between 12 August and 21 October 1765. What is probably the earliest draft of the
“Dissertation” has already been printed in Adams' Diary and Autobiography, 1:255–258, and so is not reprinted here.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0052-0002
DateRange: 1765-05 - 1765-08
I. Fragmentary Notes for “A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law”
[dateline] [May–August 1765]
Liberty, that has been compelled to skulk about in Corners of the Earth, and been
everlastingly persecuted by the great, the rich, the noble, the Reverend, the proud,
the Lasey, the Ambitious, avaricious, and Revengeful, who have from the beginning
constituted almost all the sons of Adam. Liberty, that complication of real Honour,
Piety, Virtue Dignity, and Glory, which has never been enjoyd, in its full Perfection,
by more than ten or twelve Millions of Men at any Time, since the Creation, will reign
in America, over hundreds and Thousands of Millions at a Time.
In future ages, when the Bones and sinews that now direct this Pen, shall become indistinguishable
from the rest of Mother Earth, and perhaps incorporate into some Plant or other Animal,
Man shall make his true Figure, upon this Continent, He shall make that great and
happy Figure among Intellectual and sensible reigns that his great Creator intended
he should in other Countries before his Ruin was effected by the Lust of Tyrants.
When science, Literature, Civility, Politeness, Humanity, [every?] Christian grace and Virtue shall be well understood by all Men, when <a few> one shall not be able to deceive a Thousand and two because 10,000 of their Souls
and Bodies then will be the Aera of human Happiness.
Knowledge monopolized, or in the Possession of a few, is a Curse to Mankind. We should
dispense it among all Ranks. We should educate our children. Equality should be preserved
in knowledge.
Property monopolized or in the Possession of a few is a Curse to Mankind. We should
preserve not an Absolute Equality.—this is unnecessary, but preserve all from extreme
Poverty, and all others from extravagant Riches.1
{ 107 } The Happiness of a Milion is in the sight of God, and in the Estimation of every honest
and humane Mind, of more Importance, than that of 20 or an Hundred. Even tho the former
may be called the Mob, the Vulgar, or the Herd, and tho the former may be called the
reverd or right reverend, the honourable, or excellent, or noble, or puissant, or
royal—for Happiness is Happiness to every human Creature, and they all feel nearly
the Like Sensations from Hunger, Frost, from broken Bones, and bruised Flesh, notwithstand[ing] all such Accidental Titles of Dignity or Reproach.
Let us reverence, with hearty Gratitude, the Memory of the late Chief Justice Dudley,2 for his noble Foundation of a Lecture on the Validity of Presbyterian ordinations,
an Institution, that will redound more to his Honor and that of his family, than all
the offices, that could have been bestowd upon him by the Crown or the People, an
Institution that has given every Friend to unsullied Liberty, a great Idea both of
his foresight and Public Spirit.
MS (Adams Papers). These notes are located amidst a group of draft newspaper letters which JA wrote in 1763 and which CFA docketed: “Original Draughts of Newspaper Articles, signed U. 1763” (Adams Papers, Microfilms, Reel No. 343). However, internal evidence, particularly that of a thematic nature,
indicates that they were actually written by JA in 1765 in conjunction with the composition of “A Dissertation on the Canon and the
Feudal Law.” Like the published “Dissertation,” although in much more summary style,
the notes deal with the themes of the natural dichotomy between power and liberty
and the role of popular education in the preservation of freedom. Also like the published
“Dissertation,” they pay tribute to the institution of the Dudleian Lecture at Harvard
College. Because JA was heavily influenced by the Dudleian Lecture delivered by Jonathan Mayhew on 8
May 1765 (see below, No. IV, note 3, and No. V, note 2), there are good grounds for assuming that JA jotted down these notes no earlier than that date.
1. Although JA expounded at some length in his draft and in the finished version on the dangers
of monopolized knowledge, he did not develop the theme of the dangers of monopolized
property and of the extremes of wealth and poverty. His concentration on the monopolization
of knowledge probably grew out of concern over the Stamp Act with its taxes on newspapers,
college diplomas, and the like.
2. Paul Dudley (1675–1751) graduated from Harvard in 1690. He served as attorney general of Massachusetts from
1702 to 1718, Superior Court justice from 1718 to 1745, and chief justice of the same
court from 1745 until his death. In his will he endowed Harvard with the funds for
an annual lecture, soon known as the Dudleian Lecture, every fourth one of which was
to be devoted to “the detecting and convicting and exposing the Idolatry of the Romish
Church, Their Tyranny, Usurpations, damnable Heresies, fatal Errors, abominable Superstitions,
and other crying Wickednesses in their high Places; And Finally that the Church of
Rome is that mystical Babylon, that Man of Sin, That Apostate Church spoken of, in
the New-Testament” (Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates, 4:42–53).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0052-0003
Date: 1765-08
II. Draft of “A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law”
[dateline] [August? 1765]
“Ignorance and Inconsideration,” (says Dr. Tillotson) “are the two great Causes of
the Ruin of Mankind.” This excellent observation, was made by that great Prelate,
in the Way of his own Profession, with Relation to the Interest of his fellow Men;
in a future and immortal state. But it is of equal Truth and Importance, when applied
to the Happiness of Men, on this side the Grave. In the early Ages of the World absolute
Monarchy seems to have been the universal form of Government. Kings and a few of their
great Counsellors and Captains exercised, a cruel Tyranny over <their Vassals and Subjects> the People, who were little higher in those Days in the scale of intelligence than
the Camells and Asses and Elephants, that carried them and their Arms and their Engines,
to War.
By What Causes it was brought to pass that the People, in the middle ages, became
more generally intelligent, would not perhaps be practicable, in these days to discover.
But the Fact is certain, and it is as certain, that wherever, a general Knowledge
and sensibility have prevailed among the People, Arbitrary Government and every kind
of oppression, have lessened and disappeared in Proportion. Man has an exalted soul!—and
the Same Principle in human Nature, that aspiring Noble Principle founded in Benevolence
and cherished by Knowledge, I mean <Ambition> the Love of Power, has been the Cause of slavery and the Cause of Freedom. This Principle,
it is, that has always prompted, the <Kings and> Princes and Nobles of the Earth <to grasp at unlimited P[ower]> by every subtlety to shake off, all the Limits of their Power: and the Same Principle
has always prompted the Common People, to aspire at Independancy, and to confine the
Power of the great ones, within the Limits of Reason, and Equity.
The poor People, it is true, have been much less successful, than the Great. They
had not so much Leisure, they knew not so well how to unite and exert their strength—ignorant
as they were of Arts and Letters, they could not frame and support a regular system
of opposition.
This has been known, by the great, to be the Temper of Mankind and they have accordingly
laboured, in all Ages, to wrest from the Populace, both the Knowledge of their Rights
and Wrongs, and the Power to assert the former, and redress the Latter. I say Rights,
for such they have undoubtedly, antecedent to all Earthly Government, { 109 } Rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human Laws—Rights derived from the
great Legislater of the Universe.
Since the Promulgation of Christianity the two greatest systems of Tyranny that have
Sprung from this source, are the Cannon and the feudal Law. The Desire of Dominion,
however noble and useful on the whole, is however, when unawed and unrestrained by
Hopes and Fears, an encroaching, grasping, restless and ungovernable Principle. And
among all the Variety of iniquitous systems that have been contrived by the great,
for the Gratification of it, in themselves was never So successful, as in the Invention
and Establishment of the Cannon and the Feudal Law. In the former, the most refined,
sublime, extensive and astonishing Constitution of Policy that was ever conceived
by the human Mind, we find was framed by the Romish Clergy, for the Aggrandisement
of their own order.
All the Epithets, that I have given to the Romish Policy, will be owned to be just,
when it is considered, that they found it practicable to persuade Mankind, that God
almighty had intrusted them with the Keys of Heaven, whose Gate they might open and
Close at Pleasure—With a Power of Dispensation over all the Rules and Obligations
of Morality—With an Authority to Licence all sorts both of Sins and Crimes.—With a
Power of deposing Princes, and absolving subjects from their Allegiance.—With a Power
of procuring or witholding the Rain of Heaven and the Beams of the Sun—With the Management
of Earthquakes, Pestilence and Famine—Nay with the misterious, awful Incomprehensible
Power of Creating out of Bread and Wine the Flesh and Blood of the great Creator of
the Universe. And all these opinions, they were enabled to propagate and rivet in
the Minds of the People, by reducing <the Minds of the Common People> them to a State of Sordid Ignorance and staring Timidity, and by infusing into them
a religious Horror of Letters and Knowledge of every Kind. Thus was human Nature chained
fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, deplorable Servitude, to him and his Subordinate
Tyrants, who it was foretold, would exalt himself above all that was called God and
that was worshiped.
In the latter We find another System, Similar in many Respects to the former: which,
altho it was originally formed, perhaps for the necessary Defense of a barbarous People,
against the Inroads and Invasions of her neighboring nations; Yet for the Same Purposes
of Tyranny, Cruelty and Lust, which had dictated the Cannon Law, it was soon adopted
by allmost all the Princes of Europe and wrought into the Constitution of their Govt.
It was originally a Code of Laws { 110 } for a vast Army in a Perpetual Encampment. The General was invested with the Sovereign
Propriety of all the Lands within their Territory—of Him the first Rank of his great
officers, held the Lands, immediately, and the other subordinate Ranks, held of them,
and all held by a Variety of Duties and services, tending to bind the Chains the faster
on every order of Mankind. In this Manner the Common People were held together in
Clans and Herds in a State of Servile Dependance on their Lords, bound by the tenure
of their lands to follow them to their Wars whenever they commanded, and in a state
of total Ignorance of every Thing divine and humane, excepting the Use of Arms and
the Culture of the Lands.
But another Event, still more calamitous to human Liberty, was a wicked Confederacy
between the two Systems of Tyrany above described. It seems to have been even stipulated
between them that the temporal Grandees, should contribute every Thing in their Power
to maintain the Ascendancy of the Priesthood, and the Spiritual Grandees in their
turn, shold employ that ascendancy over the Consciences of the People, in impressing
on their Minds a blind, implicit obedience to civil Magistracy.
Thus, as long as this Confederacy lasted and the People were kept in Ignorance, Liberty,
and with her Knowledge and Virtue too, seem to have deserted the Earth, and one Age
of Darkness succeeded another, till God in his Providence, raised up the Champions
who began and conducted the Reformation. From the Time of the Reformation, to the
first settlement of America, Knowledge gradually increased in Europe but especially
in England and as fast as Knowledge increased, and Spread among the People, Ecclesiastical
and civil Tyranny, which I use as synonimous Expressions for the Cannon and feudal
Law, Seem to have lost their strength and Weight. The People grew more and more sensible
of the Wrong that was done them, by those systems, more and more impatient under it,
and determined at all Hazards to rid themselves of it, till the struggle at last,
under the Stewarts grew, formidable violent and bloody.
It was this Struggle that peopled America. It is commonly Said that these Colonies
were peopled by Religion—But I should rather say that the Love of Liberty, projected
conducted and accomplished the settlement of America.
Dft (Adams Papers); docketed by CFA: “Canon and Feudal Law”; “Original Draught. On the Canon and Feudal law. 1765. The
Essay is printed in the Works of JA vol iii p 447.” This is a Dft of the first published part of JA's “A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law” (No. III, below). There are many stylistic variations between the Dft and printed texts, but in regard { 111 } to matters of substance both are virtually alike. The Dft contains all but the last paragraph and a half of the printed text, and was probably
written sometime late in July or early in August 1765, although this is only a surmise.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0052-0004
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1765-08-12
III. “A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law,” No. 1
[dateline] [Monday, 12 August 1765]
[salute] To the Printers.
“IGNORANCE and inconsideration are the two great causes of the ruin of mankind.” This
is an observation of Dr. Tillotson,1 with relation to the interest of his fellow-men, in a future and immortal state:
But it is of equal truth and importance, if applied to the happiness of men in society,
on this side the grave. In the earliest ages of the world, absolute monarchy seems to have been the universal form of government. Kings, and a few of their great
counsellors and captains, exercised a cruel tyranny over the people who held a rank
in the scale of intelligence, in those days, but little higher than the camels and
elephants, that carried them and their engines to war.
BY what causes it was bro't to pass, that the people in the middle ages, became more
intelligent in general, would not perhaps be possible in these days to discover: But the fact
is certain; and wherever a general knowledge and sensibility have prevail'd among
the people, arbitrary government, and every kind of oppression, have lessened and disappeared
in proportion. Man has certainly an exalted soul! and the same principle in humane
nature, that aspiring noble principle, founded in benevolence, and cherished by knowledge,
I mean the love of power, which has been so often the cause of slavery, has, whenever freedom has existed, been the cause of freedom. If it is this principle, that has always prompted the princes and nobles of the earth,
by every species of fraud and violence, to shake off, all the limitations of their power; it is the same that has always stimulated the common people to aspire
at independency, and to endeavor at confining the power of the great within the limits
of equity and reason.
THE poor people, it is true, have been much less successful than the great. They have
seldom found either leisure or opportunity to form an union and exert their strength—ignorant
as they were of arts and letters, they have seldom been able to frame and support
a regular opposition. This, however, has been known, by the great, to be the temper
of mankind, and they have accordingly laboured, in all ages, to wrest from the populace,
as they are contemptuously called, the { 112 } knowledge of their rights and wrongs, and the power to assert the former or redress
the latter. I say RIGHTS, for such they have, undoubtedly, antecedent to all earthly
government—Rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws—Rights derived from the great legislator of the universe.
SINCE the promulgation of Christianity, the two greatest systems of tyranny, that
have sprung from this original, are the cannon and the feudal law. The desire of dominion, that great principle by which we have attempted to account
for so much good, and so much evil, is, when properly restrained, a very useful and noble movement in the human mind: But when such restraints are
taken off, it becomes an incroaching, grasping, restless and ungovernable power. Numberless
have been the systems of iniquity, contrived by the great, for the gratification of
this passion in themselves: but in none of them were they ever more successful, than
in the invention and establishment of the cannon and the feudal law.
BY the former of these, the most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy,
that ever was conceived by the mind of man, was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandisement of their own order.2 All the epithets I have here given to the Romish policy are just: and will be allowed
to be so, when it is considered, that they even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully
and undoubtingly, that GOD almighty had intrusted them with the keys of heaven; whose gates they might open and close at pleasure—with a power of dispensation over all the rules
and obligations of morality—with authority to licence all sorts of sins and crimes—with
a power of deposing princes, and absolving subjects from allegiance—with a power of
procuring or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun—with the management
of earthquakes, pestilence and famine. Nay with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible
power of creating out of bread and wine, the flesh and blood of God himself. All these
opinions, they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people, by reducing their
minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity; and by infusing into them
a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages, in
a cruel, shameful and deplorable servitude, to him and his subordinate tyrants, who,
it was foretold, would exalt himself above all that was called God, and that was worshipped.
IN the latter, we find another system similar in many respects, to the former:3 which, altho' it was originally formed perhaps, for the necessary defence of a barbarous people, against the inroads and in• { 113 } vasions of her neighbouring nations; yet, for the same purposes of tyranny, cruelty
and lust, which had dictated the cannon law, it was soon adopted by almost all the princes of Europe, and wrought into the
constitutions of their government. It was originally, a code of laws, for a vast army, in a perpetual encampment. The
general was invested with the sovereign propriety of all the lands within the territory.
Of him, as his servants and vassals, the first rank of his great officers held the lands:
and in the same manner, the other subordinate officers held of them; and all ranks and degrees held their lands, by a variety of duties and services, all tending to bind the chains the faster, on every order of mankind. In this manner, the common people were held together, in herds
and clans, in a state of servile dependance on their lords; bound, even by the tenure of their lands to follow them,
whenever they commanded, to their wars; and in a state of total ignorance of every
thing divine and human, excepting the use of arms, and the culture of their lands.
BUT, another event still more calamitous to human liberty, was a wicked confederacy,
between the two systems of tyranny above described. It seems to have been even stipulated between them, that the temporal grandees should contribute every thing in their power to maintain the ascendency
of the priesthood; and that the spiritual grandees, in their turn, should employ that4 ascendency over the consciences of the people, in impressing on their minds, a blind, implicit obedience to civil magistracy.
THUS, as long as this confederacy lasted, and the people were held in ignorance; Liberty,
and with her, Knowledge, and Virtue too, seem to have deserted the earth; and one
age of darkness, succeeded another, till GOD, in his benign providence, raised up
the champions, who began and conducted the reformation. From the time of the reformation, to the first settlement of America, knowledge gradually spread in Europe, but especially in England; and in proportion as that increased and spread among the people, ecclesiastical and civil tyranny, which I use as synonimous expressions, for the cannon and feudal laws, seem to have lost their strength and weight. The people grew more and more
sensible of the wrong that was done them, by these systems; more and more impatient
under it; and determined at all hazards to rid themselves of it; till, at last, under
the execrable race of the Steuarts,5 the struggle between the people and the confederacy aforesaid of temporal and spiritual
tyranny, became formidable, violent and bloody.
IT was this great struggle, that peopled America. It was not religion { 114 } alone, as is commonly supposed; but it was a love of universal Liberty, and an hatred, a dread, an horror of the infernal confederacy, before described,
that projected, conducted, and accomplished the settlement of America.
IT was a resolution formed, by a sensible people, I mean the Puritans, almost in despair. They had become intelligent in general, and many of them learned.
For this fact I have the testimony of archbishop King6 himself, who observed of that people, that they were more intelligent, and better
read than even the members of the church whom he censures warmly for that reason.
This people had been so vexed, and tortured by the powers of those days, for no other
crime than their knowledge, and their freedom of enquiry and examination, and they
had so much reason to despair of deliverance from those miseries, on that side the
ocean; that they at last resolved to fly to the wilderness for refuge, from the temporal and spiritual principalities and powers, and plagues,
and scourges, of their native country.
AFTER their arrival here, they began their settlements, and formed their plan both
of ecclesiastical and civil government, in direct opposition to the cannon and the feudal systems. The leading men among them, both of the clergy and the laity, were men of
sense and learning: To many of them, the historians, orators, poets and philosophers
of Greece and Rome were quite familiar: and some of them have left libraries that are still in being,
consisting chiefly of volumes, in which the wisdom of the most enlightned ages and
nations is deposited, written however in languages, which their great grandsons, tho' educated in European Universities, can scarcely read.
1. John Tillotson (1630–1694), Archbishop of Canterbury, popular preacher, and warm advocate of religious comprehension
among English Protestants. JA owned an incomplete set of Tillotson's Works and admired the high moral tone of the Archbishop's sermons (DNB; Catalogue of JA's Library; JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:224).
2. In his copy of True Sentiments . . . , containing the “Dissertation,” JA wrote the following marginal note at this point: “Rob. Hist. C. 5, page 54, and 141,
315.” The reference is to William Robertson, The History of the Reign of Charles the Fifth, Emperor of Germany; and of All the
Kingdoms and States in Europe during His Age, 3 vols. [Phila.], 1770. Catalogue of JA's Library lists only a London edition of 1777 in 4 vols., but the pages listed here and below
match the 1770 edition.
6. Since there was no Archbishop King in England during the reigns of James I and Charles
I, the period presumably under discussion, the reference here is uncertain. In one
of his drafts JA attributed this comment on Puritan su• { 115 } periority to “Archbishop King him self, (I think it was, for I say this upon Memory)”
(JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:257). There were two bishops named King in the period: John (1559?–1621), Bishop of London,
1611–1621, and Henry (1592–1669), Bishop of Chichester, 1642–1669 (DNB).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0052-0005
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1765-08-19
IV. “A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law,” No. 2
[dateline] [Monday, 19 August 1765]
THUS accomplished were many of the first Planters of these Colonies. It may be thought
polite and fashionable, by many modern fine Gentlemen perhaps, to deride the Characters
of these Persons, as enthusiastical, superstitious and republican: But such ridicule
is founded in nothing but foppery and affectation, and is grosly injurious and false.
Religious to some degree of enthusiasm it may be admitted they were; but this can
be no peculiar derogation from their character, because it was at that time almost
the universal character, not only of England, but of Christendom. Had this however,
been otherwise, their enthusiasm, considering the principles in which it was founded,
and the ends to which it was directed, far from being a reproach to them, was greatly
to their honour: for I believe it will be found universally true, that no great enterprize,
for the honour or happiness of mankind, was ever achieved, without a large mixture
of that noble infirmity. Whatever imperfections may be justly ascribed to them, which
however are as few, as any mortals have discovered their judgment in framing their
policy, was founded in wise, humane and benevolent principles; It was founded in revelation,
and in reason too; It was consistent with the principles, of the best, and greatest,
and wisest legislators of antiquity. Tyranny in every form, shape, and appearance
was their disdain, and abhorrence; no fear of punishment, not even of Death itself, in exquisite tortures, had been sufficient to conquer, that steady, manly,
pertenacious spirit, with which they had opposed the tyrants of those days, in church
and state. They were very far from being enemies to monarchy; and they knew as well
as any men, the just regard and honour that is due to the character of a dispenser
of the misteries of the gospel of Grace: But they saw clearly, that popular powers
must be placed, as a guard, a countroul, a ballance, to the powers of the monarch,
and the priest, in every government, or else it would soon become the man of sin,
the whore of Babylon, the mystery of iniquity, a great and detestable system of fraud,
violence, and usurpation. Their greatest concern seems to have been to establish a
government of the church more consistent with { 116 } the scriptures, and a government of the state more agreable to the dignity of humane
nature, than any they had seen in Europe: and to transmit such a government down to
their posterity, with the means of securing and preserving it, for ever. To render
the popular power in their new government, as great and wise, as their principles
and theory, i. e. as human nature and the christian religion require it should be,
they endeavored to remove from it, as many of the feudal inequalities and dependencies,
as could be spared, consistently with the preservation of a mild limited monarchy.
And in this they discovered the depth of their wisdom, and the warmth of their friendship
to human nature. But the first place is due to religion. They saw clearly, that of
all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed thro' the mind of man, none had
ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters,
uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those phantastical ideas, derived from
the common law,1 which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence and right reverence,
eminence and holiness, around the idea of a priest, as no mortal could deserve, and
as always must from the constitution of human nature, be dangerous in society.2 For this reason, they demolished the whole system of Diocesan episcopacy and deriding,
as all reasonable and impartial men must do, the ridiculous fancies of sanctified
effluvia from episcopal fingers, they established sacerdotal ordination, on the foundation
of the bible and common sense. This conduct at once imposed an obligation on the whole
body of the clergy, to industry, virtue, piety and learning, and rendered that whole
body infinitely more independent on the civil powers, in all respects than they could
be where they were formed into a scale of subordination, from a pope down to priests
and fryars and confessors, necessarily and essentially a sordid, stupid, wretched
herd; or than they could be in any other country, where an archbishop held the place
of an universal bishop, and the vicars and curates that of the ignorant, dependent,
miserable rabble aforesaid; and infinitely more sensible and learned than they could
be in either. This subject has been seen in the same light, by many illustrious patriots,
who have lived in America, since the days of our fore fathers, and who have adored
their memory for the same reason. And methinks there has not appeared in New England
a stronger veneration for their memory, a more penetrating insight into the grounds
and principles and spirit of their policy, nor a more earnest desire of perpetuating
the blessings of it to posterity, than that fine institution of the late chief justice
Dudley, of a lecture against popery, and on the validity of presbyterian { 117 } ordination.3 This was certainly intended by that wise and excellent man, as an eternal memento
of the wisdom and goodness of the very principles that settled America. But I must
again return to the feudal law.
The adventurers so often mentioned, had an utter contempt of all that dark ribaldry
of hereditary indefeasible right—the Lord's anointed—and the divine miraculous original
of government, with which the priesthood had inveloped the feudal monarch in clouds
and mysteries, and from whence they had deduced the most mischievous of all doctrines,
that of passive obedience and non resistance. They knew that government was a plain,
simple, intelligible thing founded in nature and reason and quite comprehensible by
common sense. They detested all the base services, and servile dependencies of the
feudal system. They knew that no such unworthy dependences took place in the ancient
seats of liberty, the republic of Greece and Rome: and they tho't all such slavish
subordinations were equally inconsistent with the constitution of human nature and
that religious liberty, with which Jesus had made them free. This was certainly the
opinion they had formed, and they were far from being singular or extravagant in thinking
so. Many celebrated modern writers, in Europe, have espoused the same sentiments.
Lord Kaim's,4 a Scottish writer of great reputation, whose authority in this case ought to have
the more weight, as his countrymen have not the most worthy ideas of liberty, speaking
of the feudal law, says, “A constitution so contradictory to all the principles which
govern mankind, can never be brought about, one should imagine, but by foreign conquest
or native usurpations.” Brit. Ant. P. 2. Rousseau speaking of the same system, calls
it “That most iniquitous and absurd form of government by which human nature was so
shamefully degraded.” Social Compact, Page 164.5 It would be easy to multiply authorities, but it must be needless, because as the
original of this form of government was among savages, as the spirit of it is military
and despotic, every writer, who would allow the people to have any right to life or
property, or freedom, more than the beasts of the field, and who was not hired or
inlisted under arbitrary lawless power, has been always willing to admit the feudal
system to be inconsistent with liberty and the rights of mankind.
MS not found. Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 19 Aug. 1765).
1. A printer's error for canon law, corrected in reprintings.
3. JA's praise of Dudley's gift to Har• { 118 } vard may have been prompted by Jonathan Mayhew's Dudleian Lecture of May 1765, in
which he not only denounced Catholic doctrine but warned that the Church was a threat
to civil liberty as well. In a manner strikingly parallel to the argument of JA's “Dissertation,” Mayhew declared that “Our controversy with her [Rome] is not merely
a religious one. . . . But a defence of our laws, liberties and civil rights as men,
in opposition to the proud claims of ecclesiastical persons, who under the pretext
of religion and saving mens souls, would engross all power and property to themselves,
and reduce us to the most abject slavery. . . . Popery and liberty are incompatible;
at irreconcileable enmity with each other” (Popish Idolatry . . . , cited in Charles W. Akers, Called Unto Liberty: A Life of Jonathan Mayhew, 1720–1766, Cambridge, 1964, p. 195–196).
4. Henry Home, Lord Kames (1692–1782), Scottish judge and philosopher, wrote Essays upon Several Subjects concerning British Antiquities . . . , Edinburgh, 1747, one section of which dealt with the “Introduction of the Feudal
Law into Scotland” (DNB). The third edition of this work (Edinburgh, 1763) is listed in Catalogue of JA's Library; JA was thoroughly familiar with Kames before he began to write the “Dissertation” (Diary and Autobiography, 1:254).
5. Jean Jacques Rousseau, A Treatise on the Social Compact; or the Principles of Politic Law, London, 1764 (Catalogue of JA's Library). The sentence begins, “The notion of representatives is modern, descending to us
from the feudal system, that most iniquitous.”
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0052-0006
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1765-09-30
V. “A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law,” No. 3
[dateline] [Monday, 30 September 1765]1
TO have holden their lands, allodially, or for every man to have been the sovereign
lord and proprietor of the ground he occupied, would have constituted a government,
too nearly like a commonwealth. They were contented therefore to hold their lands
of their King, as their sovereign Lord, and to him they were willing to render homage:
but to no mesne and subordinate Lords, nor were they willing to submit to any of the
baser services. In all this, they were so strenuous, that they have even transmitted
to their posterity, a very general contempt and detestation of holdings by quit rents:
As they have also an hereditary ardor for liberty and thirst for knowledge.
They were convinced by their knowledge of human nature derived from history and their
own experience, that nothing could preserve their posterity from the encroachments
of the two systems of tyranny, in opposition to which, as has been observed already,
they erected their government in church and state, but knowledge diffused generally
thro' the whole body of the people. Their civil and religious principles, therefore,
conspired to prompt them to use every measure, and take every precaution in their
power, to propagate and perpetuate knowledge. For this purpose they laid, very early
the foundations of colleges, and invested them with ample priviledges and emoluments;
and it is { 119 } { 120 } remarkable, that they have left among their posterity, so universal an affection
and veneration for those seminaries, and for liberal education, that the meanest of
the people contribute chearfully to the support and maintenance of them every year,
and that nothing is more generally popular than projections for the honour, reputation
and advantage of those seats of learning. But the wisdom and benevolence of our fathers
rested not here. They made an early provision by law, that every town consisting of
so many families, should be always furnished with a grammar school. They made it a
crime for such a town to be destitute of a grammar school master, for a few months,
and subjected it to an heavy penalty. So that the education of all ranks of people
was made the care and expence of the public in a manner, that I believe has been unknown
to any other people ancient or modern.
The consequences of these establishments we see and feel every day. A native of America
who cannot read and write is as rare an appearance, as a Jacobite or a Roman Catholic,
i. e. as rare as a Comet or an Earthquake. It has been observed, that we are all of
us, lawyers, divines, politicians and philosophers.2 And I have good authorities to say that all candid foreigners who have passed thro'
this country, and conversed freely with all sorts of people here, will allow, that
they have never seen so much knowledge and civility among the common people in any
part of the world. It is true, there has been among us a party for some years, consisting
chiefly not of the descendants of the first settlers of this country but of high churchmen
and high statesmen, imported since, who affect to censure this provision for the education
of our youth as a needless expence, and an imposition upon the rich in favour of the
poor—and as an institution productive of idleness and vain speculation among the people,
whose time and attention it is said ought to be devoted to labour, and not to public
affairs or to examination into the conduct of their superiours. And certain officers
of the crown, and certain other missionaries of ignorance, foppery, servility and
slavery, have been most inclined to countenance and increase the same party. Be it
remembred, however, that liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right
to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned, and bought
it for us, at the expence of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their
blood. And liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people,
who have a right from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator
who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know—but
besides this { 121 } they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible divine right to that
most dreaded, and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of
their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents and trustees for the people;
and if the cause, the interest and trust is insidiously betray'd, or wantonly trifled
away, the people have a right to revoke the authority, that they themselves have deputed,
and to constitute abler and better agents, attorneys and trustees. And the preservation
of the means of knowledge, among the lowest ranks, is of more importance to the public,
than all the property of all the rich men in the country. It is even of more consequence
to the rich themselves, and to their posterity. The only question is whether it is
a public emolument? and if it is, the rich ought undoubtedly to contribute in the
same proportion, as to all other public burdens, i. e. in proportion to their wealth
which is secured by public expences. But none of the means of information are more
sacred, or have been cherished with more tenderness and care by the settlers of America,
than the Press. Care has been taken, that the art of printing should be encouraged,
and that it should be easy and cheap and safe for any person to communicate his thoughts
to the public. And you, Messieurs Printers,3 whatever the tyrants of the earth may say of your paper, have done important service
to your country, by your readiness and freedom in publishing the speculations of the
curious. The stale, impudent insinuations of slander and sedition, with which the
gormandizers of power have endeavor'd to discredit your paper, are so much the more
to your honour; for the jaws of power are always opened to devour, and her arm is
always stretched out if possible to destroy, the freedom of thinking, speaking and
writing. And if the public interest, liberty and happiness have been in danger, from
the ambition or avarice of any great man or number of great men, whatever may be their4 politeness, address, learning, ingenuity and in other respects integrity and humanity,
you have done yourselves honour and your country service, by publishing and pointing
out that avarice and ambition. These views5 are so much the more dangerous and pernicious, for the virtues with which they may
be accompanied in the same character, and with so much the more watchful jealousy
to be guarded against.
“Curse on such virtues, they've undone their country.”6
Be not intimidated therefore, by any terrors, from publishing with the utmost freedom,
whatever can be warranted by the laws of your country; nor suffer yourselves to be
wheedled out of your liberty, by any pretences of politeness, delicacy or decency.
These as they are { 122 } often used, are but three different names, for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.
Much less I presume will you be discouraged by any pretences, that malignant's on
this side the water will represent your paper as factious and seditious, or that the Great on the other side the water
will take offence at them. This Dread of representation, has had for a long time in this province effects very similar to what the physicians
call an hydropho, or dread of water. It has made us delirious. And we have rushed
headlong into the water, till we are almost drowned, out of simple or phrensical fear
of it. Believe me, the character of this country has suffered more in Britain, by
the pusillanimity with which we have borne many insults and indignities from the creatures
of power at home, and the creatures of those creatures here, than it ever did or ever
will by the freedom and spirit that has been or will be discovered in writing, or
action. Believe me my countrymen, they have imbibed an opinion on the other side the
water, that we are an ignorant, a timid and a stupid people, nay their tools on this
side have often the impudence to dispute your bravery. But I hope in God the time
is near at hand, when they will be fully convinced of your understanding, integrity
and courage. But can any thing be more ridiculous, were it not too provoking to be
laughed at, than to pretend that offence should be taken at home for writings here?
Pray let them look at home. Is not the human understanding exhausted there? Are not
reason, imagination, wit, passion, senses and all, tortured to find out satyr and
invective against the characters of the vile and futile fellows who sometimes get
into place and power? The most exceptionable paper that ever I saw here, is perfect
prudence and modesty, in comparison of multitudes of their applauded writings. Yet
the high regard they have for the freedom of the Press, indulges all. I must and will
repeat it, your Paper deserves the patronage of every friend to his country. And whether
the defamers of it are arrayed in robes of scarlet or sable, whether they lurk and
skulk in an insurance office, whether they assume the venerable character of a Priest,
the sly one of a scrivener, or the dirty, infamous, abandoned one of an informer,
they are all the creatures and tools of the lust of domination.
The true source of our sufferings, has been our timidity.
MS not found. Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 30 Sept. 1765).
1. This section was printed in the Gazette with a prefatory note to readers that it was a “Continuation of the Piece begun [in]
our Paper of August the 12th, and continued in that of the 19th, upon the Canon and
Feudal Laws,” the first suggestion for a title for the essay.
2. This observation was made by Jonathan Mayhew when he wrote, “It may be added, that
the common people in New-England, by means of our schools, and the instructions of
our 'able, learned, orthodox, ministers,' are, and have all along been, philosophers
and divines in { 123 } comparison of the common people of England, of the communion of the church there established”
(Observations on the Charter and Conduct of the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel in Foreign Parts . . . , Boston, 1763, p. 45, Evans, No. 9441).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0052-0007
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1765-10-21
VI. “A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law,” No. 4
[dateline] [Monday, 21 October 1765]
WE have been afraid to think. We have felt a reluctance to examining into the grounds
of our privileges, and the extent in which we have an indisputable right to demand
them against all the power and authority, on earth. And many who have not scrupled
to examine for themselves, have yet for certain prudent reasons been cautious, and
diffident of declaring the result of their enquiries.
The cause of this timidity is perhaps hereditary and to be traced back in history,
as far as the cruel treatment the first settlers of this country received, before
their embarkation for America, from the government at Home. Every body knows how dangerous
it was to speak or write in favour of any thing in those days, but the triumphant
system of religion and politicks. And our fathers were particularly, the objects of
the persecutions and proscriptions of the times. It is not unlikely therefore, that,
although they were inflexibly steady in refusing their positive assent to any thing
against their principles, they might have contracted habits of reserve, and a cautious
diffidence of asserting their opinions publickly. These habits they probably brought
with them to America, and have transmitted down to us. Or, we may possibly account
for this appearance, by the great affection and veneration, Americans have always
entertained for the country from whence they sprang—or by the quiet temper for which
they have been remarkable, no country having been less disposed to discontent than
this—or by a sense they have, that it is their duty to acquiesce, under the administration
of government, even when in many smaller matters gravaminous to them, and until the
essentials of the great compact are destroy'd or invaded. These peculiar causes might
operate upon them; but without these we all know, that human nature itself, from indolence,
modesty, humanity or fear, has always too much reluctance to a manly assertion of
its rights. Hence perhaps it has happened that nine tenths of the species, are groaning
and gasping in misery and servitude.
{ 124 } But whatever the cause has been, the fact is certain, we have been excessively cautious
of giving offence by complaining of grievances. And it is as certain that American
governors, and their friends and all the crown officers have avail'd themselves of
this disposition in the people. They have prevailed on us to consent to many things,
which were grosly injurious to us, and to surrender many others with voluntary tameness,
to which we had the clearest right. Have we not been treated formerly, with abominable
insolence, by officers of the navy? I mean no insinuation against any gentleman now
on this station, having heard no complaint of any one of them to his dishonor. Have
not some generals, from England, treated us like servants, nay more like slaves than
like Britons? Have we not been under the most ignominious contribution, the most abject
submission, the most supercilious insults of some custom house officers? Have we not
been trifled with, browbeaten, and trampled on, by former governors, in a manner which
no king of England since James the second has dared to indulge towards his subjects?
Have we not raised up one family,1 in them placed an unlimitted confidence, and been soothed and battered and intimidated
by their influence, into a great part of this infamous tameness and submission? “These
are serious and alarming questions, and deserve a dispassionate consideration.”2
This disposition has been the great wheel and the mainspring in the American machine
of court politicks. We have been told that “the word 'Rights' is an offensive expression.”
That “the King his ministry and parliament will not endure to hear Americans talk
of their Rights.” That “Britain is the mother and we the children, that a filial duty
and submission is due from us to her,” and that “we ought to doubt our own judgment,
and presume that she is right, even when she seems to us to shake the foundations
of government.” That “Britain is immensely rich and great and powerful, has fleets
and armies at her command, which have been the dread and terror of the universe, and
that she will force her own judgment into execution, right or wrong.” But let me intreat
you Sir to pause and consider. Do you consider your self as a missionary of loyalty
or of rebellion? Are you not representing your King his ministry and parliament as
tyrants, imperious, unrelenting tyrants by such reasoning as this? Is not this representing
your most gracious sovereign, as endeavouring to destroy the foundations of his own
throne? Are you not putting language into the royal mouth, which if fairly pursued
will shew him to have no right to the crown on his own sacred head? Are you not representing
every member of parliament as renouncing the transactions at Running• { 125 } mede,3 and as repealing in effect the bill of rights, when the Lords and Commons asserted
and vindicated the rights of the people and their own rights, and insisted on the
King's assent to that assertion and vindication? Do you not represent them as forgetting
that the prince of Orange, was created King William by the People, on purpose that
their rights might be eternal and inviolable? Is there not something extremely fallacious,
in the common-place images of mother country and children colonies? Are we the children
of Great-Britain, any more than the cities of London, Exeter and Bath? Are we not
brethren and fellow subjects, with those in Britain, only under a somewhat different
method of legislation, and a totally different method of taxation? But admitting we
are children; have not children a right to complain when their parents are attempting
to break their limbs, to administer poison, or to sell them to enemies for slaves?
Let me intreat you to consider, will the mother, be pleased, when you represent her
as deaf to the cries of her children? When you compare her to the infamous miscreant,
who lately stood on the gallows for starving her child? When you resemble her to Lady
Macbeth in Shakespear, (I cannot think of it without horror)
Who “had given suck, and knew
How tender 'twas to love the Babe that milk'd her.”
But yet, who could
“Even while 'twas smiling in her Face,
Have pluck'd her Nipple from the boneless Gums,
And dash'd the Brains out.”
Let us banish forever from our minds, my countrymen, all such unworthy ideas of the
King, his ministry and parliament. Let us not suppose, that all are become luxurious
effeminate and unreasonable, on the other side the water, as many designing persons
would insinuate. Let us presume, what is in fact true, that the spirit of liberty,
is as ardent as ever among the body of the nation, though a few individuals may be
corrupted. Let us take it for granted, that the same great spirit, which once gave
Caesar so warm a reception; which denounced4 hostilities against John 'till Magna Charta was signed; which severed the head of
Charles the first from his body, and drove James the second from his kingdom; the
same great spirit (may heaven preserve it till the earth shall be no more) which first
seated the great grand father of his present most gracious Majesty, on the throne
of Britain, is still alive and active and warm in England; and that the same spirit
in America, instead of provoking the inhabitants of that country, will endear us to
them for ever and secure their good will.
{ 126 } This spirit however without knowledge, would be little better than a brutal rage.
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore the means of knowledge. Let us dare
to read, think, speak and write. Let every order and degree among the people rouse
their attention and animate their resolution. Let them all become attentive to the
grounds and principles of government, ecclesiastical and civil. Let us study the law
of nature; search into the spirit of the British constitution; read the histories
of ancient ages; contemplate the great examples of Greece and Rome; set before us,
the conduct of our own British ancestors, who have defended for us, the inherent rights
of mankind, against foreign and domestic tyrants and usurpers, against arbitrary kings
and cruel priests, in short against the gates of earth and hell. Let us read and recollect
and impress upon our souls, the views and ends, of our own more immediate forefathers,
in exchanging their native country for a dreary, inhospitable wilderness. Let us examine
into the nature of that power and the cruelty of that oppression which drove them
from their homes. Recollect their amazing fortitude, their bitter sufferings! The
hunger, the nakedness, the cold, which they patiently endured! The severe labours
of clearing their grounds, building their houses, raising their provisions amidst
dangers from wild beasts and savage men, before they had time or money or materials
for commerce! Recollect the civil and religious principles and hopes and expectations,
which constantly supported and carried them through all hardships, and patience and
resignation! Let us recollect it was liberty! The hope of liberty for themselves and
us and ours, which conquered all discouragements, dangers and trials! In such researches
as these let us all in our several departments chearfully engage! But especially the
proper patrons and supporters of law, learning and religion.
Let the pulpit resound with the doctrines and sentiments of religious liberty. Let
us hear the danger of thraldom to our consciences, from ignorance, extream poverty
and dependance, in short from civil and political slavery. Let us see delineated before
us, the true map of man. Let us hear the dignity of his nature, and the noble rank
he holds among the works of God! that consenting to slavery is a sacriligious breach
of trust, as offensive in the sight of God, as it is derogatory from our own honor
or interest or happiness; and that God almighty has promulgated from heaven, liberty,
peace, and good-will to man!
Let the Bar proclaim, “the laws, the rights, the generous plan of power,” delivered
down from remote antiquity; inform the world of { 127 } the mighty struggles, and numberless sacrifices, made by our ancestors, in defence
of freedom. Let it be known, that British liberties are not the grants of princes
or parliaments, but original rights, conditions of original contracts, coequal with
prerogative and coeval with government.—That many of our rights are inherent and essential,
agreed on as maxims and establish'd as preliminaries, even before a parliament existed.
Let them search for the foundations of British laws and government in the frame of
human nature, in the constitution of the intellectual and moral world. There let us
see, that truth, liberty, justice and benevolence, are its everlasting basis; and
if these could be removed, the superstructure is overthrown of course.
Let the colleges join their harmony, in the same delightful concern. Let every declamation
turn upon the beauty of liberty and virtue, and the deformity, turpitude and malignity
of slavery and vice. Let the public disputations become researches into the grounds
and nature and ends of government, and the means of preserving the good and demolishing
the evil. Let the dialogues and all the exercises, become the instruments of impressing
on the tender mind, and of spreading and distributing, far and wide, the ideas of
right and the sensations of freedom.
In a word, let every sluice of knowledge be open'd and set a flowing. The encroachments
upon liberty, in the reigns of the first James and the first Charles, by turning the
general attention of learned men to government, are said to have produced the greatest
number of consummate statesmen, which has ever been seen in any age, or nation. Your
Clarendons, Southamptons, Seldens, Hampdens, Faulklands, Sidneys, Locks, Harringtons,
are all said to have owed their eminence in political knowledge, to the tyrannies
of those reigns. The prospect, now before us, in America, ought in the same manner
to engage the attention of every man of learning to matters of power and of right,
that we may be neither led nor driven blindfolded to irretrievable destruction. Nothing
less than this seems to have been meditated for us, by somebody or other in Great-Britain.
There seems to be a direct and formal design on foot, to enslave all America. This
however must be done by degrees. The first step that is intended seems to be an entire
subversion of the whole system of our Fathers, by an introduction of the cannon and
feudal law, into America. The cannon and feudal systems tho' greatly mutilated in
England, are not yet destroy'd. Like the temples and palaces, in which the great contrivers
of them, once worship'd and inhabited, they exist in ruins; and much of the domineering
spirit of them still remains. The designs and labours of a cer• { 128 } tain society,5 to introduce the former of them into America, have been well exposed to the public
by a writer of great abilities,6 and the further attempts to the same purpose that may be made by that society, or
by the ministry or parliament, I leave to the conjectures of the thoughtful. But it
seems very manifest from the S—p A-t itself, that a design is form'd to strip us in
a great measure of the means of knowledge, by loading the Press, the Colleges, and
even an Almanack and a News-Paper, with restraints and duties; and to introduce the
inequalities and dependances of the feudal system, by taking from the poorer sort
of people all their little subsistance, and conferring it on a set of stamp officers,
distributors and their deputies. But I must proceed no further at present. The sequel,
whenever I shall find health and leisure to pursue it, will be a “disquisition of
the policy of the stamp act.”7 In the mean time however let me add, These are not the vapours of a melancholly mind,
nor the effusions of envy, disappointed ambition, nor of a spirit of opposition to
government: but the emanations of an heart that burns, for its country's welfare.
No one of any feeling, born and educated in this once happy country, can consider
the numerous distresses, the gross indignities, the barbarous ignorance, the haughty
usurpations, that we have reason to fear are meditating for ourselves, our children,
our neighbours, in short for all our countrymen and all their posterity, without the
utmost agonies of heart, and many tears.
MS not found. Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 21 Oct. 1765).
1. The family of Lt. Gov. Thomas Hutchinson. In Aug. 1765 JA had surveyed the multiplicity of public offices held by Hutchinson and his relatives
in Massachusetts and concluded that this constituted an “amazing ascendancy of one
Family” that was a “Foundation sufficient on which to erect a Tyranny” (Diary and Autobiography, 1:260).
2. The source of this quotation and those that follow has not been determined. For an
interesting analysis of the role of the parent-child analogy in Revolutionary thought,
see Edwin G. Burrows and Michael Wallace, “The American Revolution: the Ideology and
Psychology of National Liberation,” Perspectives in American History, 6 (1972): 167–306.
3. The version of the “Dissertation” in The True Sentiments of America contains a bracketed editorial insertion after “Runing Med”: “the meadow, near Windsor,
where Magna Charta was signed.”
5. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.
6. Jonathan Mayhew.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0053
Date: 1765-08-15
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
On the Pillaging of Andrew Oliver's Home
15 Aug. 1765. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:259–261. Probably designed as a newspaper contribution.
Printed (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:259–261).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0054-0001
Editorial Note
Although “A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law” was John Adams' first contribution
to the literature of the American Revolution, the Braintree Instructions about the
Stamp Act were the first defense of American rights publicly recognized as having
come from his pen. These Instructions, drafted in the first instance by Adams, then
approved with modifications by a Braintree town meeting, and finally broadcast through
Massachusetts in the Massachusetts Gazette and the Boston Gazette with additional variations, vigorously denounced the Stamp Act for depriving Americans
of their rights as Englishmen to be taxed only with their consent and to be tried
by juries of their peers. Adams advanced no novel principles and recommended no particularly
radical mode of opposition to parliamentary authority. Nevertheless, his instructions
deserve more than passing commentary because of the opportunity they offer both for
textual analysis of one of the more significant documents of the early Revolutionary
period and for a critical appraisal of the author's own subsequent account of their
history.
Writing in his Autobiography almost forty years after the events in question, Adams
composed the only extended description of the provenance of the Braintree Instructions
known to exist (Diary and Autobiography, 3:282–283). According to this account, Adams became alarmed by the Stamp Act sometime in 1765
and thereupon secured the approval of his fellow townsmen in Braintree for a petition
he had drawn up, calling for a town meeting in order “to instruct their Representatives
in Relation to the Stamps.” When this meeting convened, on 24 September, the towns
people chose Adams and four others to be a committee to prepare a set of instructions
for the town's representative. This committee immediately repaired to the home of
Samuel Niles, one of its members. There Adams presented his colleagues with a draft
set of instructions about the Stamp Act, which he had written some time prior to the
town meeting and { 130 } which that same day were “unanimously adopted [by the committee] without Amendment, reported to the Town and Accepted without a dissenting Voice.”
Several days later, Richard Draper, printer of the Massachusetts Gazette, asked Adams to furnish him with a copy of the Braintree Instructions—an indication,
perhaps, of the extent to which Adams' authorship was already known. Adams readily
complied with Draper's request, and the Instructions appeared in the 10 October 1765
issue of the Massachusetts Gazette—from which they were taken and reprinted four days later in the Boston Gazette. Once in print, Adams went on to recall, the Braintree Instructions made a profound
impression upon the freemen of the province. Forty other towns adopted them, “in so
many Words,” to guide their representatives during the session of the General Court
which began in the fall of 1765; even Samuel Adams, that master of propaganda, saw
fit to incorporate “some paragraphs” from the Braintree Instructions into those which
he wrote at this time for the town of Boston.
Although Adams' memory served him well in the reconstruction of some features of this
episode, it was either deficient or misleading in regard to at least three others.
He only partially explained the fundamental question of motivation, or what exactly
prompted him to write these particular Instructions at this particular time. That
he acted out of opposition to the Stamp Act, as the Autobiography implies, is indisputable.
But the question remains of why he waited till the fall of 1765 to call for a town
meeting to protest an act of Parliament that he had known about since the preceding
spring. This delay between awareness and action becomes comprehensible, when two events
that Adams forgot to mention in his Autobiography are taken into account. The first
was Governor Bernard's issuance of a proclamation, on 6 September, ordering a meeting
of the General Court for the 25th of the month, and the second, the arrival in Boston,
on 21 September, of the first consignment of stamp paper (Boston Post-Boy, 9, 23 Sept. 1765). While the one gave the voters their first opportunity after the
riots and tumults of the preceding August to reaffirm their opposition to the Stamp
Act through their regularly elected representatives, the other made it technically
possible to implement this measure on 1 November 1765, the date it was scheduled to
go into effect. The forthcoming session of the General Court provided Adams with the
occasion for writing the Braintree Instructions, and the arrival of the stamps almost
certainly lent a note of urgency to this work. The conjuncture of these two events,
combined with Adams' prior opposition to the Stamp Act, elicited these Instructions.
If Adams said too little in the Autobiography about specifically why he wrote the
Braintree Instructions, he claimed too much for their impact upon Massachusetts. His
assertion that they were adopted, “in so many Words,” by forty other towns in the
fall of 1765 does not stand up. A scrupulous examination of the town instructions
printed in the Boston newspapers (Boston Gazette, Boston Evening-Post, Boston Post-Boy, Massachusetts Gazette) for the period October–December 1765 reveals { 131 } that a few towns voted instructions that might have been inspired by those of Braintree,
but that many more did not. Thus, it is highly unlikely that Adams' Instructions were
nearly so effective in 1765 as he claimed in 1804.
Caution must also be observed with respect to Adams' version of the influence he exercised
over the writing of cousin Samuel's Boston Instructions. These received the approval
of the Boston town meeting, 18 September 1765, and were printed in the Boston Gazette five days later, thereby raising the possibility that it was Samuel who influenced
John, and not vice versa (Boston Record Commissioners, 16th Report, p. 155–156; Boston Gazette, 23 Sept. 1765). Besides preceding the Braintree Instructions in time, the Boston
Instructions show no evidence of the specific sort of influence which Adams described
in his Autobiography and during his controversy with Mercy Warren in 1807. In the
first he asserted that Samuel Adams had incorporated into the Boston Instructions
“some paragraphs” from a “Copy” of the Braintree Instructions furnished him by cousin
John; and in the second, that “Boston, whose instructions were drawn by Mr. Samuel
Adams, had, in the main essential point of all, adopted the sentiment and the very
expressions of my instructions” (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 3:283; same to Mercy Warren, 20 July 1807, MHS, Colls., 5th ser., 4 [1878]:341). But a close comparison of the two sets of instructions
shows that Boston's have absolutely none of the “paragraphs” and only several of the
“expressions” of Braintree's. The best one can say, therefore, is that although Adams
might have had some influence on the drafting of the Boston Instructions, it was neither
of the magnitude nor of the type that he claimed in his Autobiography.
In contrast, the textual history of the Braintree Instructions is considerably more
involved than one would gather from Adams' autobiographical account of it. There are
three distinct texts of the Instructions—Adams' own undated draft (No. I, below); the instructions approved by the town meeting of Braintree on 24 September
1765 (No. II, below); and the two identical newspaper printings of them (No. III, below). All express substantially the same general arguments—that the Stamp Act
was unconstitutional because it deprived Americans of their rights to taxation by
consent and trial by jury, and inexpedient because of the economic problems it would
produce in Massachusetts—but in several significant respects each one differs from
the others in content, tone, or phraseology. Consequently, one cannot accept Adams'
statement that Braintree approved his draft Instructions without any amendments, or
his insinuation that the newspapers printed them without any changes (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 3:282).
Adams' draft instructions breathed defiance. In addition to stating constitutional
and economic objections to the Stamp Act, they indirectly but unmistakably criticized
recent parliamentary acts affecting trade; reminded one and all that the august Parliament
was made up of mere men; questioned the learning and probity of some of the admiralty
judges; { 132 } and, most of all, descried a conspiracy of Parliament to enslave Americans.
Adams' draft was evidently too radical for his committee colleagues, or the members
of the town meeting, or both. In any case, the Instructions the town approved retained
the principal arguments against the Stamp Act that Adams had formulated, but omitted
his pointed allusion to recent parliamentary economic regulation as well as his sharp
comments about M.P.'s, admiralty judges, and enslavement. These changes made the officially
adopted Instructions less radical than Adams' draft in content and in tone; yet the
net effect was still a forthright defense of colonial rights against an allegedly
unconstitutional exercise of parliamentary authority. Whether these modifications
were made with or without Adams' consent is impossible to determine. Nor are there
any specific explanations, contemporary or otherwise, for why they were made at all.
Conceivably they might have resulted from the publication, twelve days before the
town meeting convened, of news from England of the formation of the Rockingham ministry,
which was known to be sympathetic to America (Massachusetts Gazette, 12 Sept. 1765). But this is only speculation.
The variations between the Instructions in the newspapers and in the Braintree Town Records are verbal rather than substantive, except for some sentences printed out of order.
In at least this respect, the newspaper text differs significantly from the other
two. Once again, however, it is impossible to say whether these variations originated
with Adams as he was making a copy of the official Instructions for Draper's use,
or with Draper as he was putting this copy through the press for publication in the
Massachusetts Gazette. In two instances a word appears in the newspaper that is in Adams' draft but not
in the voted Instructions. Clearly, Draper saw the draft or Adams supplied the words
verbally.
Charles Francis Adams included in his edition of John Adams' Works (3:465–468) only the text of the Braintree Instructions from the 14 October 1765
Boston Gazette. So that the intricate evolution of one of Adams' more important early public writings
may be followed, the present editors have reprinted John Adams' draft, the Instructions
adopted by the Braintree town meeting, and the Instructions printed in the Massachusetts Gazette, 10 October 1765. Benjamin Franklin sent the Braintree Instructions as well as those
of Boston for publication in the London Chronicle, where they appeared in January 1766. Franklin's accompanying note explained that
American opposition to the Stamp Act had not occurred out of “niggardliness” (Franklin, Papers, 13:26–28).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0054-0002
Date: 1765-09-24
I. Adams' Original Draft
[addrLine] To Ebenezer Thayer Esqr1
[dateline] [Braintree, ante 24 September 1765]
[salute] Sir
[addrLine] To Ebenezer Thayer Esqr1
In all the Calamities, which have ever befallen this our dear native Country, <since our the first settlement> within the Memory of the { 133 } oldest of Us all, We have never felt So <great and> sincere a Grief, and Concern or So many Allarming Fears and Apprehensions, as at
the present Time. We have many of Us lived to see, both Pestilence and Scarcity, and
the Encroachments And <Depredations,> Hostilities of <French and Indian> bitter, subtle and powerful Enemies, but We never yet apprehended, our Liberties
and Fortunes and our very Being, in any real Danger, till now. It was the Saying of
a great Statesman that “Britain, could never be undone but by a British Parliament.”
In the same Manner We may truly say, that such is our affectionate and dutiful Loyalty
<to our King> and Devotion to our most gracious King, such our profound Reverence and Veneration
for both Houses of Parliament, and such our Love, Esteem, and Friendship to all our
fellow subjects in Britain, that it is that Country and that Parliament only, <that and by means of our> that could enslave and destroy us.2 And We can no longer forbear complaining, that, to our infinite astonishment We Apprehend
we have Reason to fear, that <Designs> Plans have been formed in that Country, and Measures pursued with a direct and formal
Intention to enslave Us. We apprehend that great Evidence of such a Design may be
deduced from the late Acts of Parliament restricting, and burdening and embarrassing
our Trade: but We shall confine ourselves at present chiefly to the Evidence that
Results, from what is called the stamp Act.3
By this Act a very burdensome, and in our apprehension, unconstitutional Tax is to
be laid upon us all.—and by the same Act we are all of Us subjected to numerous and
enormous Penalties and Forfeitures, for Violations of that Act, seventy shillings
to fifty Pounds Sterlg. which are at the option of an Informer to be prosecuted, sued
for and recovered in a Court of Admiralty, without a Jury.4
We have called this a burdensome Tax, because, the Duties are so numerous and so high,
and the Embarrassments to Business, in this infant Country, sparcely settled as it
is, would be so great that it would in our opinion be totally impossible for the People
to subsist under it, even if We had no Controversy at all about the Right and Authority
of imposing it. We have Reason to think that the Execution of that Act for <much less space than one year> a short Space of time, considering the present Scarcity of Money, would dreign the
Country of <every shilling of> its Cash, <and reduce Multi> strip Multitudes of the poorer People of all their Property and reduce them to absolute
Beggary. And what the Consequences of so sudden a shock and such a convulsive Change
in the whole Course of our Business, and subsistence, would be to the Peace of the
Province, we tremble to consider.
{ 134 } We further apprehend this Tax to be unconstitutional. By the great Charter of Liberties,
no Amerciament is to be imposed, but by the oaths of good and lawful Men of the Vicinage,
and no Freeman is to be disseized of his Freehold &c but by the Judgment of his Peers
&c or Law of the Land.—And We have always understood it to be a grand and fundamental
Principle of the British Constitution that no Freeman should be subjected to any Tax
to which he has not given his own Consent in Person or by Proxy. And indeed, the Maxims
of the Common Law, as we have hitherto received them, are to the same Effect that
a Man and his Property cannot be seperated but by his own Act or fault. And we have
heard and read in <History> the History of other Countries, now groaning under the Iron scepter of Tyranny, that
they were always able to vindicate their Rights and Liberties, as long as they maintained
stedfastly the aforesaid Maxims, but that cruel, and arbitrary Government, commenced
in those Countries from the very Period, when the Right and Power of Taxation was
surrendered by the People.5 We take it clearly therefore to be inconsistent with the Spirit of the Common Law,
and with the essential Fundamental Principles of the British Constitution, that We
should be subjected to any Tax, imposed by the British Parliament, which with all
its transcendant Power, and truly respectable and venerable Character and Authority,
is but an Assembly of Men,6 and an Assembly in which, we are not represented, in any Sense unless it be by a
Fiction of Law, as insensible and irrational in Nature, as it will be injurious in
fact if so cruel a Taxation should be grounded on it.
But the most cruel, and grievous, and as we esteem it, unjust Innovation of all, in
the Act aforesaid, is the alarming Extension of the Powers of Courts of Admiralty,
in the Plantations. In these Courts one Judge alone, presides.—No Juries, have any
Concern there.—The Judges Commissions are only during Pleasure.—Nay, the most mischievous
of all immaginable Customs has become established there, that of taking Commissions
on all Condemnations—so that the Judge, single and dependant as he is, is under a
pecuniary Temptation always against the subject. Now if the Wisdom and spirit of liberty
of the Mother Country has thought the impartial Administration of Justice of so great
Importance, as to render the Judges independant of every Power on Earth, independant
of the King, the Lords, the Commons, the People, nay independant in Hope and Expectation
of the Heir apparent to the Crown, by continuing their Commissions in Force even in
the Case of a Demise of the Crown, what Justice and Impartiality are we, at three
thousands miles distance from the fountain, to { 135 } expect from a single Judge, without a Jury, dependant, perhaps ignorant perhaps wicked—for
<all these> some of these are certain, many of them probable, all of them possible Cases.7 We have all along thought, the Late Acts relative to Trade in this Respect a Grievance,
to the Persons concerned and of Consequence to the whole Community: But the Stamp
Act has created a vast Number of Sources of new Crimes and offences, which may, be
committed by every Man in the province, and cannot but be committed by Multitudes,
and prodigious Penalties and Punishments annexed and all these are to be tryd by the
Judge described before. What after all this can be wanting but the Appointment of
a weak or a wicked Man for a Judge, which may happen by Accident or Design, without
any fault of any Branch or Member of Parliament, to render Us the most sordid and
forlorn Slaves who live upon the Earth.
We cannot help Observing therefore that this Act, “will make such a Distinction, and
create such a Difference between <great Britain and America> the subjects of our most gracious sovereign, in Great Britain,” and those in “America,”
as would have come more consistently, from “an Enemy to both,” than from the wise,
and noble and Royal Guardians of Liberty in Both.”
Resolves—
As these, Sir, are our Sentiments of that Act, We must enjoin it upon You, to comply
with no Measures or Proposals <for> Countenancing, and assisting, in the Execution of that Act, but by all lawful Means
to oppose, the Execution of it, till We can hear, the success of the Cries and Petitions
of America, for Relief. Nor can We think it adviseable to agree to any extraordinary,
or expensive, Exertions for the Protection of Stamped Papers or Stamp officers.—There
are already good and wholesome and sufficient Laws for the Preservation of the public
Peace and for the Protection of all Persons and goods—and We apprehend there is no
danger of further Tumults and Disorders, to which we have a well grounded aversion;
and We therefore take it that Extraordinary steps would tend rather to exasperate,
and endanger the public Peace rather than the Contrary.
And indeed We cannot too often inculcate upon you, our Desires, that all, extraordinary
and expensive, Grants and Measures may upon all occasions be avoided. A great Part
of the Public Money is Toil and labour of the People, who are under many uncommon
Difficulties and Distresses, at the present Time. So that all reasonable frugality
ought, by all Means to be observed: and We must recommend Particularly, { 136 } a careful Enquiry, and the Utmost firmness and Caution to prevent all unconstitutional
Draughts upon the public Treasury.8
And We cannot avoid saying, upon this occasion, that if a particular Enquiry into
the state of that Treasury should at the first Leisure opportunity be promoted, and
an exact state [there]of published to the People, it might have a very good and Useful Tendency.
We should think ourselves guilty of great Impiety to the Memory of our Fore fathers,
of cruel Inhumanity to our Posterity and of great Injustice to our selves, nay We
should dishonour the Name and Character of British subjects, in which we glory, and
should even blush before our fellow subjects in great Britain if we tamely and silently
saw our Rights and Liberties wrested from Us.—We cannot but recommend therefore the
most clear and explicit Assertion and Vindication of our Rights, to be entered on
the Public Records, that the World may know both in the present and all future Generations,
that We have a just and clear Knowledge of those Rights and Liberties, and that We
have the jealous Watchful Spirit of true Britons, over all Attempts to take them from
Us and that with submission to divine Providence we never can be slaves.
Dft (Adams Papers); docketed by JA in his late hand: “Instructions to the Representative of Braintree against the Stamp
Act 1765,” and by CFA: “First draught—the instructions as adopted are to be found in the Boston Gazette
14 October 1765.”
1. Capt. Ebenezer Thayer Jr. (1721–1794), Braintree's representative in the Massachusetts General Court from 1760 to 1775.
3. In the voted Instructions, the reference to “Plans ... to enslave Us” and to legislation
affecting trade is softened to “many of the measures of the late ministry and Some
of the late Acts of Parliament have a Tendency in our apprehension to divest us of
some of our most Essential Rights and Liberties.”
4. By making vice-admiralty courts an alternative to common law courts with their juries,
Parliament at a stroke expanded their powers—jurisdiction over offenses committed
on the high seas—to include trying violations against the Stamp Act, making these
courts “revenue courts, with powers which in England were delegated to the Court of
the Exchequer, a common-law tribunal” (Carl Ubbelohde, The Vice-Admiralty Courts and the American Revolution, Chapel Hill, 1960, p. 75–76).
5. In the voted Instructions this entire passage on the record of history is omitted.
8. The reference here is probably to any unconstitutional attempt to secure compensation
to the sufferers from the Stamp Act riots. In his speech to the General Court, Governor
Bernard was to warn that compensation be freely made lest a requisition be made on
the legislature (Hutchinson, Massachusetts Bay, ed. Mayo, 3:94, 337).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0054-0003
Recipient: Braintree, town of
Recipient: Ebenezer, Thayer
Date: 1765-09-24
II. Instructions Adopted by the Braintree Town Meeting
[dateline] [Braintree]1765 Septr. 24
The Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the Town of Braintree Qualifyd to vote in
Town affairs being assembled at the Meeting House in the Middle Precinct of said Town
pursuant to warrants for assembling said Town To inform their Representative Respecting
their Sentiments Relative to the Stamp Act And other matters of Grievance, Also to
see if the Town will instruct their Representative on this important and allarming
occasion, Assembled as aforesaid Mr. Norton Quincey Mod[erato]r.
Voted Samll. Niles Esqr., John Adams Esqr., Mr Norton Quincy, Deacon James Penniman
and Captn. John Hayward be a Committee to draw instructions for their Representative
and present the Same to the Town. The aforesaid Committee Presented the following
draught to the Town.
[addrLine] To Ebenezer Thayer Esqr.
[salute] Sir
In all the Calamities that have ever befallen this Country we have never felt so great
a Concern nor so many allarming apprehensions as at this time. Such is our Loyalty
to the King, such our veneration for both Houses of Parliament and Such our Freindship
to all our fellow Subjects in Britain that measures which Seem to discover any unkindness
towards us in that Country are the more Sensibly and intimately felt. And we can no
longer forbear Complaining that many of the measures of the late ministry and Some
of the late Acts of Parliament have a Tendency in our apprehension to divest us of
some of our most Essential Rights and Liberties.
We Shall confine our Selves however Cheifly to the Act of Parliament Commonly Called
the Stamp Act by which a very burthensome and in our opinion unconstitutional Tax
is to be laid upon us all: and we are Subjected to numerous and enormous Penalties
which are to be prosecuted, Sued for and recovered at the option of an Informer at
a Court of Admiralty without a Jury. We have called this a burthensome Tax because
the duties are so numerous and so high and the embarrassments to Business in this
infant Sparcely Settled Country so great that it would be totally impossible for the
people to Subsist under it even if we had no Controversy att all about the Right and
authority of imposing it Considering the present Scarcity of money. We have Reason
to think the Execution of that act for a Short Space { 138 } of time would dreign the Country of Cash, Strip multitudes of the Poorer people of
all their property and Reduce them to absolute beggary. And what the Consequence would
be of so Sudden a Shock and Such a Convulsive Change in the whole Course of our business
and Subsistance, to the peace of the Province We tremble to consider.
We further apprehend this Tax to be unconstitutional, By the great Charter no americament
shall be assessed but by the oath of Honest and Lawfull men of the Vicinage. And by
the Same Charter no Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his Freehold
or Liberties or Free Customs nor passed upon nor Condemned but by Lawfull Judgment
of his Peers or by the Law of the Land: And we have Always understood it to be a grand
and fundamental principal of the British Constitution that no Freeman should be Subjected
to any Tax to which he has not given his own Consent in person or by proxy. And the
maxims of the Law as we have Constantly Received them are to the Same Effect that
no Freeman can be Seperated from his property but by his own act or Fault. We take
it clearly therefore to be inconsistant with the Spirit of the Common Law and of the
Essential Fundamentall principles of the British Constitution that we should be Subjected
to any Tax imposed by the British Parliament because we are not Represented in that
assembly in any sense unless it be by a Fiction of Law as insensible in Theory as
it would be Injurious in Fact if so heavy a Taxation should be grounded on it. But
the most Grievous of all is the allarming Extension of the Powers of Courts of Admiralty.
In these Courts one Judge presides alone, no Juries have any Concern there, the Law
and the Fact are to be decided by the Same Single Judge whose Commission is only during
pleasure and with whom as we are told the most mischievous of all Customs has become
established that of taking Commissions on all Condemnations so that he is under a
pecuniary temptation always against the Subject. Now if the wisdom of the Mother Country
has thought the Independency of the Judge[s] so Essential to an impartial Administration of Justice as to Render them Independent
of any Power on Earth, Independent of the King, the Lords, the Commons and the People,
nay Independent in Hope and Expectation of the Heir apparent by Continuing their Commissions
in Case of a Demise of the Crown, What Justice and Impartiallity are we at Three thousand
miles distance from the fountain to expect from Such a Judge of Admiralty. We all
along thought the Acts of Trade in this Respect a grievance, But the Stamp Act has
erected a vast Number of Sources of New Crimes which may be Committed by any Man and
Cannot but be Committed by multitudes and { 139 } Prodigious Penalties are annexed and all these to be tryed by such a Judge of Such
a Court; What can be wanting after this but a weak or wicked Man for a Judge to Render
us the most Sordid and forlorn of Slaves. We mean the Slaves of a Slave of the Servant
of a Minister of State.1
We cannot help asserting therefore that this part of the Act will make an Essential
Change in the Constitution of Juries with Regard to us, is directly repugnant to Magna
Charta it Self and will make Such a distinction and Create such a difference between
Great Brittain and America as we could not have Expected from the Guardian of Liberty
in both.
As these Sir are our Sentiments of that Act we the Freeholders and other Inhabitants
Legally assembled for that Purpose must enjoin it upon you to comply with no Measures
or Proposalls for countenancing the same or assisting in the Execution of it but by
all Lawfull means consistent with our allegiance to the King and Relation to Great
Britain2 to oppose the Execution of it till we can hear the Success of the Cries and Petitions
of America for relief.
We further Recommend the most Clear and Explicit assertion and vindication of our
Rights and Liberties to be entered on the Public Records that the world may know in
the Present and all future Generations that We have a Clear Knowledge and a just Sense
of those Rights and Liberties and that with Submission to divine Providence we never
can be Slaves.
Nor can We think it adviseable to agree to any Steps for the Protection of Stamp Papers
or Stamp officers. Good and wholesome Laws we have already for the Preservation of
the Public peace. And we apprehend there is no further danger of Tumults and disorders
to which We have a well Grounded aversion. And that any Extraordinary and Expensive
Exertions would tend to exasperate the People and endanger the Public tranquility
rather than the Contrary.
Indeed We cannot too often Inculcate upon you our desires that all Extraordinary and
Expensive Grants and Measures may upon all occasions as much as possible be avoided.
The Public money of this Country is the Toil and Labour [of the People] who are under many uncommon difficulties and Distresses at this time so that all
reasonable Frugality ought to be observed. And we would Recommend Particularly the
strictest Care and Firmness to prevent all unconstitutional Draughts upon the Public
Treasury. And we cannot avoid Saying that if a particular Enquiry into the state of
that Treasury should at the { 140 } first leasure opportunity be promoted and an Exact State of it published to the People
it would have a very good and usefull Tendency.
All which is Humbly Submitted by the Committee of the Town of Braintree to draw Instructions
to their Representative.
[signed] Saml. Niles
[signed] John Adams
[signed] Norton Quincey
[signed] James Penniman
[signed] John Hayward
CommitteeThe above Report being read before the Town was Voted Accepted and ordered a Copy
of the Same be Transmitted to their Representative.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0054-0004
Recipient: Massachusetts Gazette (newspaper)
Recipient: Thayer, Col. Ebenezer
Date: 1765-10-10
III. Instructions as Printed in the Massachusetts Gazette
[dateline] [10 October 1765]
We hear from Braintree that the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of that Town, legally
assembled on Tuesday the Twenty fourth of September last, unanimously voted, that
Instructions should be given their Representative, for his Conduct in General Assembly,
on this great Occasion—The Substance of these Instructions is as follows:
To EBENEZER THAYER, Esq.
SIR,
“In all the Calamities which have ever befallen this Country, we have never felt so
great a Concern, or such alarming Apprehensions,1 as on this Occasion.—Such is our Loyalty to the King, our Veneration for both Houses
of Parliament, and our Affection for all our Fellow subjects in Britain, that Measures,
which discover any Unkindness in that Country towards Us, are the more sensibly and
intimately felt. And we can no longer forbear complaining, that many of the Measures
of the late Ministry, and some of the late Acts of Parliament, have a Tendency, in
our Apprehension, to divest us of our most essential Rights and Liberties.—We shall
confine ourselves, however, chiefly to the Act of Parliament, commonly called the
Stamp- { 141 } Act, by which a very burthensome, and in our Opinion, unconstitutional Tax, is to
be laid upon us all; and we subjected to numerous and enormous Penalties, to be prosecuted,
sued for, and recovered, at the Option of an Informer, in a Court of Admiralty without
a Jury.
We have called this a burthensome Tax, because the Duties are so numerous and so high,
and the Embarrassments to Business in this infant, sparsely-settled Country, so great,
that it would be totally impossible for the People to subsist under it, if we had
no Controversy at all about the Right and Authority of imposing it. Considering the
present Scarcity of Money, we have Reason to think, the Execution of that Act for
a short Space of Time would drein the Country of its Cash, strip Multitudes of all
their Property, and reduce them to absolute Beggary. And what the Consequence would
be to the Peace of the Province, from so sudden a Shock and such a convulsive Change,
in the whole Course of our Business and Subsistence, we tremble to consider.—We further
apprehend this Tax to be unconstitutional: We have always understood it to be a grand
and fundamental Principle of the Constitution, that no Freeman should be subjected
to any Tax, to which he has not given his own Consent, in Person or by Proxy. And
the Maxims of the Law as we have constantly received them, are to the same Effect,
that no Freeman can be separated from his Property, but by his own Act or Fault. We
take it clearly, therefore, to be inconsistent with the Spirit of the Common Law,
and of the essential fundamental Principles of the British Constitution, that we should
be subjected to any Tax, imposed by the British Parliament: because we are not represented
in that Assembly in any Sense, unless it be by a Fiction of Law, as insensible in
Theory as it would be injurious in Practice, if such a Taxation should be grounded
on it.
But the most grievous Innovation2 of all, is the alarming Extension of the Power of Courts of Admiralty. In these Courts,
one Judge presides alone! No Juries have any Concern there!—The Law, and the Fact,
are both to be decided by the same single Judge, whose Commission is only during Pleasure,
and with whom, as we are told, the most mischievous of all Customs has become established,
that of taking Commissions on all Condemnations; so that he is under a pecuniary Temptation
always against the Subject. Now, if the Wisdom of the Mother Country has thought the
Independency of the Judges, so essential to an impartial Administration of Justice,
as to render them independent of every Power on Earth, independent of the King, the
Lords, the Commons, the People, nay independent, in Hope and Expectation, of the Heir
apparent, by continuing their Commissions { 142 } after a Demise of the Crown; What Justice and Impartiality are we, at 3000 Miles distance
from the Fountain to expect from such a Judge of Admiralty? We have all along thought
the Acts of Trade in this Respect a Grievance: but the Stamp-Act has opened a vast
Number of Sources of new Crimes, which may be committed by any Man, and cannot, but
be committed by Multitudes, and prodigious Penalties are annexed, and all these are
to be tried by such a Judge of such a Court!—What can be wanting, after this, but
a weak or wicked Man for a Judge, to render Us the most sordid and forlorn of Slaves?
We mean the Slaves of a Slave of the Servants of a Minister of State:—We cannot help asserting therefore, that
this Part of the Act will make an essential Change in the Constitution of Juries,
and is directly repugnant to the Great Charter itself. For by that Charter “No Amerciament
shall be assessed, but by the Oath of honest and lawful Men of the Vicinage.”—And
“No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized of his Freehold, or Liberties,
or free Customs, nor passed upon, nor condemned, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers,
or by the Law of the Land.”3—So that this Act will “make such a Distinction, and create such a Difference between”
the Subjects in Great-Britain, and those in America as we could not have expected
from the Guardians of Liberty in “Both.”
As these, Sir, are our Sentiments of that Act, We, the Freeholders and other Inhabitants, legally
assembled for this Purpose, must enjoin it upon you, to comply with no Measures or
Proposals for countenancing the same, or assisting in the Execution of it, but by
all lawful Means, consistent with our Allegiance to the King, and Relation to Great
Britain, to oppose the Execution of it, till we can hear the Success of the Cries
and Petitions of America for Relief.
We further recommend the most clear and explicit Assertion and Vindication of our
Rights and Liberties, to be entered on the Public Records; that the World may know,
in the present and all future Generations, that we have a clear Knowledge and a just
Sense of them, and, with Submission to Divine Providence, that we never can be Slaves.
Nor can we think it adviseable to agree to any Steps for the Protection of stamped
Papers, or Stamp-Officers.—Good and wholsome Laws we have already, for the Preservation
of the Peace: And we apprehend there is no further Danger of Tumult and Disorder,—to
which we have a well-grounded Aversion; and that any extraordinary and expensive Exertions,
would tend to exasperate the People and endanger the public Tranquility, rather than
the contrary.—Indeed we cannot { 143 } too often inculcate upon you our Desires, that all extraordinary Grants and expensive
Measures, may, upon all Occasions, as much as possible be avoided.—The Public Money,
of this Country, is the Toil and Labour of the People, who are under many uncommon
Difficulties and Distresses, at this Time: So that all reasonable Frugality ought
to be observed. And we would recommend particularly, the strictest Care, and the utmost
Firmness to prevent all unconstitutional Draughts upon the Public Treasury.
Reprinted from (Draper's Massachusetts Gazette, 10 Oct. 1765).
3. The preceding two sentences do not follow the order of the text of the Braintree Instructions.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0055
Recipient: Braintree, town of
Date: 1765-09-30
Report of the Braintree Committee for the Sale of the North Common
[dateline] [Braintree,]1765 Septr. 30
The Committee appointed by the Town for the Sale of the North Commons1 offered their Report to the Town and therewith exhibited a number of Bonds payable
to the Treasurer of said Town being the produce of the Sale of said Commons together
with the account of their Expences.2 The Report as follows (viz.). We the subscribers the Committee appointed to make
Sale of the North Commons beg leave to report that We have attended that Service and
Sold the whole of said Commons except as is hereafter excepted according to our Commission
and taken Bonds of the Purchasers for the Considerations of their Deeds. A List of
which Bonds as also an account of our Services and Expences in taking the Plans of
said Commons and in Selling the same, giving the Deeds and taking the Bonds is herewith
exhibited and likewise a list of the Promisory Notes still remaining in our hands
which were given as Earnest by those Persons who bid off Lotts in said Commons but
have refused to take Deeds. We ask leave further to report that we have given Notice
to the Late Leasees of said North Commons to meet us in order to an accommodation
of the Controversies between the Town and the said Lessees respecting the Fences and
the Stones but We have not been able to accomplish such a settlement. One exception
we are oblidged to make in the List of Deeds and Bonds (viz.), that to Luke Lambert
which we have not been able to ac• { 144 } complish neither Bond nor Deed being executed according to expectation.
[signed] John Adams
[signed] Samll. Niles
[signed] Jonathan Bass
The above Report was voted accepted and the account, Bonds and Promisory Notes was
Lodged with the Treasurer of said Town. The amount of the whole of said Bonds was
[blank in MS].3
Then voted the aforesaid Committee be directed and impowered to Call on the late Lessees
of said Commons to settle their obligations Respecting the fences also to give an
account of and Secure the Town for stones carried off said Lands during the three
last years of their Lease and those that neglect or refuse to settle with said Committee
within six weeks next ensuing said Committee to Prosecute and Sue for the same in
the Name and Behalf of the Town.4
MS (Braintree Town Records, 1731–1783, p. 237); in hand of Elisha Niles, town clerk.
2. This and other accompanying documents mentioned herein have not been found.
3. JA described the committee's energetic efforts to sell the North Common: “We handled
the Mallett ourselves as Vendue Masters and finished all the Sales in one Night.”
JA himself bought two lots of the North Common land and admitted that he would have
purchased more “if the awfull Prospect of publick affairs had not discouraged me”
(Diary and Autobiography, 3:280). Deeds for the lots sold to JA and for a single lot sold to his brother Peter Boylston Adams are in Adams Papers, Adams Office Files, Pattee lists other purchasers (Old Braintree and Quincy, p. 38–40).
4. On the following 21 Oct. JA's committee and the North Common lessees agreed on five arbiters of the dispute.
This panel submitted its recommendations on 25 Nov., and the original committee's
report urging adoption of this settlement and submitting the lessees' final accounts
for stones from the Common was accepted by the town meeting on 27 Aug. 1766 (Braintree Town Records, p. 412). Pattee's comment is worth quoting: “Thus ended the strifes, contentions,
litigations and ill-feelings that [the disposition of Braintree's common lands] had
engendered in the town between neighbors, friends and citizens for a century and a
quarter; it also removed a great element that was yearly manipulated and used in the
interest of politicians at the election of town officers in jobbing out the town common
to the friends of the successful candidates” (Old Braintree and Quincy, p. 40).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0056
Recipient: Adams, John
Date: 1765-10-05
From Jonathan Sewall
[dateline] Charlestown 5th. Octr. 1765
[salute] Dear Bror: Adams
The Bearers John Oliver and Michael Nagail are indicted of the ignominious narrow-Soul'd
Crime of Sheep-stealing (at Taunton Superior Court). They depended on my going down
to defend them { 145 } but my Business at Boston Court prevents me. I have therefore advised them to you;
they intend also to engage Colo: White1 with you.
Their Defence principally rests on these two points which they expect to prove, namely,
that they bonâ fide, bought and paid for as many Sheep as were ever seen in their
Drove, and that some of them were mark'd with the same Marks as Colo. Northrop's,
whose they are charged with stealing. The proof against them is this, Colo. Northrop
will swear that at, or near, the Time when they passed by his Farm he lost the Number
of Sheep mentioned in the Indictment, which, as I remember is 50. or upwards. One
Ezekiel Gardner swears that about the same Time he lost 15. out of his pasture, and
hearing that Oliver and Nagail were seen in his pasture, he pursued them and found
his 15. Sheep and they delivered them up to him; and at the same Time he saw a Number
of Sheep in their Drove with Colo. Northrop's mark. This is the material Evidence
against which you are sensible is clearly avoided, if they can prove they bought Sheep
with the same Mark, and bought the full Number which they brot: home with them (unless
the Kings Attorney can prove that they disposed of 50. before they reach'd home; which
he cannot do.) Observe, I dont find that any one will swear he saw in their Drove
to the Number of Fifty, with Colo. Northrops Mark, or near that Number, but only that they saw some, and this (if they bonâ fide bought of another person, some with the same Mark) proves nothing.
But let me just add, that even if our Clients Should fail in their proof; yet if it
be considered with Attention how difficult it is, when passing thro' the Country with
a Drove, to prevent other sheep from mixing with them; when the Drove are frequently
jumping over into pastures, and the Sheep in Inclosures jumping into the Road when
they hear the bleating of a large Drove, how easily others mark'd precisely, or nearly,
in the same Manner, may get among them unobserved by the Drovers; and if it be considered
that the Intention constitutes the Crime. These Things being attended to, I say, the Jury ought to have clear proof of an Intention
to steal, before they can declare them guilty, even tho' they should be satisfyed
that some of Northrops Sheep were in their Drove. The Evidence which would prove Conversion,
in Case he had brought Trover for the Sheep, will by no Means prove a Theft.
I hint these Things to you not because I think my Head is better than your's, but because two Heads are better than one; on the Credit of which proverb you know the Boy advised his Father to take the Dog with him.
{ 146 } As I really believe them innocent I am concerned for them, and beg you would exert
your Talents in their Defence, for which I hope they will give you a hansome Fee.
I am with great Affection, Your hearty Friend and Bror. (in Law),
[signed] Jon. Sewall
1. Samuel White (1710–1769), attorney in Bristol co. and speaker of the House of Representatives, 1759, 1764–1766
(Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates, 9:110–112). Apparently JA failed to join White in defending Oliver and Nagail, since there is no mention of
these defendants in JA's legal records nor any indication of a connection between them in the Superior Court
of Judicature Records.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0057
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1765-10-14
Humphrey Ploughjogger to the Boston Gazette
[dateline] Monday, October 14, 1765
[salute] MessieursEdes & Gill,
I Han't rit nothing to be printed a great while:1 but I can't sleep a nights, one wink hardly, of late. I hear so much talk about the
stamp act and the governor's speech,2 that it seems as if 'twould make me crazy. The governor has painted a dreadful picture
of the times after the first of November—I hate the thoughts of the first of November.
I hope twill be a great storm, and black and gloomy weather, as our faces and hearts
will all be. Tis worse than all the fifth of Novembers3 that ever was. The Pope never did half so much mischief, as that stamp act will do,
if the world stands as long as the Pope has done. However, seems to me the governor
has represented the times worse than they will be. For in the first place they do
say, that thieves and robbers and rioters, ay and lyars too, and all sorts of rogues,
may be punish'd as well after the stamp act takes place as before. And as to suing
poor folks for money, that does no body no good but the lawyers. But as to trade and
shipping and such like, it seems to me we had better be without the most of that than
with it—for it only makes rum and such things cheap, and so makes folks drink toddy
and flip instead of cyder, when they an't half so good and holsome—and it mades [makes] us all beaus, and dresses us up fine. We got into a way on't o late,—our young men
buy them blue surtouts, with fine yellow buttons, and boughton broad cloth coats jackets
and breeches—and our young women wear callicoes, chinces and laces, and other nicknacks
to make them fine. But the naughty jacks and trollops must leave off such vanity,
and go to nitting and spinning. I always used to keep a comely boughten coat to go
to meeting in, but I'le vow I'le { 147 } never put it on again after first November, if the stamp act takes place; I'le cut
up the hide of my fat Ox that I'm fatting for my winter's beef first, and make a coat
of that, with the hair on. I'm sure I could be edified as much with the sermon, as
if I had on a royal robe, and be as warm in it too. I've read somewhere that the folks
in old England before Caesar went there, wore such skins of beasts, and yet loved
liberty, and knew how to keep it too. I don't believe our young folks would love to
dance together at husking frolicks, and to kiss one another a bit the less, if they
wore woolen shirts and shifts of their own making, than they do now in their fine
ones. I do say, I won't buy one shilling worth of any thing that comes from old England,
till the stamp act is appeal'd, nor I won't let any of my sons and daughters; I'de
rather the Spittlefield weavers should pull down all the houses in old England, and
knock the brains out of all the wicked great men there, than this country should loose
their liberty. Our fore fathers came over here for liberty of conscience, and we have
been nothing better than servants to 'em all along this 100 years, and got just enough
to keep soul and body together, and buy their goods to keep us from freezing to death,
and we won't be their negroes. Providence never designed us for negroes, I know, for
if it had it wou'd have given us black hides, and thick lips, and flat noses, and
short woolly hair, which it han't done, and therefore never intended us for slaves.
This I know is good a sillogissim as any at colledge, I say we are as handsome as
old England folks, and so should be as free.
So I don't like the governor's speech very well, any more than I did tother speech
that he made, where he has not done fairly by me.4 I'me sure I wrote abundance, about Hemp before he said a word about it. Mr. U and
I wrote a good many papers,5 and us'd many arguments for it, and told the way of managing ont, a year or two before
the governor said a word about it. Ay, and a great many folks were stirred up to try
it, by our writings too, and I believe raly Mr. U and I ought to have the honor and
glory and profit ont too—of bringing ont into fashion. I dont see why it would not
be reasonable for our Deputies to make Mr. U and I a grant or two for our extraordinary
services, as they do sometimes to other great men that dont deserve it half so much.
[signed] Humphry Ploughjogger
MS not found. Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 14 Oct. 1765).
1. On Humphrey Ploughjogger, see above, Editorial Note, 3 March – 5 Sept. 1763.
2. Gov. Francis Bernard addressed the General Court, 25 Sept. 1765, defending Parliament's
right to tax the colonies. Although he did not specifically justify the Stamp Act,
he warned that Massachusetts would virtually lapse into anarchy if it did not obey
the act after it { 148 } went into effect on 1 Nov. (Mass., Speeches of the Governors, &c., 1765 – 1775, p. 39–43).
3. Pope's Day, commemorating the frustration of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. In Boston
this was usually the occasion for an outburst of anti-Catholic demonstrations and
bruising battles between the town's South End and North End mobs.
4. Among other things, Gov. Bernard's address to the General Court, 30 May 1765, recommended
the approval of bounties to encourage the production of hemp.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0058
Recipient: Adams, John
Date: 1765-12-18
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
From William Cooper
Boston, 18 December 1765. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:265–266. See Notes on the Opening of the Courts [19 Dec. 1765?], and Argument before Gov. Bernard [20 Dec. 1765], below.
Printed: (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:265–266).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0059
Date: 1765-12-19
Notes on the Opening of the Courts
[dateline] [19? December 1765]1
Right, Wrong and Remedy.2
Common Law is common Right, 1. Inst. 142.a. Cokes Proem to 2d Inst.
The Law is the Subjects best Birthright. 2. Inst. 56.
Want of Right and Want of Remedy is all one, for where there is no Remedy, there is
no Right, 1. Inst. 95.b.
The Law provides a Remedy for every Wrong. 1. Inst. 197.b. 2. Inst. 55. 56. [4]05. but see 1. Inst. 199.b.
The Law hath a Delight in giving of Remedy. Lit. 323. 1. Inst. 54.b. 199.b. [2]00.a.
The Act of Law, never doth Wrong. 1. Inst. 88.b. 148.a.b. 379.a.
Where the Construction of any Act is left to the Law, the Law will never construe
it to work a wrong. Woods. Inst. P. 4. 5.3
A statute must be construed that no innocent man may by a literal Construction receive
Damage. Wood Page 9.
An Act of Parliament can do no Wrong. Holt. 12. Mod. 687. 688. Hill. [13]Wm. 3. B. R. City of London vs. Wood.4
Actus dei nemini facit Injuriam.—Actus Legis nulli facit Injuriam.
Cases of Necessity and Impossibility.
The Law forces no one to that which is impossible or vain. 1. Inst. 79.a. 92.a. 127.b.—to
procure the Stamp Papers is impossible, and to stop Justice would be vain.
Things of Necessity are to be excepted out of a general Law. 2. Inst. 168.5
{ 149 } { 150 } { 151 } There is nothing of greater Necessity than the Administration of Justice,—Justice
cannot be administered at present but in the Usual Way.—Therefore the present Case
and these Times are excepted out of that general Law the Stamp Act.
Things for Necessity Sake, or to prevent a Failure of Justice, are excepted out of
a Statute. Woods. Inst. Page 9 [8].6
Acts of Parliament that are against Reason, or impossible to be performed shall be
judged void. 8. Rep. 118. 128. 129. 2. Inst. 587. 588.7
MS (Adams Papers); endorsed by JA: “before Govr and Council abt opening Courts”; Tr (Adams Papers); copied by CFA into M/CFA/31 (Microfilms, Reel No. 327). JA's MS is torn at several points along the edges; missing words and numbers are supplied
from JA's source; see note 3, below.
1. In JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:267, note 2, this MS was tentatively dated 20 Dec. 1765, the day on which JA, together with James Otis and Jeremiah Gridley, appeared before the Governor and
Council to argue in behalf of Boston's memorial calling for the opening of the courts
in defiance of the Stamp Act. Probably, however, JA made these notes a day earlier when he received a brief note from William Cooper
notifying him of his selection to appear with Otis and Gridley as town counsel in
this matter (see 18 Dec. 1765, above). After getting Cooper's letter, JA gave a good deal of thought to the kinds of argument he might use on Boston's behalf
(Diary and Autobiography, 1:265–266). The next day JA was busy traveling to Boston and conferring there with political leaders before he
appeared before the Governor and Council—too busy to have had opportunity to write
out these notes on that day. Thus, 19 Dec. seems the more plausible date.
2. Presumably JA was unable to avail himself fully of these notes when he appeared in the council
chamber, for Otis and Gridley gave their younger colleague the apparently unexpected
honor of speaking first. According to a slightly flustered JA, “Then it fell upon me, without one Moments Opportunity to consult any Authorities,
to open an Argument, upon a Question that was never made before, and I wish I could
hope it never would be made again” (Diary and Autobiography, 1:267). For JA's argument, which does cite two authorities, see the next document.
3. Thomas Wood, An Institute of the Laws of England . . . Published for the Direction of Young Beginners,
or Students in the Law . . . , 7th or 8th edn., London, 1745, 1754. Pages 4 and 5 under the heading “Rules Concerning
Law” contain verbatim all of the statements above, including the citations from Coke's
Institutes. Where the MS is torn numbers have been supplied from Wood. In the first rule, the reference to
Coke's “Proem to 2d Inst.” was apparently supplied by JA.
4. Modern Reports or Cases Adjudged in the Court of King's Bench from the Second Year
of King William III to the End of His Reign, London, 12 [1738]: 687, 688, Hillary [term] 13 William. The quotation is taken from
Chief Justice Sir John Holt in City of London v. Wood.
5. These two rules are also from Wood, p. 4–5.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0060
Recipient: Bernard, Francis
Recipient: Massachusetts Council
Recipient: Massachusetts, Governor of
Date: 1765-12-20
Argument before Governor Bernard and the Council in Favor of Opening the Courts
[dateline] [20 December 1765]
Present his Excellency Francis Bernard
Esqr. Govr. &c in Council.
Mr. Adams1 Innumerable are the Calamities which flow from an Interruption of Justice. Necessity
requires that the Doors of Justice should ever be open to hear the Complaints of the
Injured and Oppressed.
The Stamp-Act, I take it, is utterly void, and of no Binding force upon Us; for it
is against our Rights as Men, and our Priviledges as Englishmen. An Act made in Defiance
of the first Principles of Justice: an Act which rips up the foundation of the British
Constitution, and makes void Maxims of 1800 years standing.
Parliaments may err; they are not infallible; they have been refus'd to be submitted
to. An Act making the King's Proclamation to be a Law, the Executive Powers adjudg'd
absolutely void.
The Stamp Act was made where we are in no Sense represented, therefore no more binding
upon Us, than an Act which should oblige Us to destroy One half of Our Species.
There are certain Principles fix'd unalterably in Nature. Convention and Compact are
the Requisites to make any Law obligatory. That the Subject is not bound by Acts,
when He is not represented, is a sound Maxim of the Law, and not pecu[liar] to the British Constitution, but a Maxim of the antient Roman Law: “What concerns
All shall be judged of by All.”
The only Reason of the Power of the Parliament in England, is because they are elected
by the People; who, if their Liberties are infringed, have a Check at the next Election.
Have Americans any such Check? Have they any Voice in Deputation? A Parliament of
Great Britain can have no more Right to tax the Colonies, than a Parliament of Paris.
This Act has never been received from Authority, therefore in a legal Sense we know
nothing of it.
The Necessities of Business, the Cries of the People call aloud for Justice. It has
become impossible to execute this Act, therefore if it were binding, we are excus'd
by every Law, human or divine, from a Compliance with it. Wood's Inst. 561.2 The King's Writs are ex debitâ Justitiâ, and cannot be denied the Subject. And in
Magna { 153 } Charta, it is said, We deny no Man Justice, we delay no Man Justice. 2 Inst. ch. 29.
p. 56.3
MS (MHi:Quincy Papers, 57:96–98); printed with minor variations in Quincy, Reports, p. 200–202.
1. Although this document is only a report by Josiah Quincy Jr. of JA's arguments before the Governor and Council supporting the Boston memorial for reopening
the courts, its accuracy in reproducing JA's line of argument would seem acceptable on consideration of the two possible ways
that Quincy might have acquired his information.
According to JA, he, Otis, and Gridley went to the Council chamber in company with a committee from
the Boston town meeting, as well as with a number of unofficial spectators. Only the
three attorneys were allowed to enter the chamber, but nothing prevented the town
meeting committee or the spectators from waiting outside. Quincy was not a member
of the committee, nor is there evidence that he was one of the spectators; yet for
reasons to be given below, it seems likely that he went with the rest and stationed
himself outside the Council chamber door, where he was able to hear and record the
arguments (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:266–267; 3:283–284).
Although Quincy may have heard the three lawyers retell their pleas later, the striking
similarity between Quincy's report and JA's own description of his argument suggests that Quincy actually overheard the arguments
(same, 1:267). JA wrote that he argued for opening the courts on the ground that the Stamp Act was
invalid, “it not being in any sense our Act, having never consented to it,” but also
“least that foundation should not be sufficient, on the present Necessity to prevent
a Failure of Justice, and the present Impossibility of carrying that Act into Execution.”
Both in substance and in topical sequence Quincy's report and JA's account are virtually identical except that Quincy has JA discussing the need for preventing “an Interruption of Justice” before attacking
the constitutionality of the Stamp Act. Since JA stated that the denial of the Stamp Act's constitutionality was only the primary
part of his plea, however, without specifying whether it was his first argument, the
discrepancy between his account and Quincy's does not seem significant.
2. The citation of Wood's Institute applies to the sentence following the page number.
3. In answer to the counsel for the town of Boston, the Governor and Council ruled that
they had no power to decide whether the courts should be opened without stamps, that
the decision should rest with the judges of the various courts. JA decided to recommend that the town approach first “the Governor in Council, as the
Supreme Court of Probate” and then the other judges in turn (Diary and Autobiography, 1:268–270).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0061
Date: 1765-12-26
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
A Dissertation upon Office-Seekers
26 December 1765. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:277. Fragment of an unpublished newspaper letter warning Massachusetts freeholders to
beware of politicians who openly solicit their votes on election day and, even more
reprehensible, seek employment from the Crown.
Printed (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:277).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0062
Recipient: Adams, John
Date: 1765
From Joseph Palmer
[dateline] Germa[ntown]1[?]y [1]765
[salute] [Dr?] Sir
My known fondness for Agriculture and Manufactures,2 has given many Opportunitys, which I have often embraced, for recommending the forming
Societies for their improvement; but as nothing of that kind has yet taken place among
us, that I know of; I wou'd now take the liberty of proposing a Society in this Town,
for improvements in Agriculture, Commerce, Arts, and Manufactures: Agriculture is principally intended; but as there is a natural connection between
'em in many Cases in which they are mutually assistants to each other, I tho't it
best to include all, lest we might otherwise be debarr'd some useful enquiry into
Commerce &c., by being confined only to Agriculture. Could we establish such a Society
here, other Towns might catch the Spirit, which might be diffused to the general rise
of County Societies, and finally be all United into One grand Provincial-Society;
the possible advantages of which, consider'd in the whole, and in all it's parts,
Surpasses all my present conceptions; and I think it needless to enter into any particulars,
as many great advantages are so obvious, that they cannot but be observed by every
person of the least Attention.
I had several reasons for proposing the Thing first to you; for the present it may
Suffice to Say, that knowing your love for Agriculture, and the many opportunitys
you have of inviting the most Suitable persons for Members, did, in part, point out
you as a proper person to begin, and form such a Society; the Rules for which, I shou'd
think, had best be few; and the Meetings not often, but calculated to Suit the Farmers
leisure: Perhaps it might be best for each intended Member, to come at the first Meeting,
provided with Rules for their Formation; and then, out of the whole to collect a Sett
of Articles for establishing the Society.
If in your hands, these Hints shou'd be improved for the establishment [of the Soci]ety, I doubt not but others w[ould] Soon be form[ed u]pon the same Principles; and whether it shou'd ever proceed so far as to form a Provincial-Society
or not, yet, we may be assured of many advantages, so far as Society-Influence, may
reach.
If you shou'd so far approve of this Plan, as to Act upon it;3 you may be assured of my most ardent wishes for your Success; but whether the Multiplicity
of my affairs will admit of any thing more than meer Wishes, shou'd you need other
assistance, is utterly unknown to Dear Sir Your real Friend and very humbl. Servt.
[signed] J Palmer
RC (Adams Papers); addressed: “J Adams Esqr.” This MS has been torn at the top, with the resultant loss of parts of the place of origin,
date of composition, salutation, and text.
1. A section of Braintree, not a separate town.
2. Joseph Palmer (1716–1788), connected to AA through his marriage to Mary, sister of AA's brother-in-law Richard Cranch; Palmer was co-owner with Cranch in the 1750's of
a glassworks in Braintree and thereafter a prosperous farmer (Adams Family Correspondence, 1:18, note 8; see also JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:228).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0063-0001
Editorial Note
In January 1766 John Adams, signing himself Clarendon, published three letters in
the Boston Gazette in reply to William Pym, who had published four letters in the London Public Ledger, 13, 19, 26, 30 August 1765. Only the second of Pym's letters was reprinted by a
Boston newspaper, the Boston Evening-Post, 25 November. Adams' was not the earliest reply, for Hampden had taken up the challenge
in the Boston Gazette, writing a series of eight letters running from 9 December 1765 to 27 January 1766.
Hampden, who was James Otis Jr. (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:287 and note), added a postscript to his last letter: “My most sincere, affectionate and respectful
compliments to my Lord of Clarendon, when next you shall see him. Tell him there is
great joy even on earth over a repenting sinner, of so eminent a genius.” So the two men kept up the joke;
curiously, neither of them noted that the London polemicist had been mistaken about
Pym's first name—John.
Not all that John Adams had to say appeared in the newspaper, and it is doubtful that
he even read all four Pym letters. But he read Hampden, who by his quotations made
it plain that he had read all that Pym had written. As so often happened, Adams used
the debate as a springboard for his own reflections. He undoubtedly enjoyed the little
fiction of these { 156 } long-dead men commenting upon the reversal of positions of Pym and Clarendon. Where
Hampden wrote in astonishment that Pym could have so departed from his principles
as to write provocatively about taxation and jury trials, Adams, the student of history,
was prepared to believe that the switch gave some insight into “the labyrinth of your
[Pym's] politicks in 1641” and sorrowfully acknowledged that the change gave rise to “very
painful reflections on the frailty, inconstancy and depravity of the human race” (Boston Gazette, 13 Jan.; No. I, below).
Adams' first thinking about Pym and how he should be answered was recorded in his
diary on 23 December 1765, some two weeks after Hampden had made his first sally (Diary and Autobiography, 1:272–273). These early thoughts were a fragmentary draft for his first published letter, No. I, below. There were seven other diary entries, those for 25, 26, 30 December, and 7, 9, 11, 18 January 1766 (same, 1:274–275, 275–277, 281–282, 287–288, 288–290, 290–292, 296–299). Those for 25, 26 December, and 7 January were drafts for No. II, and that for 18 January, for No. III, below.
Although William Pym refers more than once to “fellow subjects,” he takes the typical
view that colonies by definition are dependent and that the recent war was fought
largely in their interest; thus, they must now expect to pay their share of the costs
of empire. He is convinced that the colonies really seek independence and asserts
that they in fact become a separate people if they are not bound by the Stamp Act.
To some degree he holds Great Britain to blame for the colonies' behavior, in that
its trade policies have encouraged opulence and its administration has encouraged
the growth of legislative capacity in the colonies—their raising of taxes, levying
forces, and the like. The recent Virginia resolves on the Stamp Act, from which he
quotes only the seventh, which was published but not actually passed, he labels as
“indecent” (London Public Ledger, 13, 19 Aug. 1765; Morgan, Stamp Act, p. 91–95). He notes that Ireland, which also has a legislature, has accepted without
fuss such laws as Parliament chooses to extend to it. Parliament at a stroke can abrogate
any Irish law.
As for charters, Pym holds that they should be adhered to so far as “public contingencies
will admit,” but he insists that Parliament can abrogate them at any time. Parliament
must be concerned for the welfare of the larger community; its acts are bound to injure
some. But those injured must acquiesce in Parliament's interpretation of the larger
good (same).
Pym does feel that certain hardships have resulted from British policies. It was a
mistake to forbid American trade with the Spanish settlements, a trade mutually beneficial
to the colonies and the mother country. He thinks that perhaps the military establishment
was increased too much, but that, unfortunately, the riotous behavior of the past
months will only seem to justify larger forces. Finally, he sees a genuine grievance
in the colonies' having no representation in Parliament; representation would benefit
not only the colonies but the mother country as well. His final letter is de• { 157 } voted wholly to the “absolute necessity” for a proper number of American representatives
in Parliament. The alternative may be unification of the colonies to shake off dependence.
The price of representation, however, must be abolition of their assemblies, which
can be dangerous only if continued. He sees a problem in how much representation to
allow them, for without care the time may come when the seat of empire may shift to
the “Oronoque” or the Ohio. He would give them enough representatives to provide advice
but not enough to dictate. In any event, the colonies must remain the children of
the mother country.
Although Hampden makes virtually a point-by-point refutation of the arguments of Pym,
John Adams as Clarendon seems more intrigued with the literary device of debate between
these 17th-century gentlemen. Fascinated by the shifts in character, Adams spends
about half his second Clarendon letter explaining how the noble lord could take the
position he had assumed. Character analysis aside, the meat of the argument for Adams
is the unconstitutionality of courts without juries and taxation without consent.
He does not comment on Pym's strictures on Britain's past policies, nor does he say
anything about Ireland's position in the empire, a matter of some concern in later
Revolutionary debates. Most important, Adams says nothing directly about Pym's proposal
to substitute representation in Parliament for local assemblies. In his diary entries
he develops the implications of Hampden's assertion that the courts must be opened
without stamps, noting that the people are perfectly loyal (Diary and Autobiography, 1:289, 291). Indeed, he sees the “Liberties of Mankind” as in the keeping of America according
to God's design (same, 1:282).
In asserting that liberty is the noble end of British government, the third published
Clarendon letter rises to true eloquence. The British constitution “stands not on
the supposition that kings are the favourites of heaven. ... It is not built on the
doctrine that a few nobles or rich commons have a right to inherit the earth.” Contemporaries
of Adams and some modern scholars who dismiss him as the proponent of aristocratic
government have perhaps overlooked his ringing defense of the ordinary people and
the vital role they have in constitutional government, both in lawmaking and in determining
the facts in jury trials. The people “have no other fortification against wanton,
cruel power: no other indemnification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like
sheep, worked like cattle, and fed and cloathed like swine and hounds.” Here speaks
the lawyer in the best sense of that term—one who reveres the law and the protections
it affords, without favor, to all.
For an interesting interpretation of the Clarendon letters suggesting that Adams used
the occasion to pay tribute to his deceased father, Deacon John, under the guise of
Clarendon's recalling his own father's good advice and high character, see Peter Shaw,
The Character of John Adams, Chapel Hill, 1976, p. 50–51.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0063-0002
Recipient: Pym, William
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1766-01-13
I. The Earl of Clarendon to William Pym
[dateline] [Monday, January 13, 1766]
[salute] Sir,
The revolution which one century has produced in your opinions and principles, is
not quite so surprizing to me, as it seems to be to many others. You know, very well,
I had always a jealousy, that your humanity was counterfeited, your ardor for liberty
canker'd with simulation, and your integrity problematical at least.
I confess however, that so sudden a transition from licentiousness to despotism, so
entire a transformation, from a fiery, furious declaimer against power, to an abject
hireling of corruption; tho' it furnishes a clue to the labyrinth of your politicks
in 1641, gives me many very painful reflections on the frailty, inconstancy and depravity
of the human race. These reflections nevertheless are greatly molified by the satisfaction
I feel in finding your old friend and coadjutor Mr. Hampden, unalter'd and unalterable
in the glorious cause of liberty and law. His inflexibility, has confirmed the great
esteem my Lord Fau'kland and I, always had of his wisdom, magnanimity and virtue:
and we are both of us at present as well convinced of his excellency as a subject
and citizen, as we were formerly of his amiable accomplishments in private life. But
your apostacy has confirmed our belief of what was formerly suspected, viz. your subornation
of witnesses, your perjuries, briberies, and cruelties; and that tho' your cunning
was exquisite enough to conceal your crimes from the public scrutiny, your heart was
desperately wicked and depraved.
Can any thing less abominable have prompted you to commence an enemy to liberty? an
enemy to human nature? Can you recollect the complaints and clamours, which were founded
with such industry, and supported by such a profusion of learning in law and history,
and such invincible reasoning by yourself and your friends; against the star chamber,
and high commission; and yet remain an advocate for the newly formed courts of admiralty
in America? Can you recall to your memory, the everlasting changes which were rung,
by yourself and your party, against ship-money, and the other projects of that disgraceful
reign; and on the consent of the subject, as indispensably necessary, to all taxations,
aids, reliefs, tallages, subsidies, duties, &c. and yet contend for a taxation of
more than Five Million subjects, not only without their consent expressed, or implied,
but directly against their most explicit, and determined declarations, and remonstrances?
{ 159 } You of all mankind should have been the last, to be hired by a minister to defend
or excuse such taxes and such courts.—Taxes, more injurious and ruinous, than Danegeld
of old, which our countryman Speed1 says, “emptied the land of all the coyn, the kingdom of her glory, the commons of
their content, and the Sovereign of his wanted [wonted] respects and observance”—Courts, which seem to have been framed in imitation of an
ancient jurisdiction, at the bare mention of which I have often seen your eyes lighten,
I mean the court of the masters of the King's forfeitures. I cannot omit so fair an opportunity of repeating the history and unfolding the powers
of that court, as it seems to have been the very antitipe of the new courts of admiralty
in America, and to have been created and erected with the same powers and for the
same purposes. It was in the reign of King Henry the seventh that a British parliament
was found to be so timid, or ignorant or corrupt, as to pass an act, that “justices
of assize, as well as justices of peace, without any finding or presentment of twelve
men, upon a bare information for the King, should have full power and authority, to
hear and determine by their discretions, all offences against the form, ordinance
and effect of certain penal statutes. This unconstitutional act was passed, in the
eleventh year of that reign, and thus the commons were found, to sacrifice that sacred
pillar, that fundamental law, that everlasting monument of liberty the great charter,
in complaisance to the ravenous avarice of that monarch. In pursuance of this act,
Sir Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley, were made justices throughout England, and “masters of the King's forfeitures. The old sage Coke says that act was against and in the face of that fundamental law,
Magna Charta, and that it is incredible what oppressions and exactions, were committed
by Empson and Dudley, upon this unjust and injurious act shaking that fundamental
law.” And that in the first year of the reign of King Henry the eighth the parliament
recited that unconstitutional act, and declared it void.” And those two vile oppressors
fell a sacrifice to the righteous indignation of an injured and exasperated nation.
And he closes with an admonition, that the fearful end of these two oppressors, should
deter others from committing the like, and admonish parliaments, that instead of this
ordinary and precious tryal per pares, et per legem terrse, they bring not in absolute
and partial tryals by discretion.
Give me leave, now, to ask you Mr. Pym, what are the powers of the new courts of admiralty
in America? Are the tryals in these courts per pares, or per legem terras? Is there
any grand jury there to find presentments or indictments? Is there any pettit jury
to try the fact { 160 } guilty or not? Is the tryal per legem terrse, or by the institutes, digests, and codes
and novells, of the Roman law? Is there not a judge appointed or to be appointed over
all America? Is not this a much more expensive jurisdiction than that of Empson and
Dudley as justices over all England? Will you say that no Empsons and Dudleys will
be sent to America?—Perhaps not.—But are not the jurisdiction and power, given to
the judges greater than that to those oppressors? Besides, how can you prove that
no Empsons will be sent there? Pray let me know, are not the forfeitures to be shared
by the governors and the informers? Are we not to prophecy the future by the experience
of the past? And have not many governors been seen in America, whose avarice, was
at least as ravenous as that of Henry the seventh? Have not many of their tools, been
as hungry, restless, insolent and unrelenting as Empson and Dudley in proportion to
their power? Besides, are not the Americans at such a distance from their King, and
the august council of the mother country, and at the same time so poor, as to render
all redress of such insolence and rapacity impracticable?
If you reconsider the nature of these new American taxations, the temper and manners
of the people in that country, their religious and civil principles; and if you recollect
the real constitution of Great Britain, and the nature of the new courts of admiralty,
you will not wonder at the spirit that has appeared in that country. Their resistance
is founded in much better principles, and aims at much better ends, than I fear yours
did in Charles's reign, tho' I own you was much nearer the truth and right of the
cause then, than now.—And you know, if you had lived in America, and had not been
much changed, you would have been the first, to have taken arms against such a law,
if no other kind of opposition would do. You would have torn up the foundations, and
demolished the whole fabrick of the government, rather than have submitted; and would
have suffered democracy, aristocracy, monarchy, anarchy, any thing or nothing to have
arisen in its place.
You may perhaps wonder to hear such language as the foregoing from me, as I was always
in an opposite faction, to yours, while we lived on earth. I will confess to you,
that I am in many respects altered, since my departure from the body, my principles
in government were always the same, founded in law, liberty, justice, goodness and
truth: But in the application of those principles I must confess, my veneration for
certain churchmen, and my aspiring ambitious temper sometimes deceived me and led
me astray. This was a source of remorse, at times, thro' my life, and since my seperation,
and the sublimation of my { 161 } faculties, and the purification of my temper, the detestation of some parts of my
conduct has been greatly increased. But as these are subjects of very great importance,
I shall make them the materials of a correspondence with you for some time to come.
[signed] CLARENDON
Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 13 Jan. 1766, Suppl.); partial Dft in JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:272–273.
1. John Speed (1552?–1629), thought by some to be “the first of English historians as distinguished from chroniclers
and annalists,” wrote The History of Great Britaine under the Conquests ofthe Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans, London, 1611 (DNB). JA's quotation, from which he omits one phrase—“the Nobles of courage”—after “glory,”
is on p. 393–394.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0063-0003
Recipient: Pym, William
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1766-01-20
II. The Earl of Clarendon to William Pym
[dateline] [Monday, January 20, 1766]
[salute] Sir,
You and I have changed Sides. As I told you in my last, I can account for your Tergiversation,
only on the Supposition of the Insincerity, Baseness and Depravity of your Heart.
For my own Part, as the Change in me is not so great, neither is it so unaccountable.
My Education was, in the Law, the Grounds of which were so riveted in me, that no
Temptation could induce me, knowingly, to swerve from them. The Sentiments, however,
which I had imbibed in the Course of my Education, from the Sages of the Law, were
greatly confirmed in me, by an Accident that happened to me, in my Youth. This is
an Anecdote, relative to my Father and me, which I presume you must have heard—A Scene,
which will remain with indelible impressions on my Soul, throughout my Duration. I
was upon that Circuit, which led me down to my native Country, and on a Visit to my
aged Father; who gave me an Invitation to take a Walk with him, in the Field. I see
the good old Gentleman, even at this Distance of Time, and in his venerable Countenance,
that parental Affection to me, that Zeal for the Law, that fervent Love of his Country,
that exalted Piety to God and Good will to all Mankind, which constituted his real
Character. My Son says he, I am very old, and this will probably be the last Time
I shall ever see your Face. Your Welfare is near my Heart. The Reputation you have
in your Profession, for Learning, Probity, Skill and Eloquence, will in all Probability,
call you to manage the great Concerns of this Nation in Parliament, and to council
your King in some of the greatest Offices of State. Let me warn you, against that
Ambition, which I have often observed in Men of your Profession, { 162 } which will sacrifice all, to their own Advancement. And I charge you, on a Father's
Blessing, never to forget this Nation, nor to suffer the Hope of Honors or Profits;
nor the Fear of Menaces or Punishments from the Crown, to seduce you from the Law,
the Constitution, and the real Welfare and Freedom of this People.—And—these Words
were scarcely pronounced, before his Zeal and Concern were too great for his Strength,
and he fell upon the Ground before me,—never to rise more! His Words sank deep into
my Heart, and no Temptation, no Bias, or Prejudice, could ever obliterate them. And
you Mr. Pym, are one Witness for me, that, altho' I was always of the Royal Party,
and for avoiding Violence and Confusion, I never defended what could be proved to
be real Infringements on the Constitution, while I sat in Parliament with you I was
as heartily for rectifying those Abuses, and for procuring still further Security
of Freedom, as any of you. And after the Restoration, when the Nations were rushing
into a Delirium with Loyalty, I was obliged, in Order to preserve even the Appearance
of the Constitution, to make a Stand. And afterwards, in the Reign of my infamous
and detestable, tho' Royal Son in Law James the Second, I chose to go into Banishment,
rather than renounce the Religion and Liberties of my Country.1
I have made these Observations to excuse my Conduct in those Reigns, in some Degree;
tho' I must confess there were many Parts of it, which admit of no Excuse at all.
I suffered myself to be blindly attached to the King, and some of his spiritual and
temporal Minions, particularly Laud and Stafford, in some Instances, and to connive
at their villainous Projects, against my Principles in Religion and Government, and
against the dying Precepts of my Father:—Besides my Intimacy with that Sort of Company,
had gradually wrought into me, too great a Reverence for kingly and priestly Power,
and too much Contempt of the Body of the People; as well as too much Virulence against
many worthy Patriots of your Side the Question; with whom, if I had co-operated, instead
of assisting the Court, perhaps all the Confusions and Bloodshed which followed might
have been prevented, and all the Nation's Grievances redressed.
These Reflections were a Sourse of Remorse, at Times, thro' my Life: And since my
Departure from the Earth, I have revolved these Things so often, and seen my Errors
so clearly, that were I to write an History of your Opposition now, I should not entitle
it a Rebellion; nay I should scarcely call the Protectorate of Cromwell, an Usurpation.
With such Principles as these, and divested as I am of all Views and { 163 } Motives of Ambition, as well as all Attachment to any Party, you may depend upon it,
the Conduct of Barbados, has given me great Uneasiness.2 That Island, was settled in the Oliverian Times, by certain Fugitives of the Royal
Party, who were zealous Advocates for passive Obedience: And I suppose a Remnant of
the servile Spirit of their Ancestors, and of that ruinous Doctrine, has prevailed
on them to submit. I own it as a severe Mortification to me, to reflect that I ever
acted in Concert with a People with such Sentiments, a People who were capable of
so mean, and meaching a Desertion of the Cause both of Liberty and Humanity.* But
the gallant Struggle in St. Christopher's,3 and on the Continent of NORTH AMERICA, is founded in Principles so indisputable,
in the Moral Law; in the revealed Law of God; in the true Constitution of Britain;
and in the most apparent Welfare of the British Nation, as well as of the whole Body
of the People in America; that it rejoices my very Soul. When I see that worthy People,
even in the Reign of a wise and good King fetterd, chained, and sacrificed, by a few
abandoned Villains, whose Lust of Gain and Power, would at any Time fasten them in
the Interest of France or Rome or Hell, my Resentment and Indignation are unutterable.
If ever an Infant Country deserved to be cherished, it is America: If ever any People
merited Honor and Happiness, they are her Inhabitants. They are a People, whom no
Character can flatter or transmit in any Expressions, equal to their Merit and Virtue.
With the high Sentiments of Romans, in the most prosperous and virtuous Times of that
Common Wealth, they have the tender Feelings of Humanity, and the noble Benevolence
of Christians. They have the most habitual, radical Sense of Liberty, and the highest
Reverence for Vertue. They are descended from a Race of Heroes, who, placing their
Confidence in Providence alone, set the Seas and Skies, Monsters and Savages, Tyrants
and Devils, at Defiance for the Sake of Religion and Liberty.
And the present Generation have shewn themselves worthy of their Ancestors. Those
cruel Engines, fabricated by a British Minister, for battering down all their Rights
and Privileges; instead of breaking their Courage, and causing Despondency, as might
have been expected in their Situation, have raised and spread thro' the whole Continent,
a Spirit, that will be recorded to their Honor with all future Ages. In every Colony
from Georgia to New-Hampshire, inclusively, the Executioners of their Condemnation,
have been compelled by the unconquerable and irresistable Vengeance of the People
to renounce { 164 } their Offices. Such and so universal has been the Resentment, that every Man, who
has dared to speak in Favour of them, or to soften the Detestation in which they are
held, how great soever his Character had been before, or whatever were his Fortune,
Connections and Influence; has been seen to sink into universal Contempt and Ignominy.
The People, even to the lowest Ranks, have become more attentive to their Liberties,
more inquisitive about them, and more determined to defend them, than they were ever
before known, or had Occasion to be; innumerable have been the Monuments of Wit, Humour,
Sense, Learning, Spirit, Patriotism and Heroism, erected in the several Provinces
in the Course of this Year. Their Counties, Towns, and even private Clubs and Sodalities,
have voted and determined; their Merchants have agreed to sacrifice even their Bread
to the Cause of Liberty; their Legislatures have Resolved; the united Colonies have
Remonstrated; the Presses have every where groaned; and the Pulpits have thundered:
And such of the Crown Officers as have wished to see them enslaved, have every where
trembled, and all their little Tools and Creatures been afraid to speak, and ashamed
to be seen. Yet this is the People, Mr. Pym, on whom you are contributing for paltry
Hire, to rivet and confirm, everlasting Oppression.
[signed] CLARENDON
* Nova Scotia, Quebec, Pensacola, &c. are more excuseable on account of their Weakness
and other peculiar Circumstances.
Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 20 Jan. 1766); partial Dfts in JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:274–277, 287–288.
1. In actuality, Edward Hyde, first Earl of Clarendon (1609–1674), fled from England
during the reign of Charles II in 1667 to escape prosecution by Parliament for alleged
treason (DNB). JA owned at least two of Hyde's works: A Collection of Several Tracts . . . , London, 1727; The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, Begun in the Year 1641 . .
. , vols. 2 and 3, Oxford, 1720 (Catalogue of JA's Library).
2. Since the beginning of Jan. 1766, JA had been aware that Barbados had submitted to the Stamp Act (Diary and Autobiography, 1:285; Gipson, Empire before the Revolution, 10:326–327).
3. On 31 Oct. 1765, the eve of the day on which the Stamp Act was to go into effect,
St. Christopher demonstrated its resistance to the act through mob action, forcing
the stamp distributor and his deputy to swear not to execute the law and by destroying
about £2,000 worth of stamped paper. News of this incident was printed in the Boston Gazette, 9 Dec. 1765.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0063-0004
Recipient: Pym, William
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1766-01-27
III. The Earl of Clarendon to William Pym
[dateline] [Monday, January 27, 1766]
[salute] Sir,
You are pleased to charge the Colonists with ignorance of the British constitution—But
let me tell you there is not even a Son of Liberty among them who has not manifested a deeper knowledge of it, { 165 } and a warmer attachment to it, than appears in any of your late writings. They know
the true constitution and all the resources of liberty in it, as well as in the law
of nature which is one principal foundation of it, and in the temper and character
of the people, much better than you, if we judge by your late most impudent pieces,
or than your patron and master,1 if we judge by his late conduct.
The people in America have discovered the most accurate judgment about the real constitution,
I say, by their whole behaviour, excepting the excesses of a few, who took advantage
of the general enthusiasm, to perpetrate their ill designs: tho' there has been great
enquiry, and some apparent puzzle among them about a formal, logical, technical definition
of it. Some have defined it to [be] the practice of parliament; others, the judgments and precedents of the King's courts;
but either of these definitions would make it a constitution of wind and weather,
because, the parliaments have sometimes voted the King absolute and the judges have
sometimes adjudg'd him to be so. Some have call'd it custom, but this is as fluctuating
and variable as the other. Some have call'd it the most perfect combination of human
powers in society, which finite wisdom has yet contrived and reduced to practice,
for the preservation of liberty and the production of happiness. This is rather a
character of the constitution, and a just observation concerning it, than a regular
definition of it; and leaves us still to dispute what it is. Some have said that the
whole body of the laws; others that King, Lords, and Commons, make the constitution.
There has also been much inquiry and dispute about the essentials and fundamentals
of the constitution, and many definitions and descriptions have been attempted: But
there seems to be nothing satisfactory to a rational mind, in any of these definitions:
Yet I cannot say, that I am at any loss about any man's meaning when he speaks of
the British constitution, or of the essentials and fundamentals of it.
What do we mean when we talk of the constitution of the human body? What by a strong
and robust, or a weak and feeble constitution? Do we not mean certain contextures
of the nerves, fibres and muscles, or certain qualities of the blood and juices, as
fizy, or watery, phlegmatic or fiery, acid or alkaline? We can never judge of any
constitution without considering the end of it; and no judgment can be formed of the human constitution, without considering
it as productive of life or health or strength. The physician shall tell one man that certain kinds of exercise, or diet, or medicine,
are not adapted to his constitution, that is, not compatible with his health, which he would readily agree are the most productive of health in another. The patient's habit { 166 } abounds with acid, and acrimonious juices: Will the doctor order vinegar, lemmon juice,
barberries and cramberries, to work a cure? These would be unconstitutional remedies;
calculated to increase the evil, which arose from the want of a balance, between the
acid and alkaline ingredients, in his composition. If the patient's nerves are overbraced,
will the doctor advise to jesuits bark? There is a certain quantity of exercise, diet,
and medicine, best adapted to every man's constitution, will keep him in the best
health and spirits, and contribute the most to the prolongation of his life. These
determinate quantities are not perhaps known to him, or any other person: but here
lies the proper province of the physician to study his constitution and give him the
best advice what and how much he may eat and drink; when and how long he shall sleep;
how far he may walk or ride in a day; what air and weather he may improve for this
purpose; when he shall take physick, and of what sort it shall be; in order to preserve
and perfect his health, and prolong his life. But there are certain other parts of the body, which the physician can in no case have any authority to destroy or deprave; which may properly be called stamina vitae, or essentials and fundamentals of the constitution. Parts, without which life itself cannot be preserved a moment. Annihilate the heart,
lungs, brain, animal spirits, blood; any one of these, and life will depart at once.
These may be strictly called fundamentals, of the human constitution: Tho' the limbs
may be all amputated, the eyes put out, and many other mutilations practiced to impair
the strength, activity and other attributes of the man; and yet the essentials to
life may remain, unimpaired many years.
Similar observations may be made with equal propriety concerning every kind of machinery.
A clock has also a constitution, that is a certain combination of weights, wheels
and levers, calculated for a certain use and end, the mensuration of time. Now the
constitution of a clock, does not imply such a perfect constructure of movement as
shall never go too fast or too slow, as shall never gain nor lose a second of time,
in a year or century. This is the proper business of Quare, Tomlinson, and Graham,2 to execute the workmanship like artists, and come as near to perfection, i.e. as
near to a perfect mensuration of time, as the human eye and finger will allow. But
yet there are certain parts of a clock, without which, it will not go at all, and
you can have from it no better account of the time of day, than from the ore of gold,
silver brass and iron, out of which it was wrought. These parts therefore are the
essentials and fundamentals of a clock.
Let us now enquire whether the same reasoning is not applicable { 167 } in all its parts to government. For government is a frame, a scheme, a system, a combination
of powers, for a certain end, viz the good of the whole community. The public good,
the salus populi is the professed end of all government, the most despotic, as well
as the most free. I shall enter into no examination which kind of government, whether
either of the forms of the schools, or any mixture of them is the best calculated
for this end. This is the proper inquiry of the founders of Empires. I shall take
for granted, what I am sure no Briton will controvert, viz. that Liberty is essential
to the public good, the salus populi. And here lies the difference between the British
constitution, and other forms of govenment, viz. that Liberty is its end, its use,
its designation, drift and scope, as much as grinding corn is the use of a mill, the
transportation of burdens the end of a ship, the mensuration of time the scope of
a watch, or life and health the designation of the human body.
Were I to define the British constitution, therefore, I should say, it is a limited
monarchy, or a mixture of the three forms of government commonly known in the schools,
reserving as much of the monarchial splendor, the aristocratical independency, and
the democratical freedom, as are necessary, that each of these powers may have a controul
both in legislation and execution, over the other two, for the preservation of the
subjects liberty.
According to this definition, the first grand division of constitutional powers is,
into those of legislation and those of execution. In the power of legislation, the
King, Lords, Commons, and People, are to be considered as essential and fundamental
parts of the constitution. I distinguish between the house of commons, and the people
who depute them, because there is in nature and fact a real difference; and these
last have as important a department in the constitution as the former, I mean the
power of election. The constitution is not grounded on “the enormous faith of millions
made for one.” It stands not on the supposition that kings are the favourites of heaven;
that their power is more divine than the power of the people, and unlimited but by
their own will and discretion. It is not built on the doctrine that a few nobles or
rich commons have a right to inherit the earth, and all the blessings and pleasures
of it: and that the multitude, the million, the populace, the vulgar, the mob, the
herd and the rabble, as the great always delight to call them, have no rights at all,
and were made only for their use, to be robbed and butchered at their pleasure. No,
it stands upon this principle, that the meanest and lowest of the people, are, by
the unalterable indefeasible laws of God and nature, as well intitled to { 168 } the benefit of the air to breathe, light to see, food to eat, and clothes to wear,
as the nobles or the king. All men are born equal: and the drift of the British constitution
is to preserve as much of this equality, as is compatible with the people's security
against foreign invasions and domestic usurpation. It is upon these fundamental principles,
that popular power was placed as essential in the constitution of the legislature;
and the constitution would be as compleat without a kingly as without a popular power.
This popular power however, when the numbers grew large, became impracticable to be
exercised by the universal and immediate suffrage of the people: and this impracticability
has introduced from the feudal system, an expedient which we call a representation.
This expedient is only an equivalent for the suffrage of the whole people, in the
common management of public concerns. It is in reality nothing more than this, the
people chuse attornies to vote for them in the great council of the nation, reserving
always the fundamentals of the government, reserving also a right to give their attornies
instructions how to vote, and a right, at certain stated intervals of choosing a new,
discarding an old attorney, and choosing a wiser and a better. And it is this reservation,
of fundamentals, of the right of giving instructions, and of new elections, which
creates a popular check, upon the whole government which alone secures the constitution
from becoming an aristocracy, or a mixture of monarchy and aristocracy only.
The other grand division of power, is that of execution. And here the King is by the
constitution, supreme executor of the laws, and is always present in person or by
his judges, in his courts, distributing justice among the people. But the executive
branch of the constitution, as far as respects the administration of justice, has
in it a mixture of popular power too. The judges answer to questions of law: but no
further. Were they to answer to questions of fact as well as law, being few they might
be easily corrupted; being commonly rich and great, they might learn to despise the
common people, and forget the feelings of humanity: and then the subjects liberty
and security would be lost. But by the British constitution, ad questionem facti respondent juratores, the jurors answer to the question of fact. In this manner the subject is guarded,
in the execution of the laws. The people choose a grand jury to make enquiry and presentment
of crimes. Twelve of these must agree in finding the Bill. And the petit jury must
try the same fact over again, and find the person guilty before he can be punished.
Innocence therefore, is so well protected in this wise constitution, that no man can
be punished till twenty four of his Neighbours { 169 } have said upon oath, that he is guilty. So it is also in the tryal of causes between
party and party: No man's property or liberty can be taken from him, till twelve men
in his Neighbourhood, have said upon oath, that by laws of his own making it ought
to be taken away, i.e. that the facts are such as to fall within such laws.
Thus it seems to appear that two branches of popular power, voting for members of
the house of commons, and tryals by juries, the one in the legislative and the other
in the executive part of the constitution are as essential and fundamental, to the
great end of it, the preservation of the subject's liberty, to preserve the balance
and mixture of the government, and to prevent its running into an oligarchy or aristocracy;
as the lords and commons are to prevent its becoming an absolute monarchy. These two
popular powers therefore are the heart and lungs, the main spring, and the center
wheel, and without them, the body must die; the watch must run down; the government
must become arbitrary, and this our law books have settled to be the death of the
laws and constitution. In these two powers consist wholly, the liberty and security
of the people: They have no other fortification against wanton, cruel power: no other
indemnification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like
cattle, and fed and cloathed like swine and hounds: No other defence against fines,
imprisonments, whipping posts, gibbets, bastenadoes and racks. This is that constitution
which has prevailed in Britain from an immense antiquity: It prevailed, and the House
of Commons and tryals by juries made a part of it, in Saxon times, as may be abundantly
proved by many monuments still remaining in the Saxon language: That constitution
which had been for so long a time the envy and admiration of surrounding nations:
which has been, no less than five and fifty times, since the Norman conquest, attacked
in parliament, and attempted to be altered, but without success; which has been so
often defended by the people of England, at the expence of oceans of their blood,
and which, co operating with the invincible spirit of liberty, inspired by it into
the people, has never yet failed to work the ruin of the authors of all settled attempts
to destroy it.
What a fine reflection and consolation is it for a man to reflect that he can be subjected
to no laws, which he does not make himself, or constitute some of his friends to make
for him: his father, brother, neighbour, friend, a man of his own rank, nearly of
his own education, fortune, habits, passions, prejudices, one whose life and fortune
and liberty are to be affected like those of his constituents, by the laws he shall
consent to for himself and them. What a satisfaction is it to { 170 } reflect, that he can lie under the imputation of no guilt, be subjected to no punishment,
lose none of his property, or the necessaries, conveniencies or ornaments of life,
which indulgent providence has showered around him: but by the judgment of his peers,
his equals, his neighbours, men who know him, and to whom he is known; who have no
end to serve by punishing him; who wish to find him innocent, if charged with a crime;
and are indifferent, on which side the truth lies, if he disputes with his neighbour.
Your writings, Mr. Pym, have lately furnished abundant Proofs, that the infernal regions,
have taken from you, all your shame, sense, conscience and humanity: otherwise I would
appeal to them who has discovered the most ignorance of the British constitution;
you who are for exploding the whole system of popular power, with regard to the Americans,
or they who are determined to stand by it, in both its branches, with their lives
and fortunes?
[signed] CLARENDON
Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 27 Jan. 1766); Dft in JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:296–299.
1. Probably an allusion to George Grenville.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0064
Recipient: Adams, John
Date: 1766-02-05
From the Sons of Liberty
[dateline] Boston Febuary 5th 1766
[salute] Sr
You doubtless and every American must be Sensible, that where there is a Union happily
established we Should Endeavour to Support it by all possible Means Especially when
the grand Object in View is the Preservation of our Invaluable Rights and Priveledges.
The Colonies (we Mean) New York and Connecticut have entered into Certain Reciprocal
and Mutual Agreements Concessions and Associations,1 a Copy of which we received (by an Express) the Last Sunday2 with their Desire to Accomplish the Like Association with us; which deserves our
most Serious Attention as thereby it will be the Means of Strenghtning this Late Union
and in our humble Opinnion of preventing the Execution of an Act of Parliment, commonly
known by the Name of the Stamp Act. But to avoid enlargeing permitt us to Single out
a few Words by which you will know their Intentions.
{ 171 } The Worthy Sons of Liberty in New York and Connecticut takeing into their most serious Consideration the Melancholy
and unsettled State of Great Britain and her North American Colonnies, proceeding
as they are fully perswaded from a Design in her most Inveterate Enemies to alienate
the Affections of his Majesties most Loyall and Faithfull Subjects In America from
his Person and Goverment, which they are Detirmined to maintain and support: and for
the Preservation of which, they have Signified their Resolution and Determination
to March with all Dispatch, at their own Costs and Expence, on the First proper Notice
with their Whole Force (If required) to the Releif of those who shall or may be in
Danger from the Stamp Act or its Abettors and to keep a Watchfull Eye over all those
who from the Nature of their Offices, Vocations, or Dispossitions may be the most
Likely to Introduce the use of Stamped Paper, to the total Subversion of the British
Constitution and American Liberty.
We address ourselves to you; as a Gentleman well vers'd in the Constitution of your
Country and Consequently will do your Utmost, to Oppose all Measures Detrimental to
the Welfare of it, and we should be Glad if you would inform Us as Soon as possible
of your Sentiments on the Above and the Dispossitions of the People in Your Town.3
Please to Direct to us under Cover to Messrs. Edes & Gill, Printers in Boston. We
are Sr Your most Humble Servants
[signed] The Sons of Liberty
RC (Adams Papers); addressed: “To John Adams Esqr In Brantry.”
1. The military association which the New York and Connecticut Sons of Liberty concluded
between themselves, 25 Dec. 1765, and by which they pledged themselves to use armed
force to prevent the execution of the Stamp Act. For the text of the agreement, see
Morgan, Prologue to Revolution, p. 117–118.
2. 2 Feb. 1766.
3. No reply to this letter has been found.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0065
Recipient: Adams, John
Date: 1766-02-15
From Thomas Crafts Jr.
[dateline] Boston Feby 15th 1766
Friday1 Night 10 OClock
[salute] Sir
Yesterday I wrote you a few Lines by Docr. Tuffts informing you the Sons of Liberty
Desired your Company at Boston Next Wensday and Mentioned for What Occation.2 I would now Desire it as a favour if you Can spare the time to Come on Monday Next
Because they want you to Write those Incriptions that I mentiond to you when Last
at { 172 } Boston, one in favour of Liberty Not forgiting the Tru Born Sons and Another with
Encomiums on King George Expressive of our Loyalty—which if you Can Do by wensday
we will Excuse your Coming Sooner.3 Pray Lett them [be] as Short and as Expressive as Possable, the stamp Paper I Informd you of in my Last
was found St[r]agling About this town but on Thursday at 11 O Clock shall Commit it to its proper
Eliment with no small parade.
[salute] I am with Great Respect your frind
[signed] Tho Crafts Junr.
Destroy this after Reading it. Mr. Saml. Adams sends his Complements and Desire you
would Come.
Ps we Expect the News of the Repeal of thet Act Commonly Called the stamp Act in three
weeks from this by the News we have had by the Last Ships from London which I dobt
not you have heard of.4 NB an Answer to Letter Sent by the sons of Liberty Last Saterdy will [be] Exceptable.5
I had Wrote this Letter before I Received yours6 and hope you Will [be] here on thursday Next.
RC (Adams Papers); addressed: “To John Adams Esqr At Brantree”; endorsed: “T. Crafts. Feby 15th. 1766”;
MS slightly torn at several places, resulting in the partial defacement of three words.
1. Friday was the 14th.
2. No letter from Crafts of this date has been found. Crafts, a painter, was a member
of the Loyal Nine, which grew into the Sons of Liberty (Morgan, Stamp Act, p. 121). By 1772 JA thought that Crafts was cooling toward the whig cause (Diary and Autobiography, 2:72).
4. Probably a reference to a certain Capt. Disney, who arrived in Boston, 10 Feb., carrying
among other things extracts from private letters written in London hinting that the
Stamp Act would soon be repealed (Massachusetts Gazette, 13 Feb. 1766).
6. Not found.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0066
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1766-05-12
Clarendon to the Boston Gazette
[dateline] Cockleboro', near Barnardston,1 N. E. 12th May 1766
[salute] Messieurs PRINTERS,
Seeing a Piece in the New Hampshire Gazette of last Friday, mentioning the Composition
that was made by Mr. Cockle2 and the G––––r some Time ago, it occur'd to me to enquire what was be• { 173 } come of the Money compounded for by them, for the Duties on those Cargoes of Molasses;3 I have heard that the G––––r received his third Part last September was twelve Months,
that Mr. Cockle received his before he was dismissed; the other third Part which I
understand belongs to the Province, I have never heard any Thing at all about. I am
informed that it amounts to upwards of Eight Hundred Pounds Sterling, which may be worth the Attention of those who have a Right to Enquire into
these Things; and if the Province Treasury is in no want of Money, why may not this
£800 Sterling go in Part towards the Requisition that is to be made for the Sufferers,4 or be applied to the erecting a Monument to Mr. PITT, or to the cultivating that
fine Island Mount Desart.5 But however it may be disposed of, the Money I am credibly informed is at present,
and has been more than Eighteen Months in the Hands of some of the Gentlemen of the
Court of Admiralty.
[salute] I am your constant Reader,
[signed] CLARENDON
Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 19 May 1766). JA's recent use of the pseudonym “Clarendon” (13–27 Jan. 1766, above) and the consistency with which newspaper writers used such pseudonyms, already
mentioned (Editorial Note, 3 March – 5 Sept. 1763, above, and work cited there), justifies attribution of authorship to JA, although no draft or fragment has been found for this letter.
1. That is, Bernardston, founded in 1762 and named after the Governor; Cockleboro' is
fictitious (Historical Data Relating to Counties, Cities and Towns in Massachusetts, Boston, 1966).
2. On James Cockle, former royal customs collector in Salem and Marblehead, see JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:328–329 and note.
3. The New-Hampshire Gazette, 9 May 1766, printed official documents and unofficial commentary about the alleged
collusion between Bernard and Cockle in profiting in illegal trade. In 1764 they were
supposed to have allowed about 2,000 hogsheads of molasses from the foreign West Indies
to land in Salem under false clearance papers and then to have brought suit against
the merchants involved. In consequence of their action, the merchants were able to
settle out of court instead of having their cargo seized by the royal surveyor of
customs. Thus, the merchants had to pay only £2,400—one-third of which went to Cockle,
Bernard, and the provincial government each—rather than more than twice that amount
in customs duties to the king (Jordan D. Fiore, “The Temple-Bernard Affair: A Royal
Custom House Scandal in Essex County,” Essex Inst., Hist. Colls., 90 [1954]:58–83).
4. As long ago as 25 Sept. 1765 in his speech to the House of Representatives, Bernard
had called for compensation for those who had suffered at the hands of the Stamp Act
rioters. Among the sufferers were Thomas Hutchinson and Andrew Oliver. See Mass., Speeches of the Governors, &c., 1765–1775, p. 42; Gipson, Empire before the Revolution, 11:16.
5. That is, Mount Desert, off the Maine coast, which the General Court had granted to
Bernard, 27 Feb. 1762 (Bernard to Lord Barrington, 20 Feb. 1762, postscript 27 Feb.,
Edward Channing and Archibald Gary Coolidge, eds., The Barrington-Bernard Correspondence . . . , Cambridge, 1912, p. 50–51).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0067-0001
Editorial Note
In the winter of 1766–67, Jonathan Sewall, writing as Philanthrop, took it upon himself
to defend Governor Francis Bernard against an unremitting series of attacks being
made upon him in Boston newspapers, chiefly in the Gazette, by a number of pseudonymous writers. It is possible that Sewall wrote in hope of
preferment, for soon after he had finished his series of letters, Governor Bernard
offered him a newly created position, that of Special Attorney General. Yet there
seems no reason to doubt the sincerity of Sewall's concern that attacks on the Governor
would threaten the stability of the political state (Berkin, Jonathan Sewall, p. 43–44; Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates, 12:311).
Bernard had incurred the hatred of the whig faction for his official support of the
Stamp Act, despite his private position, and, later, in May { 175 } 1766, for his refusal to approve James Otis Jr. as the choice of the House of Representatives
for speaker and his veto of six men, whig supporters all, chosen as councilors by
the joint ballot of the House and outgoing Council (Berkin, Jonathan Sewall, p. 36–37). In retaliation, whig writers vilified the Governor in print. He was accused
of customs racketeering, with some basis in fact, of greediness, of violation of the
privileges of the House, and of undermining the colonists' rights as Englishmen.
Sewall began his defense with a long letter in the Boston Evening-Post for 1 December 1766. Almost every Monday thereafter until early February, Post readers were treated to a vigorous, sometimes slashing attack on Bernard's detractors
and a careful presentation, too often written in a superior tone, concerning the Governor's
conduct on particular occasions so far as it was known to the author. Sewall did not
want for material. His entry into the field raised a regular hornet's nest of critics,
signing themselves “A,” “AA,” “B,” “BB”; as Sewall put it, “almost the whole alphabet [was] conjured up.” And Sewall tried to answer them all. But by spring nearly everyone
had said all there was to say. Philanthrop's letter of 9 February did not have a sequel
until 2 March; and then there was silence. Joseph Hawley, defending the Lanesborough
Stamp Act rioters, whose attorney he was, rekindled the fires in the summer of 1767,
with Philanthrop answering him in three long letters (Boston Evening-Post, 6 and 13 July; 27 July; 3 and 10 Aug. 1767).
John Adams, of course, could not keep from replying to his old friend, just as he
had answered him some three and one-half years before (3 March – 5 Sept. 1763, above). But Adams had trouble settling upon the literary style of his response.
He began in straightforward fashion, addressing himself to “J Phylanthrop,” his addition
of “J” suggesting the continuity he saw between Sewall's “J” letters of 1763 and those
appearing over Sewall's new pseudonym (No. I, below). His first effort, unpublished and unsigned, was largely an attack on the
character of Sewall, whom he called the “old Trumpeter” of “that restless grasping
turbulent Crew of Villains” seeking the destruction of the people. Adams accused Philanthrop
of ingratitude and of “venemos Bilingsgate.” It is almost as though Adams were working
off steam, just as he did with the unfinished and unpublished letter to Sewall in
1763 (No. II, 3 March – 5 Sept. 1763, above). Next, in his diary, Adams wrote a thoughtful analysis
of what should be understood by “the better Sort of People,” whom Sewall claimed as
supporters of Bernard (Diary and Autobiography, 1:326–329).
But when he appeared in print, Adams adopted once again the pseudonym he had used
before in replying to Sewall, that of Humphrey Ploughjogger. Although he retained
a kind of farmerish and common sense approach, most of the dialect and phonetic spelling
was dropped. He had perhaps tired of these devices; the cause was too serious for
playfulness. Attention was centered upon Philanthrop's contempt for the ordinary run
of men and his fallacious belief that sharp criticism of high officials would undermine
the due subordination of persons necessary for any kind of { 176 } government. Adams wound up his series of three Ploughjogger letters, of which the
first was unpublished, with a kind of rustic condescension toward the craziness of
Philanthrop, who reminded Adams of his “little black Ram” (Nos. II–IV, below).
Further Sewall pieces that reproved his critics in what seemed a sweet reasonableness
of tone that could be dangerously persuasive led Adams to lift out sentences and phrases
from their context so that their sheer depth of spite stood revealed. If Sewall posed
as a lover of men, then Adams had perforce to sign himself “Misanthrop.” The new pseudonym
set Adams off on a long fantastical narrative in which he sought to expose Philanthrop
as greedy for office but made craven by the gnawing of self-doubt. None of the “Misanthrop”
performances saw print (Nos. VI and VII, below); they were probably intended for his own amusement.
Finally, and more seriously, Adams assumed the role most natural to him, that of historian.
Writing as a figure of history called to life, and thus able to comment with unique
perspective on significant developments since his own day, Adams demonstrated the
continuity of love of freedom from the time of Governor Winthrop to his own. A common
thread in the series of letters from Governor Winthrop to Governor Bradford is the
elemental soundness of the people despite the insidious efforts of Philanthrop to
lead them astray by appealing to the weaknesses of human nature. The Winthrop letters
discern parallels between the tyrannical precepts of the first two Stuarts and those
of Philanthrop and warn Bostonians that liberty “has always been surrounded with dangers.”
Only men who remain on guard remain free. In the end Adams analyzes at great length
the role of Governor Bernard in refusing to administer the oath to two men elected
to the House from Newbury and sees a most serious breach of the privileges of that
body (Nos. VII–XI, below).
With the exception of his discussion of Bernard's interference in the affairs of the
House, Adams confined himself to attacking the more theoretical of Philanthrop's arguments,
leaving to others, as he said, the critique of the Governor's conduct. And even here,
it was the principle at stake that caught Adams' attention. Philanthrop's defense
of Bernard was based upon a concept of government that Adams saw as wholly wrongheaded
and subversive of liberty.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0067-0002
Recipient: Sewall, Jonathan
Recipient: Philanthrop
Date: 1766-12-09
I. To J Philanthrop
[dateline] [ante 9 December 1766]1
To J Phylanthrop
I confess I was in Hopes, that after the Repeal of the ever memorable Stamp Act, The
People of this Province would have had a little Respite from the Teasings of that
restless grasping turbulent Crew of Villains who have been for many Years past planning
their Destruction.—This infamous set of Banditti, in the Course of the glorious { 177 } Struggles of America for her Freedom received So many Mortifications and Disappointments,
that for my own Part I felt myself much disposed to commisserate their Distresses,
and to let them all sink into a peaceful and perpetual oblivion.—But it seems they
now think themselves out of Danger, that the people are settling into Tranquility,
and are grown innatentive to their Machinations, and that they may now set about their
old Work, of fretting, teasing, lying, vapouring, and deceiving. And for these purposes
they have hired their old Trumpeter J. Philanthrop, to start forth. A Champion, forsooth
for Truth, Peace, order, Justice, and Civility the supporter of good Government, and
the Vindicator of injured Innocence! And is it not very modest in this Author, to
begin, with so many pious Lamentations about Party Spirit, Political Jealousies, undue
Prejudices &c and to declaim so warmly against, throwing Dirt at respectable Characters,
when he begins his Lucubrations with his venemos Bilingsgate upon a Character than
which there is none more respectable in this Province,2 and with black malicious, impudent slander upon a Paper,3 without which the People of this Province, would have been ruind and enslaved by
his Friends Patrons, Masters and Clients before they would have known or suspected
their Danger. This is the very fellow, who but a few years ago, drew the Characters
of Bluster, Thwackum, Gamut, Adjutant Trowel, Justice Gripe and Captn. Bluff4 —nay the very Rascall who drew the Character of the reverend Chaplain to the Junto,
in which he <bespatered with Dirt and Filth> falsely and maliciously slanderd one of the politest Gentlemen, accomplished Scholars,
and able Divines upon this Continent,5 with unparrallelled Virulence and Effrontery. A Gentleman to whom that very Rascall
was under particular and very strong obligations for his Friendship and Charity to
him in his needy Circumstances.
I have no more to say at present, but that I know you perfectly well, I know your
Name, Character Descent Circumstances, Alliances, your Patrons, Prompters, Views,
Temper and Designs,—further I know every syllable you have Scribbled from the first
of your Productions which contained the Character of Bluster to the last of them,
which appeard in last Mondays Ev. Post, and that unless you desist I will develop
the whole black scene—and will expose the whole Faction and all their Views and Designs,
from the Time they raised the villanous Clamour against Govr. Pownal6 to this Time that they are endeavouring to preserve, another Govr. of a very different
and much worse Character.
{ 178 } MS (Adams Papers); microfilmed as part of a 27-page cluster of MSS under the date Aug. – Sept. 1763 and docketed by CFA: “Original Draughts of Newspaper Articles, signed U. 1763” (Adams Papers, Microfilms, Reel No. 343); but for its actual provenance and date, see Editorial Note, above, and note 1, below.
2. James Otis Jr., whom Philanthrop referred to as “Tertullus haranguing in the Senate” (Boston Evening-Post, 1 Dec. 1766).
3. The Boston Gazette, which Philanthrop alluded to as “the dirty channel” of popular criticism of Bernard
(same).
4. Nicknames used by Jonathan Sewall in his “J” series of letters published in the Post in 1763 (Editorial Note, 3 March – 5 Sept. 1763, above).
5. Samuel Cooper (1725–1783), pastor at the Brattle Street church (1746–1783) and ardent whig, “became the moral
validation of the policies of the Whigs” (Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates, 11:197). It was his father, William Cooper, however, who helped Sewall financially
(same, 12:306).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0067-0003
Recipient: Sewall, Jonathan
Recipient: Philanthrop
Date: 1767-01-05
II. Humphrey Ploughjogger to Philanthrop
[dateline] [ante 5 January 1767]1
To the learned Philanthrop
As It is my Design to write a good deal to you, before I have done, So I have gained
favour in the Eyes of our S[c]hool Master, to write out my Letters to you, for the Time to come, and to mend the
Spelling a little that I may appear in public a little more handsome; tho he will
not be very nice about the Matter, and will leave you now and then an opening, Pedant
as you are to carp, at Spelling and pointing when you are brought to a plunge in Point
of Reason.2
This is all the Introduction and all the apology, I purpose to make, for a more particular
Examination of your wicked Doctrine, in your first Treatise, vist that “the Person
and office are so connected in the Minds of the greatest Part of Mankind, that a Contempt
of the former, and a veneration for the latter are totally incompatible.”3
I dont care so much about Govr. Bernards Character, nor any Instances of his Conduct,
to which the other Writers concernd are very able to do Justice, as I do about your
general Maxims, Principles and precepts, which seem to me to be the very same that
the evil Spirits would have believed and propagated, and the very same that their
Missionaries have been preaching, and Scribling and trumpeting among Mankind ever
since the fall of Adam. I say ever since the fall, for, from that time to this, there
has been one Continued Conspiracy between the World, the Flesh and the Devil, against
the Cause of { 179 } Liberty, and we have Reason to fear and believe it will continue till the Fall of
Antichrist, but this by the by.
Your Principles I say appear to me to be wicked, unsound, unorthodox, nay your Doctrine
is heretical, and damnable, and your Precepts, the Precepts and Mandates of Earthly
and infernal Tyranny.
And to prove that my apprehensions of it are not illgrounded, I crave leave to offer
a few observations.
1st I think I see in your Doctrine “the Person and office so connected in the Minds
of the greatest Part of Mankind,” a Contempt of the greatest Part of Mankind. It is
wonderful and lamentable to Behold the Pride and Vanity there is in the great ones
of the World. A Man of Learning is <sure> apt to despise all that he thinks ignorant, a Man of Courage all that he thinks Cowards,
a Man of Wit all who are of slower apprehension, a Man of fortune all the poor, nay
a Dancing Master all whose Heels are clumsey, and a Beau all who do not dress to finely
as himself.
Now a Court is <almost> often made up of the learned, rich, Courageous, witty, Dancers, and Beaus. The Consequense
is, that all the rest of the World is called by them the Generality, the Herd, Rabble,
Mob, common People, Vulgar and such like stuff. Scorn and Contempt and turning up
of the Nose is the Consequence of this. The common People they say, are not fit for
any thing, but Hewers of Wood &c,—only the discerning few, the Choice Spirits, the
better sort say they, are capable of any thing—and they themselves are always the
discerning few, the Choice Spirits and better sort. (I am going to trace out the Course
of it). These Fleers, and flouts, and sneers and snubbs are often thrown out by them
to the People, who being a 1000 to one of them in Number and made of as good Clay
as them selves, often return their scorn, with scorn, this soon setts them outragious,—and
they presently grow to hate the common People instead of despi[si]ng them, and Nero shall wish the People had but one Neck that he might strike it off
at one blow, Caligula shall swear to tear up all remaining Virtue among the People,
and Temerlane and Attilla, Shall glory that they were not Men but the Scourges of
God and the Plagues of Mankind. All this hellish Temper, this blasphemous Rant, this
numbrous Designs Spring Phylanthrop, from such a Contempt, as you have expressed for
the Generality of Mankind.
MS (Adams Papers); microfilmed as part of a 27-page cluster of MSS under the date Aug. – Sept. 1763 and docketed by CFA: “Original Draughts of Newspaper Articles, signed U. 1763” (Adams Papers, Microfilms, Reel No. 343); but for its actual provenance and date, see note 1, below.
1. Although unsigned, this MS very likely was a draft of an unpublished “Humphrey Ploughjogger” newspaper letter
written prior to the one published 5 Jan. (No. III, below). JA's quotation in the second paragraph of this draft of a passage from Philanthrop's
first letter (1 Dec. 1766) means that he wrote it after that date. The reference in
the opening paragraph to a “Design to write a good deal to [Philanthrop]” suggests that this draft was meant to be the first of a distinct series of letters.
JA's comment in the same paragraph about the schoolmaster's correcting his spelling
so that he might “appear in public a little more handsome” suggests that he planned
to publish under the Ploughjogger pseudonym, the only one he had used for letters
written with illiterate spelling. Given these facts, this draft must have been written
before 5 Jan.
2. A reference to Philanthrop's complaint about the spelling and punctuation of “X,”
one of his several newspaper opponents.
3. Here JA puts his finger upon a principle that would give Philanthrop trouble later when he
tried to argue that Bernard should be respected for his private opposition to the
Stamp Act despite his official need to enforce it (compare Berkin, Jonathan Sewall, p. 41–42).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0067-0004
Recipient: Sewall, Jonathan
Recipient: Philanthrop
Date: 1767-01-05
III. Humphrey Ploughjogger to Philanthrop
[dateline] [Monday, January 5, 1767]
[salute] MessieursEdes & Gill,
Please to insert the following.
[salute] To the learned PHILANTHROP.
In your first Treatise, I find these Words, “Whatever tends to create in the Minds
of the People, a Contempt of the Persons of those who hold the highest Offices in
the State, tends to induce in the Minds of the People a Belief that Subordination
is not necessary, and is no essential Part of Government.” Now if I understand the
Meaning of your high-flown Words, for the Gizzard of me, I can't see the Truth of
them. Should any one say, and in Print too, that the Steeple of Dr. Sewall's Meeting-House,
was old, and decayed, and rotten, as it was the last Time I see it, and in Danger
of falling on the Heads of the People in the Street, would this tend to induce in
the Minds of the People, a Belief that a Steeple was not necessary to a Meeting-House,
and that any Meeting House, might as well be turned topsy-turvey, and the Steeple
stuck down into the Earth, instead of being erected into the Air? Again, suppose the
Sweep of my Cyder-Mill was cracked and shivered, so that it had not Strength to grind
an Apple, or to turn the Rolls, if one of my Neighbours should tell me of this, would
this tend to create in me a Belief, that a Sweep was no necessary Part of a Cyder-Mill,
and that the Sweep might as well be placed where the Rolls are, or where the Hopper
is, or the Trough, as where we commonly put it? Once more, I have a Mare that is old,
and lean, and hipped, and stifled, and spavined, and heavy, and botty, and has { 181 } lost her Mane and Tail, and both her Ears, by the naughty Boys. Now if I should put
this Jade into a Horse Cart, and lead her through the Town in the Sight of all the
People, I believe they would one and all, despise my old Beast, and laugh at her too,
and if any of them came near her, and she should kick 'em and bite 'em, they would
hate her too; but would all this their Contempt and Laughter and Hatred, tend to induce
in their Minds a Belief that a Horse was not necessary to draw a Horse Cart, and that
a Cart might as well be put before a Horse, as a Horse before a Cart?
This now seems to be a strong Rashosination, so do you answer my Questions directly,
not find Fault with my Pointing and Spelling as you served Mr. X, who our School-Master
tells me is a Man of better Sense than you are, and Spells and Points better too,
notwithstanding your Braggadocio airs.
[salute] So I remain yours to sarve,
[signed] H. P[L]OUGHJOGGER
P.S. I'm so well known in the larned World, that I tho't it not worth while to write
my Name out at length, but you may print it so if you pleas.
Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 5 Jan. 1767); Dft, with minor variations, of first paragraph in JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:330, dated 31 Dec. 1766.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0067-0005
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1767-01-19
IV. Humphrey Ploughjogger to the Boston Gazette
[dateline] [Monday, January 19, 1767]
[salute] To the PRINTERS.
I Did flatter myself, as I had got so much Credit by my Writings upon Hemp, and Stamp-Act,
&c. &c.1 that the learned Phylanthrop would just have taken some small Notice of me. * I have
enquired about the Reason why he did not. Some tell me, the poor Man's Council is
always despised by the great and larned. Some say that it would be below the Dignity
of Government, to take Notice of such a Man as I am—and others say that my Arguments
were so strong that there was no answering of them. Now for my Part I am inclined
to this last way of Thinking, and so I shant advance any new Rashosinations till the
old ones, are defuted—and in Truth I feel concerned for poor Phylanthrop—tho' he is
very learned, yet 20 or 30 learned Men to one makes a dreadfull great odds2 —and it seems to have made the poor Man a most crazey. I pitty Crazyness from the
bottom of my Heart—but it makes this Man behave so odd that I can't help laughing.
{ 182 } I've got about 3 score Sheep at Home, that I take great Pleasure in feeding with Corn.
I take a Cobb every Morning, and a Basket full of Ears, and go out and shell 'em to
the Sheep—amongst the rest there is one little black Ram, a Year old, that gives me
a good deal of Diversion. He is a spiteful little Thing—and he rushes in among the
stately Weathers to get the Kernals of Corn, in the most fierce Manner imaginable—and
will sometimes come behind a fine great Weather, or upon the side of him, and give
him a paultry Bunt at unawares, and before the Weather can turn about to kill him,
he will skulk and run away. But all the Sheep of the Flock hate him, and at Times
bunt him and bang him, and bruise him most unmercifully, till the poor Beast's Flesh
is almost worn off of his Bones. Now thinks I, this is certainly the learned Phylanthrop
among my Sheep. His Nose, like Phylanthrop's is not clean, their Spite is alike, and
their Slyness is alike, and in many other Respects they are alike. But I really think
my little Ram looks cowed and sorry oftentimes that he ever picked a Quarrell with
the whole Flock, and now sees that it will not do, and wishes himself out of the Scrape—which
puts me in Mind of a comical Thing that happened tother Day in our Town. My Neighbour
Worldly had a Yoke of Oxen, that he was going to sell to a Stranger, for a fine Yoke
of working Cattle, but seven Years old, but the Stranger happen'd to go one side a
little, and sees my Neighbour Worldley's Negro Man Toney, and asks him about them
Oxen. Oh says Tony, they are as nice a Yoke of Oxen to work as ever stood under a
Yoke, I have drove 'em myself this 12 Years, and never drove so good a Yoke as they
are. Upon this the Stranger comes back to my Neighbour, told him what Tony had said,
and would not have the Cattle. My Neighbour was very wroth, and after he got Home,
he scolds at Tony very sadly. You told the Man that you had driven the Oxen 12 Years,
and I told him they were but 7 Year old you Blockhead says my Neighbour.” Oh Master
says Tony, I'm very sorry, I see now where I mist it. Just so I really believe Phylanthrop now sees where he mist it, and is very sorry—
[salute] I remain your's to sarve,
[signed] h. ploughjogger
* I do think he might just have mention'd me, and quoted some lines at me, or something—for
instance he might have said,
Joggs slowly on, unknowing what he sought,
And whistled as he went for want of thought.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0067-0006
Date: 1767-01
V. Misanthrop, No. 1
[dateline] [January 1767]1
Phylanthrops Principles, Motives and Views2
“'Tho I sincerely wish the Reformation of Paskalos3 and his Abettors and Assistants, yet I own from what I know of their Views and Principles,
I am without Hopes of it: But my design is4 to contribute according to my best Ability, towards the support of good Government,
and the Vindication of much injured Innocence. These two great Ends I am determined
Steadily to pursue; and if I can be in any degree instrumental in promoting these—if
I can undeceive my well meaning Countrymen, and perswade them to judge for themselves
and attend to their true Interests, as they are subjects of Social, and moral Laws,
I shall think myself amply recompenced for my Trouble, and I shall heartily despise
whatever Paskalos and his Associates may say of this or my future Performances. I
profess to be of no Party in Politicks, but I am a Friend to my Country, and consequently
a Friend to good Government, Peace and order. I am an enemy to all Injustice and a
Sincere Lover of all good and virtuous Men. From these Principles I now write, and
from these I shall write again.5 And deliver my sentiments with decent Freedom.”
“I will always endeavour to avoid rendering Railing for Railing.” I doubt not I shall
be able in the Name and Cause of Truth, to sustain the Charge, whenever this Goliah
shall advance.6 They will excuse me, if, for the future, I take no Notice of any unmannerly ill founded
Reflections.” Surely this Writer knows the Difference between Reasoning and Railing”
I assure the Gentleman I am no Hireling nor do I write from selfish Views, notwithstanding
the illnaturd Squibs of Some little Scriblers. But I write because I really think
I am on the side of Truth, good order, and injured and almost deserted Innocence.
He shall find me candid and free from Bigotry. I am determined to unravel the whole
Mystery of Iniquity—and not quit the subject, till I have exposed every falshood,
which has been, or may hereafter be published against his Excellency, or any others
in Authority. Happy would it be, if all Christians had so much of the genuine Spirit
of Christianity.” “I do now in the fear of God, declare and protest I shall, with
Pleasure see, that Justice, Charity, Peace and good order, will take Place which is
the only end in Writing, at first Sincerely proposed and still pursued by
[signed] Phylanthrop
The Principles Motives and Views of Phylanthrops Opponents
{ 184 } “To revile and slander Rulers, to endeavour to destroy all Confidence and affection
in the People towards them, is highly offensive to God, criminal against the state
and barbarously injurious to the Persons.7
It must, it cannot but be evident, notwithstanding the slander of Paskalos Scribling
in the Gazette, or Tertullus harranguing in the senate, that we never had a milder
Govr.” “When, thro the dirty Channell of a Gazette, and the more dirty Channell of
XXXX, he has received such foul abuse” —&c and unprecedented Insults.
Surely my Countrymen can no longer be deceived by the groundless Insinuations of Faction
and Malice. Shall we suffer Government to be openly insulted, and Innocence trampled
on—The Ribaldry of a few Malicious Writers.
Have we not lent too ready an Ear to the Calumnies of ambitious envious Pretenders
to Patriotism?—too easily given Credit to bold assertions instead of rational Evidence—given
Countenance to those turbulent Destroyers of the public Peace, who have been Sapping
the foundations of society and violating the Laws of Morality and Decency. Is it not
a Reproach to us, that a public Paper infamous for wantonly affronting Majesty itself,
treacherously subverting the first Principles of Government, inhumanly traducing the
Character of the living and impiously trampling on the ashes of the dead, should be
so generally purchased thro the Prov. When a Party Spirit prevails, Men are too apt
to overleap the bounds of Decency8 to vilify and anathematize those who differ from them—foul Language! Revilings and
bad Names —grossly abused and inhumanly insulted.—X, by his Reasoning, Spelling and
Pointing, is no formidable enemy—yet has shewn his hearty good Will, and by the Dirt
he has thrown, were he less impotent he would be less contemptible. His furious Attack,
unmannerly Ribaldry—discharge of venemous Weapons—round Assertion—a Question, which
cannot be fairly discussed, without entering so minutely into particulars, as might
be disagreable to Some.
Paskalos is, and will ever be the same in Point of Decency and Veracity. It is disagreable
to brush off Filth and Dirt.
Jealousies and undue Prejudices—groundless Calumnies of a few artful designing Men,—implicit
faith—airy phantoms—temerary9 Presumtions, improbable Conjectures—Trifles lighter than Vanity—while the fren[z]y lasts—ungenerous Libels—idle tittle tattle of the credulous —wicked dogmatical assertions
of the malicious—an assertion, notoriously repugnant to Truth—unjust and indecent
affronts, subversive of Government and inconsistent with good Manners—with pharisaical
os• { 185 } tentation proclaiming their Patriotism in the Market Places and on the House Tops.
Rude savage Treatment—Libels signed Paskalos—how unfair, how dishonest is this—a smal
Crime, compared with what I shall now lay open—abusive Ribaldry of Paskalos—I blush
for the pretended fair dealer A—I have great Reason to fear this Writer, notwithstanding
his fair Pretensions, has wilfully imposed a palpable falshood upon the public. Let
this warn him to be cautious of Detraction. He who publisheth a lie to the World.
The impatient X—angry X,—choleric, galloping, ranting Piece—his Friends wish him to
the XXXXX miserable little Shifts,—inveterate Enemies—ungenerously and falsely charged him
with Smuggling—not the least foundation in Truth—unjust Persecutors,—inhuman End of
ruining a Gentlemans Character—a Spirit, truly diabolical—Enemies to the Gover and
the Province—intended as an Injury and affront to the Govr.
Petulant impatient X—disaffected Individuals—imaginary Slight of their superiour Merits—mad
Ambition which overturns Empires—Shake the State with internal Convulsions, in order
to accomplish their revengeful and ambitious Schemes—Sow the seeds of Jealousy and
discontent—inflame the Passions—general Accusations—minutest faults printed in the
blackest Colours—all actions construed into Tyranny—The grossest Falshoods with bold
Assertions—false alarms—detect the fraud—pretended Zealots for the public good—September
1760 the cry began—who first sounded and has continued to sound the Alarm—groundless
and trifling Accusations—led blindfold by those whose Views and Designs are utterly
inconsistent with public Peace and Happiness—basely suggested—such a Mixture of Injustice,
Barbarity, and inexpressible Littleness of Soul in this Group of malicious supine
[insin]uations, that is painful to refute them—peculiarly Sordid, cruel [ . . . ] and eminently wicked—false narrow Spirited Insinuations—wicked Attempts to disturb
the People, and make em jealous and suspicious—Snarling Writer X vent his Malice—have
their Source not in Truth but in the worst of Passions.
Gentle Reader let me ask you, is this fellow Mad, or drunk? Is this decent Freedom?
Is this Piety, Christian Piety, the true Spirit of Christianity. Upon Reading this
choice Collection of Rhetoric, I cant help, recollecting King Lear in the cold Storm,
calling out to the howling Winds, the flashing Lightning and hoarse, tremendous Thunder,
Rumble thy fill—&c—
I made this Collection at first for the sake of the vinous, new kind of oratory and
Rhetoric that is in it—Such Flowers, such Beauties, such Harmony, and Elegance, and
Grandeur—Such Meekness, Patience Modesty, Politeness, Piety Loyalty, Love of order,
Justice, Peace. This Man must be the Dove and the Lamb, if we believe his Professions.
His opponents, every Man, who ever said, or thought amiss of the Govr. or Lt Govr.,
such cruel, wicked, envious, malicious, turbulent, dirty, sordid, barbarous, inhuman,
diabolical.
† Only let me intreat the Reader to keep this Paper by him, and to Study the Beauties
of this Parcell of Extracts.
Upon Contemplating this excellent Group of Expressions, and comparing them together
and considering their perfect Causistry &c I felt a most flaming Curiosity to know,
who this perfect Christian, this spotless Saint, this disinterested Lover of his Country,
really was. I conjectured a Multitude of Persons,—and considered their Characters
and Actions. But none would do. At last as I must and will know the Bottom in all
these Cases, I had recourse to the Occult Sciences.10 And I discovered, with precise Certainty, who this Phylanthrop, is, what are his
Principles, Motives and Views, which I am determined, as they are very curious and
remarkable to make public next Monday. I shall publish it with great Pleasure, because
such Discoveries always yield great Pleasure to
[signed] Mysanthrop
MS (Adams Papers); microfilmed as part of a 27-page cluster of MSS under the date Aug. – Sept. 1763 and docketed by CFA: “Original Draughts of Newspaper Articles, signed U. 1763” (Adams Papers, Microfilms, Reel No. 343); but for its actual provenance and date see Editorial Note, above, and notes 1 and 10, below.
1. Since this draft of an unpublished newspaper letter consists mainly of extracts from
those Philanthrop letters which were published in the Boston Evening-Post between 1 Dec. 1766 and 5 Jan. 1767, a conjectural date for the draft is the first
half of January.
2. Both paragraphs under this heading consist of quotations, more or less exact but sometimes
with words and phrases omitted, from Philanthrop letters. Note is taken below only
of those omissions that seem significant.
3. The pseudonym of one of Philanthrop's opponents, reputedly used by Joseph Warren (Berkin, Jonathan Sewall, p. 37).
4. Omitted here is “in the room of an abler pen, (which I have long wished would start
forth).”
5. Omitted here is “and offer to the publick my candid thoughts on the grand question
now under consideration, 'Whether justice shall be done to the sufferers in the late
times of tumult and distress, or not?' In this, I shall, without designing offence
to any, deliver my sentiments with that decent freedom which becomes, and is the birth-right of, an Englishman.”
6. This sentence, lacking quotation marks, does not immediately precede the next sentence,
which has closing quote marks. Here and elsewhere no attempt has been made to supply
such marks where normally they would be required.
7. Omitted here is a set of qualifying phrases that precedes the quotation: “when rulers,
by the whole course of their conduct, evince, to the satisfaction of all sober impartial
judges, that they uniformly aim, with integrity and singleness of heart, to promote
the true interest and happiness of those they govern; tho' they should sometimes err
in their judgments, in trifling instances, with regard to the means to this end; yet
to revile.”
8. Omitted here is: “and instead of endeavoring to convince their opponents by sober
argument, are led, thro' an intemperate zeal.”
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0067-0007
Date: 1767-01
VI. Misanthrop, No. 2
[dateline] [January 1767]1
During a Course of twenty Years, it has been the constant Amusement of my Life, to
examine, the Secret Springs, Motives and Principles of human Actions: And I am more
and more perswaded, every day, that from the Fall of Adam to this Time, Mankind in
general, has been given up, to Strong Delusions, vile Affections, sordid Lusts, and
brutal Appetites. The first Inquiry, that commonly arises in the Heart is, how will
such a Thing affect my Humour, my Interest, my private Views and Designs? If it militates
or non-conforms with these, —right or wrong—good or bad—wise or foolish—it must be
discarded and renounced at once. If it coincides with these, at all hazards to others
or the Public, and at any Expence of Honour, Truth or Conscience, it must be embraced
and pursued. This great Point being once determined, the next Rule is to cover all
this Matter up from the View of the World, in Secresy and Dissimulation, and to give
out without a Blush or a Simper, that I am, in no possible Respect interested in it,
or that it manifestly contradicts my Interest, and that I have no View, but to Serve
God, holy Church, Religion, good Government, injured Innocence, Mankind in general
or the particular Community to which I belong. And if the People will not otherwise
believe me, I must boldly call God to witness that I speak, write and Act, from no
other Principle or Inducement whatever, but pure Benevolence and Piety.
Long Practice and Experience, have given me, Some Dexterity and Sagacity, in unravelling
Such Snarls, and in investigating, 'thro all the winding Labyrinths of Hypocrisy,
Chicanery and Dissimulation, the real Springs, and original Movements in the Minds
of Men.
An extraordinary Case, has however, now and then, happened which has puzzled all my
Skill. As, I must and will fathom all such Cases to the Bottom, I have had Recourse,
upon these occasions, to { 188 } the occult Sciences. A little familiar Spirit attends me, whom, in Imitation of Shakespeare
I have called Ariel. This little Spright, who hops about upon the Clouds and Rainbows,
rides upon the Sun beams, dives down to the Center of the Earth, 'thro the Springs
and Subterranean Canals; and indeed can circulate 'thro the Mass of a Mans Blood upon
a Globule of Mercury, or dart 'thro the Pore of the Nerves in the Cerebrum or Cerebellum,
upon a Particle of nervouse Juice or Animal Spirit; is of great Service to me, and
never fails to unriddle the most mysterious Phaenomena, in Politicks or Ethicks.
A Late Writer in Fleet,2 has furnished one of these Cases.3 I could not account upon any Principles, for this Affair. Good Principles I saw at
first thought could never prompt any Man to write upon that subject in that Manner.
And, so excessively unpopular and odious was the Task, that no Man could well expect
to serve himself by it in any scheme of Pride, Anger, Malice, Covetousness, Revenge,
or Lust. After ruminating a while upon the subject without satisfaction, I calls my
Ariel and bids him look out—away flutters my little Ariel, and the next Morning returned
with the following Information.
That he flitted away to Ede's Printing office, and peeped into their Books of Account
and found the Number of their subscribers, and when he had that, gave the signal to
the Legions of the Air, and had the same Number of his Ariel Companions, attending
him in an Instant (for such is the Association of these Ethereal Inhabitants that
any one of them, can at a Call have any Number he wants to attend him in any Enterprise).
Each of these Companions he ordered to attend each of the Papers, where ever they
should go, and to enter the Brain of every Man who should read them, and if any of
them would discover <the author of> Phylanthrop he was to return to the office and give the Hint to Ariel.
Not many Minutes after, in comes a Boy for a Paper and carries it into a certain Room
in Town and gives it to a Gentleman, who seizes it with great Agitation and Impatience
and reads. In thro his Eye Balls, flew the little Spirit into the much ruffled Regions
of his Brain and attentively observes all that passes. It was that Paper Signd A,4 in which such a dismal Catalogue is given of the Governors Virtues. The first Thought
which the Spirit observd after he had red a little while, was an Ejaculation Good
God! what shall I do? what an everlasting Task have I undertaken to unravel all these
facts and Reasonings? A Man must have more Charity and Phylanthropy than I have pretended
to in the Name I have assumed, to cover this Multitude of sins.—I—Upon this the little
one had all he wanted. He darted to Ariel { 189 } and both of them returned in an Instant and reent[er]ed. I shall not enumerate all the Resolutions and Irresolutions, Hopes, fears, Resentments,
Conflicts, Reasonings, Ridicule, Rage, Revenge, Compunction, Conviction, self Condemnation
&c which took Place in his Mind while he rambled a while about the Town and at last
crossed the ferry and walkd Home.
After he gets home, he retires to his office and seats himself at his Desk to ruminate
and scrible. Where Ariel observd and recordd the following Lucubrations. I am the
most miserable of all Mortals! I was born to trouble, as the Sparks fly upwards. I
am not my own Man! I am a Slave! more unhappy than the basest <Negro> in Town, because I have the Sentiments of Liberty, her Feelings, the most exquisite
Relish of her Charms, but am past a possibility of enjoying the heavenly Goddess!
In the Affair of the Cabinet disputes, I was wronged, injured, abused, and my Brother
was treated with the most wicked Cruelty. I began to vindicate my self And him. But
it was signifyd to me that the Governor and Lieutenant Governor, would be offended,
if I proceded. And I knew that I had such dependance upon them that my Hands were
ty'd, and I could not proceed.
And to go still further back. I knew and concievd [in] my soul, that the Legislative and Executive Powers ought to be kept asunder—that
all Law, and all History, and common sense are in favour of this. And that all my
Brethren of the Profession were of this Mind, yet my Masters prompted me to write
and encouragd me with the Hopes of Bread and so I was brought to write the Pieces
signed J in which among Many Instances in which I contradicted the sentiments of my
Heart and Conscience I was prevail'd on to write in favor of the Judges sitting in
Council.
And in Times of the late Stamp Act, I was fully and clearly, satisfyd, in my own Mind
that the Parliament had no Authority to pass such a Law, and that Resistance to it
was not only lawful but meritorious lawdable and glorious. And I was then convinced
and yet remain so, that Resistance on this side the Water, and that alone saved Us,
and I felt an eager affection for my Country and a strong Inclination, to write upon
these subjects, and had sometimes begun and wrote but fear of grieving Mr G——fe,5 and offending the Governor and Lieutenant Governor on whom my Bread, and my preservation
from Gaol depended, always obstructed me.
And now, I must acknowledge within myself that this my native Country has been insulted,
most arrogantly insulted, misrepresented at home, most wickedly, and maliciously misrepresented
by the Governor, { 190 } and schemes are now going on under his Direction, to irritate and inflame the People
to some new Extravagance, that the Necessity of regular Troops, and of some new fund
for independent Salaries to Crown officers, might be made to appear. Vile schemes
my soul detests. But Judge Russell6 is gone to England, there is a Vacancy on the superiour Bench. This Vacancy haunts
me. I have no rest by day, no sleep by Night.—Shall I hearken to the Remonstrances
of my Conscience, and write no more! Why if I should not, Mr. Gridley, who stands
well with the Governor, and has helped a long Time to keep him in Countenance, and
whose indisputable Learning, Genius and Merit entitle him to fill that vacancy before
any Man, will I have reason to think obtain it. Besides Brigr. Ruggles,7 if I leave real Merit, and come to the Governors Notions of it, by his endeavours
to defend the Measures of the Congress, and by his other similar faithful services,
and sufferings in that Cause both before and since has deserved the Place before Mr.
G—f. And The Governor may be afraid of giving offence to those Gentlemen by appointing
Goffe, and so may be disposed to [befriend?] Judge Russell so much as to appoint no Body till his Return. And unless Mr Goffe
is made a Judge I cannot be Attorney General. Oh Jesü! what would I do and give for
that Place!
MSS (Adams Papers); Dft of an unpublished newspaper letter which has been conflated from two physically distinct
but organically related drafts. The first of these, comprising the first three paragraphs
printed above, was microfilmed as part of a 27-page cluster of MSS under the date Aug. – Sept. 1763 and docketed by CFA: “Original Draughts of Newspaper Articles, signed U. 1763” (Adams Papers, Microfilms, Reel No. 343). The second, consisting of the remaining paragraphs, was microfilmed
as part of a 20-page cluster of MSS under the date [16 Feb. 1767] and docketed by CFA: “Original Draughts of Newspaper Articles Governor Winthrop to Governor Bradford.
1767” (same, Reel No. 344). For their actual provenance and date, see notes 1 and 6, below. See also note 3, below, for the only substantive textual alteration resulting from their conflation.
1. Although neither of the two drafts which have been conflated to produce the text as
here given was signed or dated, the evidence is nearly conclusive that they are one
of two “Misanthrop” pieces written as replies to Philanthrop in Jan. 1767. The last
part of the signed Misanthrop draft above (No. V), certainly composed in January, promises resort to the occult to learn Philanthrop's
identity. The present draft introduces the spirit Ariel. Moreover, this piece concludes
with a fanciful soliloquy uttered by Philanthrop. That soliloquy is finished and signed
“Misanthrop” in JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:330–331. The physical appearance of the MS in the diary is different from that of the diary entry dated 31 Dec. 1766 that precedes
it and similar to that of the conflated draft. That is, the ink is similarly heavy,
and the pen point seems the same.
2. That is, Philanthrop in the Fleets' Boston Evening-Post.
3. In the first of the pieces from which this text has been conflated, the remainder
of this paragraph, which concludes the draft, reads:
“The late remarkable Writer in Fleet, has furnished { 191 } one of these Cases. His Name Phylanthrop professed Benevolence, but not Satisfyed
with this, he was profuse in his Professions, of Sincerity, Justice, order, Piety,
public Spirit, and even Christianity, and his Declarations frequent that he had no
other View or Design, or Hope of Reward; and his Charges upon all who differed from
him, of Malice, Envy, Ambition, Revenge, Cruelty, Turbulence, Petulance, Disaffection
&c. were very liberal. These Professions, together with the very curious Instructions
and Informations he gives to the Public, and his Panegyricks and Invectives.”
4. “A,” whom a contemporary identified as Samuel Adams (MHi:Harbottle Dorr Papers, 1B:564), began his answers to Philanthrop on 8 Dec. 1766 in
the Boston Gazette. Philanthrop remarked that “A” had “more the appearance of a Gentleman” and seemed
to promise “to confine himself within the bounds of decent freedom” (15 Dec. 1766).
5. Edmund Trowbridge (1709–1793), Massachusetts attorney general, 1749–1767, and Superior Court justice, 1767–1775,
had for many years used the name Goffe because he had been raised by his uncle and
guardian Col. Edmund Goffe (Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates, 8:507–520).
6. Chambers Russell (1713–1766), Massachusetts vice admiralty judge, 1746–1766, died in England in Nov. 1766 while
on a mission concerning a boundary dispute between New York and New Jersey (Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates, 9:81–87). News of his death appeared in the Boston Post-Boy, 19 Jan. 1767. Obviously JA wrote before knowing about his death.
7. Brigadier Timothy Ruggles (1711–1795), as delegate to the Stamp Act Congress, had been one of two who refused to sign its
resolves. He later became a noted loyalist (Morgan, Stamp Act, p. 109).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0067-0008
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Recipient: Bradford, Governor
Date: 1767-01-26
VII. Governor Winthrop to Governor Bradford
[dateline] [Monday, January 26, 1767]
[salute] Messi'rsEdes and Gill
Please to insert the following.
Governor Winthrop to Governor Bradford
We have often congratulated each other, with high satisfaction, on the glory we secured
in both worlds, by our favourite enterprize of planting America. We were Englishmen.
We were citizens of the world. We were christians. The history of nations and of mankind
was familiar to us; and we considered the species chiefly in relation to the system
of great nature, and her all-perfect author. In consequence of such contemplations
as these, it was the unwearied endeavour of our lives, to establish a society, on
English, humane, and christian principles. This, (altho' we are never unwilling to
acknowledge that the age in which we lived, the education we received, and the scorn
and persecution we endured, had tinctured our minds with prejudices unworthy of our
general principles and real designs,) we are conscious was our noble aim. We succeeded
to the astonishment of all mankind, and our posterity, in spite of all the terrors,
and temptations which have from first to last surrounded them, and endangered their
very being, have been supremely happy. But what shall we say to the { 192 } principles, maxims, and schemes, which have been adopted, warmly defended, and zealously
propagated in America, since our departure out of it? adopted I say, and propagated,
more by the descendents of some of our worthiest friends, than by any others? You
and I, have been happier, in this respect, than most of our contemporaries. If our
posterity, have not, without interruption maintained the principal ascendency in public
affairs, they have always been virtuous and worthy, and have never departed from the
principles of the Englishman, the citizen of the world, and the christian. You very
well remember, the grief, we felt, for many years together, at the gradual growth
and prevalence of principles opposite to ours; nor have you forgotten our mutual joy,
at the very unexpected resurrection of a spirit, which contributed so much to the
restoration of that temper and those maxims, which we have all along wished and pray'd
might be established in America. Calamities are the causticks and catharticks of the
body politick. They arouse the soul. They restore original virtues. They reduce a
constitution back to its first principles. And to all appearance, the iron sceptre
of tyranny, which was so lately extended over all America; and which threatned to
exterminate all, for which it was worth while to exist upon earth; terrified the inhabitants
into a resolution and an ardor for the noble foundations of their ancestors.
But how soon is this ardor extinguished! In the course of a few months, they have
cooled down, into such a tame, torpid state of indolence and inattention; that the
missionaries of slavery, are suffered to preach their abominable doctrines, not only
with impunity, but without indignation and without contempt.1 What will be the consequence, if that, (I will not say contemptible but abominable)
writer Philanthrop, is allowed, to continue his wicked labours? I say, allowed, tho'
I would not have him restrained by any thing, but the cool contempt and dispassionate
abhorrence of his countrymen; because the country whose interiour character is so
depraved as to be endangered from within by such a writer, is abandoned and lost.
We are fully perswaded that New-England is in no danger from him; unless his endeavours
should excite her enemies abroad, of whom she has many and extreamly inveterate and
malicious; and enable them, in concert with others within her own bosom, whose rancour
is no less malignant and venemous, to do her a mischief. With pleasure I see that
gentlemen are taking measures to administer the antidote, with the poison.
As the sober principles of civil and ecclesiastical tyranny are so { 193 } gravely inculcated, by this writer, as his artifices are so insidious, and his mis-affirmations
so numerous, and egregious, you will excuse me if I should again trouble you with
a letter upon these subjects, from your assured and immutable friend,
[signed] Winthrop
Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 26 Jan. 1767); partial Dft (Adams Papers); part of a 20-page cluster of MSS microfilmed under the date [16 Feb. 1767] and docketed by CFA: “Original Draughts of Newspaper Articles Governor Winthrop to Governor Bradford.
1767”; “No. 1. N.B. Boston Gazette 26 Jany. 1767”; “(Incomplete).”
1. The partial draft ends at this point. There are no significant differences between
draft and printed text.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0067-0009
Recipient: Bradford, Governor
Date: 1767-01
VIII. Governor Winthrop to Governor Bradford, Some Fragments
[dateline] [January 1767]
I am Sorry to find Phylanthrop, attempting to vindicate the high flying, Maxims, the
arbitrary Precedents, and the Tyrannical Practices of that self sufficient Innovator
that arrogant, pedantical Tyrant King James the first.1
This Exception in the Dedimus,2 is laying the Ax to the Root of the Tree of Liberty. It is Hewing it down, or tearing
it up, as Nero swore he would Virtue by the Roots.
They are so—and It was a fundamental of your Politicks and mine to take away their
Power and render the People capable.
If the Prince is remarkable for his Gluttony Drunkeness and Lust, they commended his
Temperance, and Chastity, if notorious for Falshood and Deceit, they admired his noble
Simplicity and Sacred Regard to Probity and Truth, if he was malicious, cruel, and
revengeful they extolled his Clemency, Moderation and Condescention, and if he was
infamous for Sordid Avarice and unfeeling Rapacity, they celebrated his Generosity,
Humanity, Magnificence and Liberality.3
All the Disputes that have been between Power and Priviledge, between Tyranny and
Liberty, between Phylanthrop and me, may be reduced to this single Question, who shall judge? Private Judgment is the Right of Mankind, and from this all other Rights originate.
Now shall we allow this Right in Individuals, in the greatest Part of Mankind, and
yet deny that Individuals, the greatest Part of Mankind, have a Capacity to judge?4 Would not this be a Contradiction and [in] terms and a solecism in Nature? I grant that sound and shew { 194 } have too much Influence, on Mankind in general, but it is owing to such Tempers and
Principles as Phylanthrops that
To the Printers.
Cassius from Bondage shall deliver Cassius.
MS (Adams Papers); part of a 20-page cluster of MSS, 3 blank pages separating this document from No. VII, above; microfilmed under the date [16 Feb. 1767] and docketed by CFA: “Original Draughts of Newspaper Articles Governor Winthrop to Governor Bradford.
1767”; probably meant as possible ideas for the Winthrop-Bradford series of letters.
For probable date see notes 1–4, below, and No. IX, note 1, below.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0067-0010
Recipient: Bradford, Governor
Date: 1767-02-02
IX. Governor Winthrop to Governor Bradford
[dateline] ante 2 February 17671
Govr. W. to Govr. B.
I promised you, another Letter, concerning the wicked Maxims, the delusive Arts, and
the false Assertions, of that devoted Writer, Phylanthrop.
I remember to have read in Diodorus the Sicilian, of an Institution among the ancient
Aegyptians, intended to reconcile a Reverence for the Persons of their Princes, with
an Endeavour to instruct and reform them. This Method was, when they were desirous
of warning their Monarchs against particular Vices, they commended and extolled them
for opposite Virtues. And I must confess when I read in the first Dissertation of
Phylanthrop, such <tryumphant> possitive assertion[s] as these, “It must, it cannot but be evident, to all who are willing to see, and
judge for them selves, notwithstanding the slander of Paskalos,2 Scribbling in the Gazette, or Tertullus harranguing in the Senate, that we never
had a Governor in the Chair, who discoverd more Mildness and Condescention in his
Administration or a more uniform Steady Attention to the true Interests of this Province
than G——r B——d has discovered,” and his triumphant, Interogations Has he ever discovered
the least Inclination to abridge Us of any of our constitutional Rights and Liberties?
Has he ever attempted to stretch Prerogative beyond its just Bounds? &c. I was much
inclined to believe that Phylanthrop was, attempting that Aegyptian Method of { 195 } Reformation and Instruction. But, upon a more thorough Examination of Phylanthrops
Writings I was soon convinced, he was more zealous to Shroud his Hero, from the candid
Inspection, and free Examination of the public, than he was for his Amendment or Information.
And upon a careful Review of all the Writings, subscribed with that Name, I should
sooner believe the Author to have received his Education in the detestible society
of the Gypsies, where it is said they administer an oath to every Member, on his first
Admission, never to Speak one Word of Truth, than that his Attempt was an Imitation of the Custom of AEgypt.
Impotent, wretched, and little as Human Nature is, in Relation to Superiour Intelligences,
yet you my old Friend and I know from dear bought Experience, that human Ambition
is infinite. We know it because We have felt the cruel oppressions, which Sprung out
of it. From this expansive allgrasping Passion, it has happened, that nothing could
ever satiate the Lust of Tyrants. Alexander and Caeesar after having desolated one
World, cryed for another to desolate, and having arisen <gradually greatly> above all Mortalls in Power, nothing would content them, but to be worshiped on Earth
by their Fellow Men, as immortal Gods. That the subject, in the Eastern Monarchies
may be kept in a continual Adoration of his Sovereign, and may be properly prepared,
to submit thankfully to be tortured, mangled and slaughtered at his Pleasure, and
that Tyrany may stalk and ravage in all his Horrors; it must be high Treason to look
the Monarch in the Face.
This Reverence and Awe, this Dread and Terror of the Prince and his favourites has
in all Ages and Nations been cultivated among their Vassalls and slaves. And indeed
Usurpation would long since have been abolished in the World, if there was not a great
Disposition in human Nature itself to Timidity, Staring, Astonishment and Adoration,—which
the Rich, the Learned, the Cunning, and the Wicked, have addresd themselves to and
aval'd themselves of. The very first Maxim of Tyranny, is and always was, to puzzle
the Understandings and excite the Admiration of the People—inspire them if possible
with Religious scruples about seeing the Persons of the Magistrate or Priest, without
Prostration before them, and much more about enquiring into their Conduct or Thinking
about it.
If We go from Greece and Rome and Aegypt and Turkey and Persia, and fetch our Examples
from England we shall not find them wanting. That selfsufficient Innovator, that arrogant
pedantical Tyrant, King James the first the great School Master of the Kingdom as
{ 196 } he affected to style himself, inculcated the same Maxim, upon his Pupils, the Parliament
and People of England.
In one of his Speeches to both Houses, in which he displayd <all> some of his exalted Notions of Monarchy and the Authority of Princes, he expressed
himself in the following Terms. “I conclude then the Point, touching the Power of
Kings, with this Axiom in Divinity, that as to dispute what God may do is Blasphemy,
But what God wills that Divines may lawfully and do ordinarily dispute and discuss:
so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a King may do in the Height of his Power.
I will not be content that my Power be disputed upon &c.”3
It is with inexpressible sorrow that I see, in a Country that has always been so dear
to Us, a Writer So venal and prostituted, as gravely to transfer these awful and misterious
Doctrines of Despotism, to a few small Provincial Magistrates.
His Words are these “an Attempt to destroy the established Form of Government, is
the highest Crime versus the State—whoever Says or does any Thing tending to destroy
it, is a public Enemy.4 Subordination is essential to every Form of Government. What ever tends to destroy
subordination tends to destroy Government. Whatever tends to induce in the Minds of
the People a Belief that subordination is not essential, tends to destroy subordination.
And what ever tends to create in the Minds of the People, a Contempt of the Persons
of those who hold the highest offices, tends to a Belief that Subordination is not
essential, because the Person and office are so connected in the Minds of the greatest
Part of Mankind, that a Contempt of the Person and a Veneration of the office, are
incompatible.”
The Maxim intended to be established by this dark Train of Propositions, is to use
Phylanthrops own Language is truly diabolical. In what Respect does this axiom differ
from the Eastern Rule of Despotism that subjects shall never look their Princes in
the Face. The Reason they give is the Same, to behold the Princes Face, will diminish
his Reverence, and from thinking his Prince a God or an Angel in his Imagination,
his sight will inform him, he is but a Mortal Man—or in other Words for the People
to look at their Prince, tends to create in their Minds a Contempt of his Person,
and consequently of his office.
I should be glad to know if Phylanthrop will extend his Doctrine so far? Would he
prohibit the People of Boston from looking at the G——r — L——t G——r—&c looking in their
Faces, and observing their Air especially if the People should have Skill in Phisiognomy
by discover• { 197 } ing accidentally some malevolent Passion. The least Anger, Fear, Jealousy, or Revenge
may tend to create in their Minds a Contempt of their Persons—nay if they should not
happen to be handsome and Genteel, Ladies and fine Gentlemen may conceive some Contempt,
even from their Features and shapes, tho their Countenances should be ever so sweet
and pleasant. Or would our Writer extend his Maxim, only to Speaking and Writing,
or in the Language of King James, would he only, not be content to have their Power
disputed upon. Would he only have it sedition, to dispute what a Governor or other
Ruler may do, in the Hight of his Power! Talking and Writing about the Actions of
Rulers may tend I grant, to create in the Minds of the People both a Contempt and
an Hatred of them, and so thought K. James. Is every Talker and Writer about their
Actions and Power a public Enemy and guilty of Sedition, or the highest Crime versus
the State? Phylanthrops pretended Limitation [afterwards?] that the Persons of Rulers are sacred no longer than they pursue the Good of the
Community, is worse than Nothing; for who shall judge when they pursue that noble
End or when they deviate from it—shall the Rulers themselves judge or their subjects,
Phylanthrop or J.?
MS (Adams Papers); part of a 20-page cluster of MSS microfilmed under the date [16 Feb. 1767] and docketed by CFA: “Original Draughts of Newspaper Articles Governor Winthrop to Governor Bradford.
1767.” For probable date see note 1, below.
1. Presumably this is the second in the series of Winthrop-Bradford letters, never published
because JA abandoned the approach taken in it, that of discussing Philanthrop's general principles,
in favor of dealing with a particular issue: Bernard's refusal to administer oaths
of office to two men, which Philanthrop raised 26 Jan. 1767. JA concluded No. VII, above, with a promise of another letter about Philanthrop's “sober principles of
civil and ecclesiastical tyranny.” The present document begins “I promised you, another
Letter,” and No. X, below, printed in the Gazette, also mentions the promise, but notes that it will depart from the original plan.
In the issue of 2 Feb. 1767 the printers of the Gazette announced that a letter from Winthrop to Bradford had arrived too late for publication
and would appear in the issue of 9 Feb. (its continuation appeared 16 Feb.). This
circumstance suggests that the present document was written before 2 Feb.
3. In 1610, quoted, somewhat abridged, in G. W. Prothero, ed., Select Statutes and Other Constitutional Documents Illustrative of the Reigns of Elizabeth
and James I, Oxford, 1906, p. 293–295. JA's rendition is accurate in substance except that before the last sentence that he
quotes he omits the following: “But just kings will ever be willing to declare what
they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God.”
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0067-0011
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Recipient: Bradford, Governor
Date: 1767-02-09
X. Governor Winthrop to Governor Bradford
[epigraph]
That the Hypocrite reign not, lest the People be ensnared.
[signed] Job.
[dateline] [Monday, February 9, 1767]
[salute] Sir,
[epigraph]
That the Hypocrite reign not, lest the People be ensnared.
[signed] Job.
You have my promise of another letter, concerning the maxims, arts, and positions
of Philanthrop; whose performances of the last week1 I shall proceed to consider, without any formal apology for departing from the plan
I proposed at first.
The art employed by this writer, in the introduction to his account of the Concord2 anecdote, is worth observation; before we undertake an examination of the account
itself, and his reasonings upon it. God forbid that I should trifle with religion,
or blame any man for professing it publickly. But there is a decency to be observed
in this. True religion is too modest and reserved to seek out the market places and
corners of the streets, party news papers, and political pamphlets, to exhibit her
prayers and devotions. Besides there is so much in the temper of times and manners
of ages, that ostentations of this kind, may be more excusable in one century than
in another. The age in which you and I lived, was religious to enthusiasm: Yet we
may safely say, that canting and hypocrisy, were never carried to so shameless a pitch,
even by a sir Henry Vane, an Oliver St. John, an Oliver Cromwell or an Hugh Peters,
as Philanthrop in his last monday's paper has carried them. True religion, my friend
Bradford, was the grand motive, with you and me, to undertake our arduous and hazardous
enterprize, and to plant a religion in the world, on the large and generous principles
of the bible, without teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, or any mixture
of those pompous rituals, and theatrical ceremonies, which had been so successfully
employed, to delude and terrify men out of all their knowledge, virtue, liberty, piety
and happiness, a religion that should never be made subservient to the pride, ambition,
avarice, or lust, of an aspiring priesthood, or a cruel and usurping magistracy, was
our incessant aim, and unwearied endeavour. And we have now the happiness to reflect
on our success: for at least we have approached nearer to such an institution, than
any others have done, since the primitive ages of christianity. And altho' stiffness,
formality, solemnity, grimace and cant, very common in our times, have worn off, in
a great measure from New-England: yet true religion, on the plan of freedom, popular
power and private { 199 } judgment, remains and prospers. This we are fully perswaded is truth, tho' the deluded
Philanthrop seems to be so far given up to blindness of mind, as to think that his
quotations from scripture, his affected meekness, charity, benevolence and piety;
his formal stiffness and hypocritical grimace, will divest his countrymen of their
senses, and screen him from their jealousy, while he is tearing up, by his principles
and practices, conversation and writings, the foundations of their constitution, both
in church and state.
But it is not only by attempting to throw around himself the rays of religion, that
this writer has attempted to deceive his countrymen: he has laboured to possess their
minds with principles in government, utterly subversive of all freedom, tending to
lull them into an indolent security and inattention. In one of his late papers he
has a paragraph to this purpose, “a brave and free people who are not thro' luxury,
enervated and sunk to that degree of effeminate indolence, which renders them insensible
to the difference, between freedom and slavery, can never fail to perceive the approaches
of arbitrary power. The constitution of all free governments, especially that of the
English, is of such a nature, the principles of it are so familiar, and so interwoven
with the human mind, and the rulers are so circumscribed with positive laws, for the
directing and controling their power, that they can never impose chains and shackles
on the people, nor even attempt it, without being discovered. In such a government
and among such a people, the very first act, in pursuance of a design to enslave or
distress the subjects in general, must be so obvious, as to render all false colouring
totally unnecessary to arouse the public attention; a simple narration of facts, supported
by evidence, which can never be wanting in such a case, will be sufficient, and will
be the surest means to convince the people of their danger.”3
What conclusion, shall a candid reader draw, by a fair interpretation from this wordy,
cloudy passage? would he not conclude, that a free government, especially the English,
was a kind of machine, calculated for perpetual motion and duration? That no dangers
attended it? And that it may easily preserve and defend itself, without the anxiety
or attention of the people?
The truth is precisely the reverse of this. Tho' a few individuals may perceive the
approaches of arbitrary power, and may truly publish their perceptions to the people;
yet it is well known the people are not perswaded without the utmost difficulty, to
attend to facts and evidence. Those who covet such power, always have recourse to
secresy and the { 200 } blackness of darkness, to cover their wicked views, and have always their parties
and instruments and minions at hand to disguise their first approaches, and to vilify
and abuse, as turbulent destroyers of the public peace, as factious, envious, malicious
pretenders to patriotism, as sowers and stirers of sedition, all those who perceive
such approaches, and endeavour to inform and undeceive their neighbours. Liberty,
instead of resting securely within the entrenchment of any free constitution of government,
ever yet invented and reduced to practice, has always been surrounded with dangers—exposed
to perils by water and by fire. The world, the flesh and the devil have always maintained
a confederacy against her, from the fall of Adam to this hour, and will probably continue
so till the fall of Antichrist. Consider the common-wealths of Greece. Were not their
liberties in continual danger? Were not the wisest of them so sensible of it, as to
establish a security of liberty, I mean the ostracism, even against the virtues of
their own citizens? that no individual, even by his valour, public spirit, humanity
and munificence, might endear himself so much to his fellow citizens, as to be able
to deceive them, and engross too much of their confidence and power. In Rome, how
often were the people cheated out of their liberties, by Kings, Deumvirs, Triumvirs,
and conspirators of other denominations? In the times when Roman valour, simplicity,
public spirit and frugality were at the highest, tyranny, in spight of all the endeavours
of her enemies, was sometimes well nigh established, and even a Tarquin, could not
be expelled but by civil war. In the history of the English nation, which Philanthrop
is pleased to distinguish from all others, how many arbitrary reigns do we find since
the conquest? sometimes, for almost an whole century together, notwithstanding all
the murmur, clamour, speeches in the senate, writings from the press, and discourses
from the pulpit, of those whom Philanthrop calls turbulent destroyers of the public
peace: but you and I think, the guardian angels of their countries liberties, the
English nation, has trembled and groaned under tyranny.
For reasons like these, the spirit of liberty, is and ought to be a jealous, a watchful
spirit. Obsta Principiis4 is her motto and maxim; knowing that her enemies are secret and cunning, making the
earliest advances slowly, silently and softly, and that according to her unerring
oracle Tacitus, “the first advances of tyranny are steep and perilous, but when once
you are entered, parties and instruments are ready to espouse you.” It is one of these
early advances, these first approaches of arbitrary power, which are the most dangerous
of all, and if not { 201 } prevented, but suffered to steal into precedents, will leave no hope of a remedy without
recourse to nature, violence, and war, that I now propose to consider.
And in the first place, let us see how far the court writer and his opponents are
agreed in the facts. They seem to agree that two gentlemen chosen and returned as
members of the house, were expressly excepted by the Governor, in the Dedimus, or
power of administring the usual oaths to the members of the house. That the house,
i.e. the gentlemen returned from the other towns, besides Newbury, would not receive
the dedimus with this exception, i.e. refused themselves to be sworn by virtue of
it. I say by the way, that Philanthrop agrees to this fact, tho' he seems to endeavour
by the obscurity of his expression to disguise it, because the house itself must have
considered the exception, as an infraction of their right, tho' Philanthrop only says
it was so considered by some among them, otherwise the house would not have chosen
a committee to remonstrate against the exception. That the governor erased the exception,
or gave a new Dedimus, upon the remonstrance of the committee. That the governor however
gave it up, only for that time, expresly reserving the claim of right to except members
out of the commission, and told the committee he should represent the case home, for
further instructions concerning it. This being the acknowledged state of facts,5 trifling with the instance in the reign of King James the first, is as good a proof
of Philanthrop's knowledge in history and the constitution, as his shrewd suggestion
that Cassius and B.B.6 are the same person is of his sagacity. It is with real sorrow that I now observe
and propose hereafter to demonstrate, that both Philanthrop and his idol are too much
enamoured with the fine examples of the Jemmys and Charleys, and too much addicted
to an aukward imitation of their conduct, one example of such an imitation is this
of the Dedimus at Concord, this memorable attempt to garble the house of representatives,
which bears so exact a resemblance to the conduct of that self-sufficient innovator,
that pedantical tyrant, that I own it seems more probable to me to have been copied
designedly from it; than to have happened by accident. For the gentleman whose conduct
and character Philanthrop defends cannot be denied to be well read in the reigns of
the Stuarts, and therefore cannot be supposed to have been ignorant of James's conduct.7 That a solid judgment may be formed of the nature of the priviledge for which I contend,
and whether it has been invaded or not, I shall produce a short sketch { 202 } of the history of that transaction, and will then produce the opinion of writers,
quite impartial, or to be sure not partial in my favour, concerning it.
[To be continued]
Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 9 Feb. 1767); partial Dft (Adams Papers), part of a 20-page cluster of MSS microfilmed under the date [16 Feb. 1767] and docketed by CFA: “Original Draughts of Newspaper Articles Governor Winthrop to Governor Bradford.
1767”; this item docketed: “Rough draught. Boston Gazette 16 Feby. 1767.” There are
no substantive differences between Dft and printed text, of which the Dft includes all but a portion of the final paragraph.
1. That is, 26 Jan. 1767. JA says “last week” because his response was originally intended for publication in
the issue of 2 Feb. See No. IX, note 1, above.
In his letter of 26 Jan., Philanthrop rebutted charges that Gov. Bernard had infringed
upon the right of the House of Representatives to judge the qualifications of its
members by refusing to swear in two representatives from Newbury in May 1764 who he
believed had been illegally elected. According to Philanthrop, however, the accusation
had little substance. In 1763, he pointed out, Bernard had demonstrated his willingness
to conciliate the House by ignoring a royal instruction against further division of
Massachusetts towns in order to approve an act dividing the town of Newbury, which
hitherto had enjoyed the privilege of sending two representatives to the lower house,
into the towns of Newbury and Newburyport, each to have one representative. Despite
the clarity of the law reducing Newbury's representation that town returned two members
to the House in May 1764. Bernard, having been informed that the House did not examine
election returns until after Council members had been chosen on the first day of meeting,
and not wanting two illegally elected representatives to participate in the Council
elections, decided to exclude the Newbury representatives from the oath-taking. His
action brought complaints that the Governor was interfering with the right of the
House to determine the qualifications of its members. Bernard then met with some representatives
and councilors and explained that he did not want two questionably elected representatives
taking part in the election of councilors. It was then explained to Bernard that it
was the custom of the House to examine disputed returns before choosing the Council.
Claiming that he had misunderstood, Bernard issued a new Dedimus, including the two
men from Newbury. The House then voted for councilors; afterward it decided that Newbury
was entitled to only one representative and ordered the town to hold new elections
(Mass., House Jour., 1764–1765, 41:8–9). Thus, what Philanthrop's critics called malice, he attributed
to ignorance of parliamentary procedure in Massachusetts.
2. Because of smallpox in Boston the General Court met in Concord in May 1764 (Mass., House Jour., 1764–1765, 41:vii).
3. Boston Evening-Post, 5 Jan. 1767.
4. Resist the first beginnings.
5. Draft ends here.
6. “Cassius” and “B.B.,” two unidentified critics of Philanthrop (Boston Gazette, 5, 12 Jan. 1767).
7. JA expressed a frank opinion of the character of Governor Bernard in the margin of his
copy of Thomas Hollis' The True Sentiments of America, London, 1768, p. 92, Bernard's speech on the prorogation of the General Court, 4
March 1768. Next to Bernard's remark “But there are men to whose being (I mean the
being of their importance) everlasting contention is necessary,” JA wrote: “true! and Bernard was the very first in the List of those Men.”
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0067-0012
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Recipient: Bradford, Governor
Date: 1767-02-16
XI. Governor Winthrop to Governor Bradford
[dateline] [Monday, February 16, 1767]
Remainder of Governor Winthrop's second Letter to Governor Bradford, begun in our last.
If we go back as far as the reign of Elizabeth, we find her, on one occasion, infringing
on this priviledge, of the Commons, of judging solely, of their own elections and
returns. This attempt was however so warmly resented by the Commons, that they instantly
voted “That it was a most perilous precedent, when two knights of a county were duly
elected, if any new writ should issue out, for a second election, without order of
the house itself; that the discussing and adjudging of this and such like differences,
belonged only to the house; and that there should be no message sent to the Ld. Chancellor,
not so much as to enquire what he had done, in the matter; because it was conceived
to be a matter derogatory to the power and priviledge of the house.”1 After this vote, which had in it something of the spirit of liberty and independency,
we hear of no more disputes upon that subject, till we come to the reign of James
the first, whose whole life was employed in endeavouring to demolish every popular
power, in the constitution, and to establish the awful and absolute sovereignty of
Kingship, that, as he express'd himself to the convocation, Jack and Tom, and Dick
and Will, might not meet and censure him and his Council. And in order to accomplish
the important purpose of his reign, he thought that nothing could be more useful,
than to wrest from the Commons, into his own hands, or those of his creature, the
Chancellor, the adjudication of their elections and returns. Outlaws, whether for
misdemeanours or debts, had been declared by the judges, in the reign of Henry the
sixth, incapable by law of a seat in the house, where they themselves must be lawgivers.
Sir Francis Goodwin was now chosen for the county of Bucks, and his return was made
as usual into Chancery. The Chancellor decreed him an outlaw, vacated his seat, and
issued writs for a new election. Sir John Fortesque was chosen in his room. But the
first act of the house was to reverse the decree of the Chancellor, and restore Goodwin
to his seat. At James's instigation the Lords desired a conference on this subject,
but were absolutely refused by the Commons, as the question regarded intirely their
own priviledges. They agreed however to make a remonstrance to the King, by their
speaker; where they maintained that tho' the returns were by form made into chancery,
yet the sole right of judging with regard to elections belonged to the house itself. James was not { 204 } satisfied, and ordered a conference between the house and the judges. The Commons
were in some perplexity. Their eyes were now opened, and they saw the consequences
of that power, which had been assumed, and to which their predecessors had in some
instances blindly submitted.2 This produced many free speeches in the house, “By this course, said one member,
the free election of the counties is taken away, and none shall be chosen but such
as shall please the King and Council. Let us therefore with fortitude, understanding
and sincerity, seek to maintain our priviledges. This cannot be construed any contempt
in us, but merely a maintenance of our common rights, which our ancestors have left
us, and which is just and fit for us to transmit to our posterity.” Another said,
this may be called a quo warranto to seize all our liberties. “A Chancellor, added
a third, by this course may call a parliament consisting of what persons he pleases.
Any suggestion by any person, may be the cause of sending a new writ. It is come to
this plain question, whether the Chancery or Parliament ought to have authority.”3 The Commons however, notwithstanding this watchful spirit of liberty, appointed a
committee to confer with the judges before the King and Council. There the question
began to appear a little more doubtful than the King had imagined, and to bring himself
off, he proposed that Goodwin and Fortesque should both be set aside, and a writ be
issued by the house, for a new election. Goodwin consented, and the Commons embraced
this expedient; but in such a manner, that while they shewed their regard for the
King, they secured for the future, the free possession of their seats, and the right
which they claimed of judging solely of their own elections and returns. Hume who
will not be suspected of prejudice against the Stuarts, and in whose words very nearly
this story is related, remarks at the conclusion, “Power like this, so essential to
the exercise of all their other powers, themselves so essential to public liberty,
cannot fairly be deemed an encroachment in the Commons, but must be regarded as an
inherent priviledge, happily rescued from that ambiguity, which the negligence of
former parliments had thrown upon it.”4 Smollet concludes his account of this affair with this reflection, “Thus the commons
secured to themselves the right of judging solely in their own elections and returns.”5 And my Ld. Bolingbroke, whose knowledge of the constitution will not be disputed,
whatever may be justly said of his religion, and his morals, remarks upon this transaction
of James thus, “Whether the will of the Prince becomes a law independently of parliament,
or whether it is made so upon every occasion, by the concurrence of parliament, arbitrary
power is alike { 205 } established. The only difference lies here. Every degree of this power, which is obtained
without parliament, is obtained against the forms, as well as against the spirit of
the constitution; and must therefore be obtained with difficulty and possessed with
danger. Whereas in the other method of obtaining and exercising this power, by and
with parliament, if it can be obtained at all, the progress is easy and short, and
the possession of it is so far from being dangerous, that liberty is disarmed, as
well as oppressed by this method; that part of the constitution (viz. the house of
commons) which was instituted to oppose the encroachments of the Crown, the maladministration
of men in power, and every other grievance, being influenced to abet these encroachments,
to support this mal-administration, and even to concur in [op]posing the grievances.”6
Now if we compare the attempt of King James, with the attempt of the Governor, who
can discern a difference between them? James would have vacated the seat of Sir Francis
Goodwin, because his election was against law, i.e. because Sir Francis was an outlaw;
The Governor would have vacated the seats of Col. Gerrish and Capt. Little, because
their election was against law, i.e. because they were both chosen and returned by
a town, which by law was to choose and return but one. The King in one case, the Governor
in the other, made himself judge of the legality of an election, and usurped authority
to vacate the seats of members. I consider the power of the Chancellor here, which
the King contended for as the power of the King, because there is no great difference
in such cases, as has been very well known from the time of James to this day, between
the power of the creator and that of the creature. And I say vacate the seats, because
an exception from the Dedimus, is an absolute annihilation of a gentleman's seat,
because by charter no man can vote or act as a representative till he has taken the
oaths. It is as entire an exclusion from the house as an expulsion would be.
We will now if you please throw together a few reflections upon the soothing, amazing,
melting solution of this arduous difficulty, with which Philanthrop has entertained
the public.
He begins with an instruction to the Governor from his Majesty, not to consent to
the division of towns.7 There has often been conversation during the administration of several late Governors,
concerning such a royal instruction, which for any thing that I know may be a good
one: but let it be good or evil, or whether there is any such or not, it has been
found in experience, that when the division of a town would make way for the election
of a friend, this instruction { 206 } has been no impediment; and I need not go further than Concord and Newbury for two
examples of this. Though I must go as far as the celebrated Berkshire for an instance
of another member and favorite chosen and returned, as expressly against the instruction
and law of the province, and knowingly suffered by the Governor to be sworn, without
any exception in the Dedimus, and to vote for the Council, and finally left to the
house, without any exception, caveat, message or hint to judge of their privilege,
and vacate his seat. But to return to the instruction, is it a command to the governor
to take upon himself to judge of the legality or illegality of the choice, returns
or qualifications of the members of the house? No man will pretend this, or dare to
throw such an infamous affront upon his Majesty or his Ministers, who perfectly know
that even his Majesty himself has no right or authority whatever to judge in this
matter. And that for the King himself to attempt to judge of the elections, returns
or qualifications of the members of the house of Commons, or of the house of Representatives,
would be an invasion of their privilege, as really as for them to coin money, or issue
commissions in the militia, would be an encroachment on the Royal prerogative. If
Newbury had sent ten, and Boston forty members, has the common law, or any act of
parliament, or any law of the province, or this his Majesty's instruction, made the
governor the judge, that those towns have not a right by law to send so many? The
only question is, who shall judge? Is it the purport of that instruction, that the
governor should except the forty and the ten out of the Dedimus? Would it not be as
much as the King would expect of the governor, if he should give the Dedimus in the
usual form, that is, to swear all the members, and leave it to the house to judge
who the members were? And if the governor really supposed, as Philanthrop says he
did, that the house would be jealous of the honor of their own laws, why should he
have taken that jealousy away from them? Why did he not leave it to them to vindicate
their own cause? If he had known any facts in this case, of which the house was not
apprized, it would have been friendly and constitutional in him to have hinted it
privately to some member of the house, that he might have moved it there. But there
was no pretence of this, the case of Newbury being as well known to the house as to
the governor. Or if he must have inserted himself in the business publickly, he might
have sent the necessary information to the house in a message, recommending it to
their consideration, not giving his own opinion, for this would have been an infraction
of their privilege; because they are the sole judges in the matter, and ought not
to be under the in• { 207 } fluence even of a message from his E——y, expressing his opinion, in deciding so very
delicate a point as elections and returns, a point on which all the peoples liberties
depend. Five members chosen and returned by Boston would be an illegal election; but
how should the Governor come by his knowledge, that Boston had chosen and returned
five? how should the precepts and returns come into his hands? It is no part of his
Excellency's duty to examine the returns which are made to the sheriff, and lodg'd
in the secretary's office. There can be no objection to his looking over them to satisfy
his curiosity; but to judge of them belongs wholly to another department. Suppose
him to have inspected them, and found five returned for Boston, would not this be
as manifestly against the spirit of the instruction, and the standing law of the province,
as the case of Newbury? And what pretence would he have to judge of this illegal election,
any more than of any other? Suppose, for instance, it was proved to his Excellency,
that twenty members returned were chosen by corruption, that is, had purchased the
votes of the electors by bribery; or let it be proved that any number of the members
had taken Rhode-Island or New-Hampshire bills, were out-laws, or chosen by a few inhabitants
of their towns without any legal meeting, these would be equally illegal elections,
equally against the instruction, and the law of the land: but shall the governor judge
of these things, and vacate all such seats, by refusing them their oaths? Let it be
suggested that a member is an infant, an idiot, a woman in man's cloathing, a leper,
a petit-maitre, an enemy to government, a friend to the governor's enemies, a turbulent
destroyer of the public peace, an envious malicious pretender to patriotism, any one
of these, or a thousand other pretences, if the Governor is once allowed to judge
of the legality or illegality of elections and returns, or of the qualifications or
dis-qualifications of members, may soon be made sufficient to exclude any or all whom
the Governor dislikes.8 The supposition that Boston should send forty, and all the other towns ten, is possible;
but it is not less improbable that the Governor, and all others in authority, should
be suddenly seized with a delirium, negative every counsellor chosen, dissolve the
house, call another, dissolve that, command all the militia to muster and march to
the frontiers, and a thousand other raving facts; and all that can be said is, that
when such cases shall happen, the Government will be dissolved, and individuals must
scramble as well as they can for themselves, there being no resource in the positive
constitution for such wild cases. But surely, a negative, a right of exception in
the Dedimus, would be of no service to him in such a case. So that no { 208 } justification or excuse for the Governor's apprehensions or conduct, can be drawn
from such supposed cases.
How the Governor's conduct in signing the bill for dividing Newbury came to be considered
as so very friendly, and highly obliging, is not easily comprehended, unless every
act of the Governor is to be considered in that light. If he signed the bill to oblige
any particular friend, or in order that a friend's friend might get into the house,
it was friendly and obliging no doubt to such friends: but if he signed it because
he thought it for the general good, as I suppose he did, it was a part of his general
duty, as governor, and no more obliging than any other act of equal importance. I
suppose here that such conduct was not inconsistent with what he knew to be the intention
of his instructions; for surely no man will call it friendly and obliging wilfully
to break his instructions, for so small a benefit to the province as dividing a town.
So that he can't be imagined to have run any risque in this case, any more than in
any other instance of his duty.
It is asserted that the Governor had been misinformed concerning the custom of the
house. How far this is true I know not. But had he been informed that they had a custom
to let the Governor judge of their elections and returns! a custom to let him pick
out whom he would to be sworn, and whom he would to send home! unless he had been
informed of such a custom, I cannot see that any other misinformation can defend or
even palliate his taking that part upon himself. But surely he had opportunity enough
to have had the truest information. There were gentlemen eno' of both houses ready
to acquaint him with the customs, nay the journals of the house would have informed
him that the returns were all read over the first day before they proceeded to the
choice of counsellors. And he ought, one would think, to have been very sure he was
right, before he made so direct an onset on so fundamental a priviledge. Besides it
has been, and is very credibly reported, and I believe it to be true, that he gave
out, more than a week before that election, what he would do and did, and that some
of his friends fearing the consequences, waited on him on purpose to diswade him from
such an attempt, but without success. So that it was no sudden thought, nor inadvertency,
nor rashness of passion—I report this as I have before some other things, from credible
information, and real belief, without calling on witnesses by name, as such evidence
is lately come in fashion, and is thought alone sufficient to support narratives and
depositions sent to the boards at home, charging the blackest crimes on the country,
and some of the most respectable characters in it. But admitting he was { 209 } misinformed of the custom, I can't see that this is of any weight at all in the dispute.
Whether the house examined any returns at all the first day or not, he could have
no pretence to interpose. If he thought the custom was to examine no returns till
the second day, and that such a custom was wrong, and ought to be altered, he might
for ought I know, unexceptionably have sent a message, recommending this matter to
the consideration of the house, not dictating to them how they should decide, much
less should he have decided himself without consulting them, much less should he have
taken from them the opportunity of judging at all, as by excepting the gentlemen out
of the Dedimus in fact he did.
Philanthrop makes it a problematical point, whether his E——y's apprehensions or the
custom of the house be most consonant to reason and our constitution. I confess myself
at a loss to know from his account what his E——y's apprehensions were. If he means
that his E——y apprehended that the house ought to change their custom, and decide
upon all elections and returns before they proceed to the choice of councellors, I
agree with him that such a point is immaterial to the present dispute, but if he means
that his E——y apprehended he had a right to except such members out of the Dedimus
as he pleas'd, or any members at all, he begs the question, and assumes that it is
problematical whether he is or is not sole judge of elections, has or has not the
same cathartic negative to administer when he thinks proper to the house, as he has
to the board, which according to all the authorities I have cited before, and according
to common sense, is to make it problematical whether the Governor has or has not plenary
possession of arbitrary power.
It is asserted by our writer, that the two gentlemen were sworn and voted or might
have voted. As to their being sworn, there could not possibly any harm accrue from
any gentleman's taking the oaths of allegiance, subscribing the declaration, &c. and
if the committee had been pleased to swear the whole country on that occasion, no
damage would have been done, and from whence the Governor's dread of administering
the oaths of allegiance to those gentlemen could arise, I can't conceive; from scruples
of conscience it could not be, because he has often taken those oaths himself. As
to the gentlemen's voting, I believe Philanthrop is mistaken, because I have been
strongly assured they did not, but that they stood by, till the elections were over,
as it was expected by the other members that they should. However I do not affirm
this—The gentlemen themselves can easily determine this matter.
{ 210 } Philanthrop is often complaining of skulking, dark insinuations, &c. but I know of
no man who deals in it so much as he. Witness among a thousand others, his base insinuations
about the Senate and Gazette in his first piece, and what he says in his last about
such a thing, being given out from a certain quarter, from what principle he will
not say, a very dark unintelligible insinuation of no body knows what, against no
body knows whom, which leaves every body to fix what he will on whom he will, and
tends only to amuse and mislead.9 And nearly of the same character is a curious expression, somewhere in the piece,
calling the exception of the two gentlemen out of the Dedimus, a Caveat to the House—which
is about as sensible as it would be to cut off a man's legs and chain him fast to
a tree, and then give him a caution, a Caveat, not to run away.
That the Governor did not succeed in his attempt is no proof that he did not make
it. Our thanks are not due to him, but to the house, that this Dedimus was not received;
all the members sworn by virtue of it, and itself lodged on file, as a precedent,
to silence all envious and revengeful declaimers, both for himself and all his successors.
It is equally true that King James did not succeed in his attempt, but gave it up.
Yet all historians have recorded that attempt as a direct, and formidable attack on
the freedom of elections, and as one proof that he aimed at demolishing the constitution,
at stretching prerogative beyond its just bounds, and at abridging the constitutional
rights and liberties of the nation. What should hinder but that a Governor's attempt
should be recorded too? I doubt not a Bacon quibbling and canting his adulation to
that Monarch in order to procure the place of Attorney General or Lord Chancellor,
might celebrate his Majesty's friendly, modest, obliging behaviour in that affair:
yet even the mighty genius of Bacon could never rescue his sordid soul from contempt
for that very adulation, with any succeeding age.
[signed] WINTHROP
Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 16 Feb. 1767); partial Dft (Adams Papers), part of a 20-page cluster of MSS docketed by CFA: “Original Draughts of Newspaper Articles Governor Winthrop to Governor Bradford.
1767”; this item docketed: “Rough draught. Boston Gazette 16 Feby. 1767.” For this
letter the Dft includes merely part of the fourth paragraph, as noted below.
1. Quoted from David Hume, The History of England, from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution in 1688 (6 vols., Boston, 1854, 4:231–232). The Catalogue of JA's Library lists an edition for 1778 although this work was first published in 8 vols. in 1763.
2. This description of the Goodwin episode was taken almost verbatim from Hume (same,
p. 233).
3. Same, p. 233–234.
4. Same, p. 234.
5. Tobias Smollet, A Complete History of England from the Descent of Julius { 211 } Caesar, to the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, 16 vols., London, 1758–1765, 7:16 (Catalogue of JA's Library).
6. Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke, Remarks on the History of England, London, [17—], p. 251–252.
7. Draft begins with this paragraph.
8. Draft ends here.
9. Philanthrop vaguely claimed that after the passage of the 1763 act reducing Newbury's
representation, “it was given out, from a certain Quarter, from what principle, I will not say, that . . . Newbury might send two Representatives,
notwithstanding the law of the province” (Boston Evening-Post, 26 Jan. 1767).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0068
Recipient: Adams, John
Date: 1767-03-11
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
From Jonathan Sewall
11 March 1767. Enclosed in a letter from JA to Hezekiah Niles (5 Feb. 1819, LbC, Adams Papers). Sewall's letter was “in answer to a letter I had written to him in which I [JA] had enclosed a copy of the notes I had taken of Mr. Otis's argument against writs
of assistants.” MS not found. Niles neither printed nor returned the original letter of Sewall which
JA sent to him. See L. H. Butterfield, “John Adams' Correspondence with Hezekiah Niles:
Some Notes and a Query,” Md. Hist. Mag., 57:150–154 (June 1962). JA's letter to Sewall has not been found, nor can its date be conjectured, other than
that it was probably written in 1767 about the time JA and Sewall were engaged in newspaper debate ([ante 9 Dec. 1766] – 16 Feb. 1767, above).
LbC, (Adams Papers).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0069
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1768-05-23
Sui Juris to the Boston Gazette
[dateline] [Monday, May 23, 1768]
[epigraph]
Who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the Armies of the living God?
[signed] David.
Not many Years ago, were transmitted to the Public, thro' the Channel of the Boston-Gazette,
a few desultory Essays, on the Spirit of the Canon and Feudal Law: in some of which
were expressed Apprehensions of the future Mischiefs, that might be caused in America
by the Efforts and Exertions of those expiring and detested systems.1 That those apprehensions were too well founded, Time has, already, sufficiently shewn:
and we have now, perhaps, stronger Reasons to fear, a still further Increase of those
Mischiefs, than we had then. It is therefore the opinion of many Persons, who wish
well to the Religion, the Learning, the Liberty and Happiness of this injured and
insulted Country, that a Reassumption of that inexhaustible Subject, would not be
improper, at the present Juncture. And it is, without any further Apology, proposed,
to continue a Series of Dissertations upon that and similar Subjects, for some Months,
if not Years to come. { 212 } | view { 213 } It is claimed as an incontestible Right to pursue our own Plan, Method and Style:
and, if in the Course of our Lucubrations, we should depart from the Rules, of established
Logicians and Rhetoricians, if we should sometimes in Haste throw our Thoughts together
in rude Heaps, if a few Blunders and Solecisms should escape us, or if we should now
and then mis-spell and mis-point, we shall not think it worth our While to engage
in any Contention, concerning such Matters, with the little Scribblers, and paltry
Critics, whose Ambition never aspired, and whose Capacity never attained to greater
Objects. Our Labours will be interrupted whenever the Paroxisms of the Gout or the
Spleen, the Fits of Dulness or Lazyness, or the Avocations of Business or Amusement
shall make an Interruption expedient. These Reservations have been thought proper
to be made for our own Ease and Advantage. And we now take the Freedom to inform the
Reader, that the Champion,2 who has lately, with so much Heroism challenged America, to contest with him the
Right of Diocaesan Episcopacy, first roused us, from our long Lethargy, and determined
us, once more to try our Fortune in the Field.
But to renounce Metaphor and speak soberly: The Appeal to the Public in favour of
an American Episcopate, is so flagrant an Attempt to introduce the Canon Law, or at
least some of the worst Fruits of it, into these Colonies, hitherto unstained with
such Pollution, uninfected with such Poison, that every Friend of America ought to
take the Alarm. Power, in any Form, and under any Limitations, when directed only
by human Wisdom and Benevolence, is dangerous: but the most terrible of all Power,
that can be entrusted to Man, is spiritual. Because our natural Apprehensions of a
Deity, Providence and future State, are so strong, and our natural Disposition to
Enthusiasm and Superstition, so prevalent, that an Order of Men entrusted with the
sacred Rites of Religion, will always obtain an Ascendency over our Consciences: and
will therefore be able to perswade us, (by us I mean the Body of the People) that
to distinguish between the Cause of God and the Clergy, is Impiety; to speak or write
freely of the Clergy, is Blasphemy; and to oppose the Exorbitancy of their Wealth
and Power, is Sacriledge, and that any of these Crimes will expose us, to eternal
Misery.
And whenever Conscience is on the Side of the Canon Law, all is lost. We become capable
of believing any Thing that a Priest shall prescribe. We become capable of believing,
even Dr. Chandler's fundamental Aphorisms, viz. that Christianity cannot exist without
an uninterrupted Succession of Diocaesan Bishops, and that those who deny { 214 } the Succession to have been uninterrupted, must prove it to have been broken: which
very curious and important Doctrines will be considered more at large hereafter.3 Mean Time, I am, and ever will be
[signed] SUI JURIS
1. No draft of “Sui Juris” has survived, and JA is not known to have claimed the essay as his work, but there is substantial evidence
that he was, indeed, its author. The opening lines of “Sui Juris” announce that it
will extend the arguments advanced in JA's “A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law” (see May–21 Oct. 1765, above). Furthermore, Andrew Eliot confided to Thomas Hollis in the autumn of 1768
that: “I have now authority to inform you that the Dissertation on the canon and feudal
law, was written by John Adams. . . . He also wrote the piece signed Sui Juris; but though he seemed in that to promise more, he has not written any thing further”
(MHS, Colls., 4th ser., 4 [1858]:434). For further discussion of JA's probable authorship of “Sui Juris,” see Roger B. Berry, “John Adams: Two Further
Contributions to the Boston Gazette, 1766–1768,” NEQ, 31:97–99 [March 1958]).
2. Thomas Bradbury Chandler (1726–1790), an Anglican cleric in New Jersey, had published in Oct. 1767 An Appeal to the Public, in Behalf of the Church of England in America (Evans, No. 10578). This “Appeal” for the creation of an episcopate in the colonies evoked
a bitter response from dissenters, and debate on the issue in the provincial press
continued for several years. Leaders in the anti-episcopal campaign were William Livingston
and his collaborators in the “American Whig” essays originally published in New York
and eventually reprinted in newspapers throughout the colonies. JA's close friend and pastor at the Brattle Street Church, Samuel Cooper, corresponded
with Livingston in the spring of 1768 concerning the need to mount a similar propaganda
campaign in Boston (Livingston to Cooper, 26 March, and Cooper to Livingston, 18 April
1768, MHi:Livingston Papers). “Sui Juris” may have been prepared in response to a suggestion
from Cooper. For a discussion of the response to Chandler's Appeal, see Carl Bridenbaugh, Mitre and Sceptre: Transatlantic Faiths, Ideas, Personalities, and Politics, 1689–1775, N.Y., 1962, chap. II.
3. No further contributions by “Sui Juris” have been found.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0070
Recipient: Wilkes, John
Date: 1768-06-06
Committee of the Boston Sons of Liberty to John Wilkes
[dateline] Boston 6th June 1768
[salute] Illustrious Patriot
The friends of Liberty, Wilkes, Peace and good order to the number of Forty five,
assembled at the Whig Tavern Boston New England, take this first opportunity to congratulate
your Country, the British Colonies and yourself, on your happy return to the land
alone worthy such an Inhabitant: worthy! as they have lately manifested an incontestible
proof of virtue, in the honorable and most important trust reposed in you by the County
of Middlesex.1
{ 215 } May you convince Great Britain and Ireland in Europe, the British Colonies, Islands
and Plantations in America, that you are one of those incorruptibly honest men reserved by heaven to bless, and perhaps save a tottering Empire. That Majesty can
never be secure but in the Arms of a brave, a virtuous, and united people. That nothing
but a common interest, and absolute confidence in an impartial and general protection,
can combine so many Millions of Men, born to make laws for themselves; conscious and
invincibly tenacious of their Rights.
That the British Constitution still exists is our Glory; feeble and infirm as it is,
we cannot, we will not despair of it. To a Wilkes much is already due for his strenuous
efforts to preserve it. Those generous and inflexible principles which have rendered
you so greatly eminent, support our claim to your esteem and assistance. To vindicate
Americans is—not to desert yourself.
Permit us therefore much respected Sir, to express our confidence in your approved
abilities and steady Patriotism. Your Country, the British Empire, and unborn millions
plead an exertion, at this alarming Crisis. Your perseverance in the good old cause may still prevent the great System from dashing to pieces. 'Tis from your endeavors
we hope for a Royal “Pascite, ut ante, boves”;2 and from our attachment to “peace and good order” we wait for a constitutional redress:
being determined that the King of Great Britain shall have Subjects but not Slaves
in these remote parts of his Dominions.
We humbly present you the Farmer. His sentiments are ours.
If we dare lisp a wish to be indulged with a line from you a direction to John Marston
Esq. at the Whig Tavern Boston would assuredly reach the hands of Worthy Sir
[salute] Your most faithfull and obedt. humble Servants,3
[signed] Benjamin Kent
[signed] Tho Young
[signed] Benjamin Church junr.
[signed] John Adams
[signed] Joseph Warren
Committee of the Sons of Liberty John Adams in the Town of Boston1. John Wilkes' cause had been espoused by American radicals when the British politician
was charged with seditious libel for his part in publishing North Briton, No. 45, in 1763. Interest in his plight abated after he fled to the Continent to
escape prosecution under this charge, but American enthusiasm for Wilkes revived in
the late spring of 1768 when news of his return to England and his election to Parliament
from Middlesex reached the colonies. The { 216 } Boston Gazette of 30 May had carried a detailed account of his reception and return to Commons,
which predicted that Wilkes would be spared further legal action and be allowed to
take his seat in Parliament; fourteen days later the Gazette's readers learned that Wilkes had, instead, been arrested and committed to King's Bench
prison in April. For an analysis of his place in colonial political thought, see Pauline
Maier, “John Wilkes and American Disillusionment with Britain,” WMQ, 3d ser., 20:373–395 (July 1963).
2. “Put your cows out to pasture as you did before” (that is, before your farm was taken;
Virgil, Eclogues, 1. 46).
3. In his reply of 19 July to the Committee Wilkes expressed his satisfaction at finding
that “the true spirit of Liberty [is] so generally diffus'd thro' the most remote
parts of the British Monarchy.” He vowed that it would “be the study of my life ...
to give you and all my fellow subjects the clearest proofs that I have at heart the
wellfare and prosperity of every part of this great Monarchy” (BM:Add. MSS 30870, f. 46; printed in MHS, Procs., 47 [1913–1914]: 192–193). For the continuation of this correspondence, see 5 Oct. 1768 and 4 Nov. 1769, below.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0071
Recipient: Otis, James Jr.
Recipient: Cushing, Thomas
Recipient: Adams, Samuel
Recipient: Hancock, John
Recipient: Massachusetts General Court, Boston Representatives
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1768-06-17
Instructions of Boston to its Representatives in the General Court
[dateline] [17 June 1768]
[salute] To the Hon.james otis, andthomas cushing, Esq'rs; Mr.samuel adams, andjohn hancock, Esqr.;
[salute] gentlemen,1
After the repeal of the late American Stamp Act, we were happy in the pleasing prospect
of a restoration of that tranquility and unanimity among ourselves, and that harmony
and affection between our parent country and us, which had generally subsisted before
that detestable Act. But with the utmost grief and concern, we find that we flatter'd
ourselves too soon, and that the root of bitterness is yet alive.—The principle on
which that Act was founded continues in full force, and a revenue is still demanded
from America.
We have the mortification to observe one Act of Parliament after another passed for
the express purpose of raising a revenue from us; to see our money continually collecting
from us without our consent, by an authority in the constitution of which we have
no share, and over which we have no kind of influence or controul; to see the little
circulating cash that remained among us for the support of our trade, from time to
time transmitted to a distant country, never to return, or what in our estimation
is worse, if possible, appropriated to the maintenance of swarms of Officers and Pensioners
in idleness and luxury, whose example has a tendency to corrupt our morals, and whose
arbitrary dispositions will trample on our rights.
Under all these misfortunes and afflictions, however, it is our fixed resolution to
maintain our loyalty and duty to our most gracious { 217 } Sovereign, a reverence and due subordination to the British Parliament as the supreme
legislative in all cases of necessity, for the preservation of the whole empire, and
our cordial and sincere affection for our parent country; and to use our utmost endeavours
for the preservation of peace and order among ourselves: Waiting with anxious expectation,
for a favorable answer to the petitions and sollicitations of this continent, for
relief. At the same time, it is our unalterable resolution, at all times, to assert
and vindicate our dear and invaluable rights and liberties, at the utmost hazard of
our lives and fortunes; and we have a full and rational confidence that no designs
formed against them will ever prosper.
That such designs have been formed and are still in being, we have reason to apprehend.
A multitude of Place men and Pensioners, and an enormous train of Underlings and Dependants,
all novel in this country, we have seen already: Their imperious tempers, their rash
inconsiderate and weak behaviour, are well known.
In this situation of affairs, several armed vessels, and among the rest, his Majesty's
ship of war the Romney, have appeared in our harbour; and the last, as we believe,
by the express application of the Board of Commissioners, with design to overawe and
terrify the inhabitants of this town into base compliances and unlimitted submission,
has been anchored within a cable's length of the wharves.
But passing over other irregularities, we are assured, that the last alarming act
of that ship, viz. the violent, and in our opinion illegal seizure of a vessel lying
at a wharf, the cutting of her fasts and removing her with an armed force in hostile
manner, under the protection of the King's ship, without any probable cause of seizure
that we know of, or indeed any cause that has yet been made known;2 no libel or prosecution whatever having yet been instituted against her, was by the
express order, or request in writing of the Board of Commissioners to the commander
of that ship.
In addition to all this, we are continually alarmed with rumours and reports of new
revenue Acts to be passed, new importations of Officers and Pensioners to suck the
life-blood of the body politick, while it is streaming from the veins: fresh arrival
of ships of war to be a still severer restraint upon our trade; and the arrival of
a military force to dragoon us into passive obedience: orders and requisitions transmitted
to New-York, Halifax and to England, for regiments and troops to preserve the public
peace.
Under the distresses arising from this state of things, with the highest confidence
in your integrity, abilities and fortitude, you will { 218 } exert yourselves, Gentlemen, on this occasion, that nothing be left undone that may
conduce to our relief; and in particular we recommend it to your consideration and
discretion, in the first place, to endeavour that impresses of all kinds may if possible
be prevented. There is an act of parliament in being, which has never been repealed,
for the encouragement of the trade to America. We mean by the 6th Ann. Chap. xxxvii.
Sect. 9. it is enacted, “That no mariner, or other person who shall serve on board,
or be retained to serve on board, any privateer, or trading ship or vessel that shall
be employed in any part of America, nor any mariner, or other person, being on shore in any part thereof, shall be liable
to be impressed, or taken away by any officer or officers of or belonging to any of
her Majesty's ships of war, impowered by the lord high admiral, or any other person
whatsoever, unless such mariner shall have before deserted from such ship of war belonging
to her Majesty, at any time after the fourteenth day of February 1707, upon pain that
any officer or officers so impressing or taken away, or causing to be impressed or
taken away, any mariner or other person, contrary to the tenor and true meaning of
this act, shall forfeit to the master, or owner or owners of any such ship or vessel,
Twenty Pounds for every man he or they shall so impress or take, to be recovered with full costs
of suit in any court within any part of her Majesty's dominions.” So that any impresses
of any mariner, from any vessel whatever, appears to be in direct violation of an
act of parliament. In the next place, 'tis our desire that you inquire and use your
endeavors to promote a parliamentary enquiry for the authors and propagators of such
alarming rumours and reports as we have mentioned before; and whether the Commissioners
or any other persons whatever have really wrote or solicited for troops to be sent
here from New-York, Halifax, England or elsewhere, and for what end; and that you
forward, if you think it expedient, in the House of Representatives, resolutions,
that every such person who shall solicit or promote the importation of troops at this
time, is an enemy to this town and province, and a disturber of the peace and good
order of both3
Then the Meeting was dissolved.
1. Salutation omitted in MS. The town meeting had deliberated carefully on the form and spirit of its protest
against the customs commissioners' seizure of John Hancock's sloop Liberty on 10 June. (For a description of the seizure of the Liberty and of JA's role as Hancock's attorney in ensuing legal action, { 219 } see JA, Legal Papers, 2:173–210.) On 14 June, the town meeting named Joseph Warren, Benjamin Church, and Samuel Adams
“to prepare the form of a Vote, to be laid before the Town at the Adjournment; expressing
their great dislike at the manner of proceedure in the Custom house Officers in lately
carrying off a Vessel from Hancocks Wharff; and their sense of the ill consequences
which must follow the methods made use of to introduce an armed force into this Town.”
This committee made its report the following day “in the form of Resolves and after
considerable debate thereon & the propriety of a Towns passing Resolves,” the meeting
named a second committee, which included JA, “to prepare Instructions for our Representatives relative to those and other Matters.”
The committee of 15 June was given the “form of Resolves” drawn up by its predecessor
“for such use to be made of them as they may Judge proper” (Boston Record Commissioners, 16th Report, p. 255–257).
This committee appointment marked JA's first participation in the political affairs of the Town of Boston after he moved
there in April 1768. Even before he established his home in the town, however, he
had signed a petition with 53 others on 10 March 1767, urging the selectmen to appoint
Nathanael Oliver master of the North Grammar School (A. S. Austrian et al. sale, Parke-Bernet
Galleries, N.Y., 4–5 April 1939). Adams' continuing interest in the schools is suggested
by his serving with a number of others as visitor on 5 July 1769 and 7 July 1773 (Boston Record Commissioners, 23d Report, p. 21, 182). In 1770 he was appointed with six others to look into laws on breaking
and entering and to recommend amendments, but no report of the committee's findings
is apparently extant (same, 18th Report, p. 20). It was political issues affecting the town, however, in which Adams became
most embroiled.
In his Autobiography, JA recalled his reluctance to become involved in local politics: “I was solicited to
go to the Town Meetings and harrangue there. This I constantly refused. My Friend
Dr. Warren the most frequently urged me to this: My Answer to him always was 'That
way madness lies.'” Still, JA continued, “Although I had never attended a Meeting the Town was pleased to choose
me upon their Committee to draw up Instructions to their Representatives, this Year
1768 and the next 1769. . . . The Committee always insisted on my preparing the Draught,
which I did and the Instructions were adopted without Alteration by the Town” (Diary and Autobiography, 3:290–291). JA's claim to have drafted the town's instructions of 1768 as well as those of 1769
(for which, see 8 May 1769, below) is borne out by testimony given much earlier than that in the Autobiography.
In an unsent letter to the Abbé de Mably, 17 Jan. 1783, JA supplied a list of his works published before that date; the 1768 instructions appear
in this list, which is otherwise accurate (LbC, Adams Papers, Microfilms, Reel 108). There seems to be no basis for the claim by a biographer of Joseph Warren
that Warren, chairman of the committee, was the author of the instructions and that
only “the long quotation from a statute of Queen Anne likely was supplied by John
Adams” (John Cary, Joseph Warren: Physician, Politician, Patriot, Urbana, Ill., 1961, p. 78n.).
The Instructions, which JA's committee submitted to the town meeting on 17 June and which were adopted unanimously
that day, probably did not represent the literary style or philosophy of any individual.
John Rowe, one of JA's colleagues on this committee, noted in his Diary that on 16 June he had “Spent
the After noon with the Towns Committee to draw Instructions” and that the committee
had conferred again on the morning of 17 June, only a few hours before their report
was submitted (MHi:John Rowe Diary, p. 773–774). The Instructions doubtless reflected the suggestions
of the committee as a whole, with JA assigned the responsibility of polishing and arranging these suggestions. Internal
evidence shows, as well, that the committee drew heavily upon the “form of Resolves”
read in the meeting on 15 June (see note 3, below).
2. For the part played by the Romney and her crew in the seizure of the Liberty, see JA, Legal Papers, 2:175–176.
3. The concluding section of the Instructions was doubtless influenced by the wording
of the resolves reported to the town meeting on 15 June. Thomas Hutchinson reported
that those resolutions had included one declaring “that whoever had by writing or
any other ways and means promoted or even wished that Troops might be sent here was
a Tyrant in his heart a Traytor and open enemy to his Country” (Hutchinson to Richard
Jackson, 16 June 1768, MHS, Procs., 55 [1922]:283–284).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0072
Recipient: Wilkes, John
Date: 1768-10-05
Committee of the Boston Sons of Liberty to John Wilkes
[dateline] Boston Octr 5. 1768
[salute] Sir
Your very obliging favor1 we receiv'd by Capt. Bruce the 18th ultimo. The members were immediately assembled
and inexpressible was the satisfaction of our regale on the genuine sentiments of
a worthy Briton.
Your health your friends and cause were the toasts of the evening. We congratulated
ourselves on our well plac'd confidence, and presumed much on the exertions of such
a Martyr to universal Liberty.
We feel with fraternal concern, that Europe in a ferment, America on the point of
bursting into flames, more pressingly require the Patriot-senator, the wise and honest
Counsellor, than the desolating conqueror. Your noble disdain of inadequate ministers
and contemptible salary hunters has by no means impair'd our sense of the dignity
of a Freeman, or the importance of defending his minutest privilege against the determined
invasion of the most formidable power on earth. And did not a British affection and
hopes of a speedy reform in British councils sooth and restrain a too well founded
resentment; no one can divine what long e'er now had been the condition of the creatures
of that administration which has fill'd Great Britain and the Colonies with high and
universal discontent—Has almost unhinged their commercial and political connections—Has
annihilated the constitutional legislature of this Province—Has turn'd our Parliament-house
into a main guard—Issued orders to evacuate our Province Factory of its inhabitants
to convert it into a Barrack for soldiers, after sufficient provision had been made
elsewhere—And endeavour'd by pitiful art, and emissaries to effect what usurped and
stretch'd authority dared not to pursue.2
Can Britons wish to see us abandon our lives and properties to such rapine and plunder?
To become traitors to that Constitution which for { 221 } { 222 } ages has been the citadel of their own safety. To acknowledge fellow subjects for
absolute sovereigns, that by our example they may be the more readily reduced to absolute
slaves.
Is our reluctance to oppose Brother to Brother deemed a prospect of our submission?
Or e contra is a mere presumption that indignation and despair must hurry us on to
violent measures, ground sufficient to treat us with all the parade of a triumph over
vanquish'd Rebels? Humiliating as this may seem, it is Sir, the case of a territory
containing near four hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants, which has never hitherto
produced a single Jacobite.
With ardent wishes for your speedy enlargement; elated expectations of sharing in
your impartial concern for your Country, the spreading empire of your Sovereign wherever
extended: We remain—Unshaken Hero Your steady friends and much obliged humble Servants,
[signed] Benj. Kent
[signed] Tho. Young
[signed] Benja Church Jr.
[signed] John Adams
[signed] Joseph Warren
Numerous Friends in the Colonies discovering a great desire to see your Letter to
us, we presume to prefer their request for your leave to its publication.3
RC (BM:Add. MSS 30870, f. 75–76); addressed: “To John Wilkes Esqr.”; endorsed: “By Captain Scott:
receiv'd Nov. 7. 1768. in the King's Bench Prison.” This letter, signed by JA and others, was probably drafted by Joseph Warren. On 13 April 1769, Warren wrote
privately to Wilkes: “I had the Honor (by the Desire of a number of Gentlemen) of
writing to you some time past in conjunction with four other Persons” (MHS, Procs., 47 [1913–1914]:200)
2. In the months after the Committee's previous letter to Wilkes, the political independence
and opposition to Crown measures shown by the province had provoked stern countermeasures.
On 1 July 1768, Gov. Bernard dissolved the General Court after the legislature refused
to rescind its circular letter of 11 Feb. 1768 to the other American colonies. In
September, citizens learned that four regiments of British troops were to be stationed
in Boston. Quartering these troops quickly became a political issue, with the Council
and Boston selectmen declining to make any provision for housing the troops until
it was shown that the existing barracks at Castle William would be inadequate. Accordingly,
when the first two regiments landed on 1 Oct., their commander attempted to install
them in the Manufactory House, a facility owned by the province for the housing and
employment of indigent citizens. When this failed, the Boston selectmen grudgingly
consented to lodge some of the soldiers in Faneuil Hall for a few days. On 2 Oct.,
the Governor opened part of the Old Town House, meeting place of the General Court,
to other members of the regiments (Hutchinson, Massa• { 223 } chusetts Bay, ed. Mayo, 3:141–154; Boston Evening-Post, 26 Sept., 3 Oct. 1768; M-Ar:Exec. Council Records, 16:353–363).
3. In his reply to this request, Wilkes cautioned the Committee: “I submit to you, Gentlemen,
the propriety of a publication of any letters which may pass between us. You are the
true judges for what may respect the new world. Perhaps while I am doom'd to this
prison, unfair advantages might be taken against me, which I should find it difficult
to overcome. I leave, however, the whole to your mature consideration, with the truest
assurance that in whatever way I can serve the generous cause of liberty, I will be
active and zealous” (copy of letter of 30 March 1769, BM:Add. MSS 30870, f. 135–136; printed in MHS, Procs., 47 [1913–1914]: 197–198). For the decision of the Sons of Liberty on publication,
see 4 Nov. 1769, below.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0073
Recipient: George III
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1769-04-04
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Petition of the Boston Town Meeting to King George III
Boston, 4 April 1769. MS not found. Printed Boston Gazette, 24 July 1769. At the town meeting of 13 March, the selectmen reported the “steps”
they had taken “for vindicating the Character of the Inhabitants” against the charges
which had led to Boston's quasi-occupation by royal forces. The town then appointed
a special committee to “consider what may be still necessary to be done for vindication
of the Town.” James Otis, Samuel Adams, Thomas Cushing, Richard Dana, Joseph Warren,
and JA were assigned this duty. The committee made its report on 4 April, presenting “the
Draft of a Petition and Address to his Majesty.” The town accepted the draft unanimously
and ordered that a copy be sent to Isaac Barré. (Boston Record Commissioners, 16th Report, p. 272–274; for a discussion of the selectmen's role in “vindicating” the town in
early 1769, see Franklin, Papers, 16:43–45; the letter to Barré enclosing the petition is printed in Samuel Adams, Writings, 1:332–336.)
The petition reaffirmed Bostonians' devotion to the Crown and minimized the significance
of the demonstrations against the customs commissioners in 1768. After describing
their vain attempts to learn the nature of the charges which had persuaded the King
to station troops in the town, the petitioners closed with the request that George
III would “be graciously pleased to give Orders that the Town may be favor'd with
Governor Bernard's Letters, the Memorials of the Commissioners of the Customs here,
and other papers which must so deeply affect their most important Interests: That
they may have the Justice of being heard, upon Notice by Council, upon any Matters
of Charge that may have been bro't against them; and of laying before your Majesty,
and the whole Nation what they may have to offer in their Vindication.” JA's contribution to the petition has not been ascertained.
The town meeting did not order publication of the petition at the time of its adoption.
However, on 4 July the town accepted, and ordered to be printed, a resolution which
described the petition to the King in great detail. Only after the publication of
the 4 July resolve did the petition appear in the local press (Boston Gazette, 10 and 24 July 1769). Isaac Barré presented the petition to George III on 2 June,
but no acknowledg• { 224 } ment of the appeal has been found (Barré to James Otis, 20 July 1769, Boston Record Commissioners, 16th Report, p. 298–299).
Printed (Boston Gazette), 24 July 1769.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0074
Recipient: Otis, James Jr.
Recipient: Cushing, Thomas
Recipient: Adams, Samuel
Recipient: Hancock, John
Recipient: Massachusetts General Court, Boston Representatives
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1769-05-08
Draft Instructions of Boston to its Representatives in the General Court
[dateline] [8 May 1769]
[salute] To the Honble. James Otis and Thomas Cushing Esqrs, Mr. Samuel Adams and John Hancock Esqr.
[salute] Gentlemen.
You have, once more received, the highest Testimony of the Confidence and Affection
of your Constituents, which the Constitution has impowered them to exhibit; the Trust
of representing them in the great and general Court or Assembly of this Province.
This important Trust is committed to you, at a time when your Country demands the
Exertion of all your Wisdom Fortitude and Virtue; and therefore it is presumed, a
free Communication of our Sentiments, cannot but be agreable to you.
1 The first object of your Attention, is the Priviledges of that Assembly of which
you are now chosen to be Members. The Debates there must be free: You will therefore
exert yourselves to remove every Thing that may carry the least Appearance of an Attempt,
to awe or intimidate. As the Assembly is called to Sett in the usual Place, common
Decency, as well as the Honour, and Dignity of a free legislative will require a Removal
of those Cannon, and Guards, as well as that clamorous Parade which has been daily
around the Court House, Since the Arrival of his Majestys Troops, and even at Sometimes
while the highest Court of Judicature has been Sitting there on the Tryal of capital
Causes.1
2 When this Grievance shall be removed, and the Debates of the Assembly shall be free,
it will be natural to enquire into all the Grievances we have Suffered from the military
Power: Why they have been quartered in the Body of this Town, in Contradiction to
the express Words, and as we conceive the manifest Intention of an Act of Parliament:
Why the officers who have thus violated our Rights, have not been called to account,
and dealt with as the Law required: Whether the Measure taken by the Governor, in
appointing an extraordinary officer to provide Quarters for the Troops, was not an
Evasion of the Act of Parliament made for the billetting and quartering his Majestys
Troops in America (the professed Rule of their Conduct) and designed to elude the
Clause of said Act purposely providing for, the { 225 } Convenience of American Subjects, And their Security against an Excess of military
Power:2
3d. Why the repeated Offences and Violences committed by the Soldiery against the
Peace and in open Defiance and Contempt of the civil Magistrate And the Law, have
escaped Punishment in the Courts of Justice:
4th. And whether the Attorney General has not, in Some late Instances unduly <assumed, and exerted> exercised a Power of entering “Nolle prosequi,” upon Indictments, without the Concurrence of the Court, in Obstruction to the Course
of Justice and to the great Encouragement of Violence and Oppression.3
5 And as the Quartering Troops <appears to be the grand Source of all these Evils,> here has provd occasion of many evils we do earnestly recommend to you, to use your
utmost Endeavours for a Speedy Removal of them <, to Places where they may be really usefull and necessary.>
6 Should4 The Expence that has been incurred <in the Transportation of these Troops hither,> in providing Barracks for the troops and supplying them with Necessaries, <has in our opinion been purposely great. A Reimbursement may possibly> be required of the House of Representatives. <Should this be the Case,> We do, in the most solemn and express manner, enjoin <you, upon no Consideration whatever to pay the least Regard to so unreasonable> that you by no means comply with such5 a Requisition. If the general Court is a free assembly, no Power upon Earth has authority
to compell it to pay this Money: <if it is not free,> Should it ever be deprived of its Freedom6 it shall never <with our Consent> be made an Engine <to raise this Money from us.> to drain us of <our Treasure> the little Money we have left.7
<7 Another Object of great <Consequence to this Province,> Importance8 and which requires the early Attention of the Assembly is a <daring> flagrant9 Attack upon our Constitution <of this Province> an Attempt to deprive it [us] of <the Blessings, derived from the Charter> not only of our Charter Liberties privileges and Immunities, but the rights of British
subjects derivd to us from the Constitution and the rights of Men derived to us from
the laws and Nature of God and Nature. Copys of10 A Number of Letters, have been lately published, here, authenticated by the Clerk
of the Papers, to the Honble House of Commons, which contain <such Representations of and Reasonings, as it would not perhaps be prudent for us
to characterise, in proper language.> Misrepresentations so gross as to render it needless on this occasion, to make any
particular Remarks.11<The Drift and Scope> { 226 } The dark Design12 of the Writer is sufficiently <clear and> apparent, and considering his station <and that of the noble Personage to whom they were addressed,> as Representative of the first personage in the Empire and the rank of the Minister
to whom he addressed himself13 and the Attention that has been given to them in Great Britain, we apprehend <them of very dangerous Tendency and Consequence> they have produced Effects dangerous and alarming to both Countrys, and have a direct
Tendency to produce yet greater.14 It is therefore expected, that you employ <all your Influence> your utmost Endeavors and all the Influence you may have15 that the injurious Impressions, which may unhappily have been made by them may be
removed, and that an effectual Antidote may be administered before the Poison, shall
have wrought the Ruin of our Constitution.>16
8 It is unnecessary for Us at this Time, to repeat our well known17 Sentiments concerning the Revenue, which is continually, <collecting from> levyd upon18 Us, to our great Distress and for No other End than to support a great Number of19 very unnecessary Placemen and Pensioners. We have now only to add, that our Sentiments
on this Subject are in no Respect changed, And that We expect you pursue with <unabated Zeal, and unalterable Resolution> firm Resolution and unremitted ardor every Measure that may tend to procure us Relief
never yeilding <the least> your20 Consent to or Connivance, at <any> the least21 Encroachments on our Rights. Next to the Revenue itself, the late Extensions of the
Jurisdiction of the Admiralty, are our greatest Grievance. The American Courts of
Admiralty Seem to be forming by Degrees, into a System, that is to overturn our Constitution;
and to deprive us entirely of our best Inheritance, the Law of the Land. It would
be thought in England, a dangerous Innovation if the Tryal of any Matter upon Land, was given to the Admiral. It would be thought more threatning still, if the Power
of Confiscation, over Ships and Cargoes for illicit Trade, was committed to that Court:
But if the Forfeitures of Ships and Cargoes, large Penalties upon Masters, and such
exorbitant Penalties as the Treble Value of Cargoes, upon every [Person co]ncerned22 in Landing uncustomed goods, were by Act of Parliament appointed to be tryed by the
Admiral, the Nation would think their Liberties irrecoverably lost.23
This, however is the miserable Case of North America! In the 41.ss. of the Statute
of the 4th. of G[eo]. 3. c. 15. We find that “all the Forfeitures and Penalties, inflicted by this, or any other Act of Parliament,
relating to the Trade and Revenues of the British Colonies or Plantations in America,
which shall be incurred there, may be prosecuted, { 227 } sued for and recovered in any Court of Admiralty, in the said Colonies”. Thus, these extraordinary Penalties and Forfeitures, are to be heard and tryed not
by a Jury—not by the Law of the Land—but by the civil Law and a single Judge! Unlike
the ancient Barons, who answered with one Voice “We will not that the Laws of England
be changed, which of old have been used and approved,” the Barons of modern Times,
seem to have answered, that they are willing, those Laws should be changed, with Regard to America, in the most tender
Point, and fundamental Principle!
9 And this hardship is the more severe as we see in the same Page of the statute,
and the section immediately preceding, “that all Penalties and Forfeitures, which
shall be incurred in Great Britain, shall be prosecuted, sued for, and recovered,
in any of his Majestys Courts of Record in Westminster, or in the Court of Exchequer
in Scotland respectively.” Here is a Contrast that stares Us, in the Face! <an unjust> A partial Distinction that is made between the subject in Great Britain, and the
subject in America! The Parliament in one section, guarding the People of the Realm,
and securing to them, the Benefit of a Tryal by Jury and the Law of the Land, and
by the next section depriving Americans of those important Rights. Is not this Distinction
a Brand of Disgrace upon every American? a Degradation, below the Rank of an Englishman?
Is it not, with respect to Us, a Repeal of the 29. Chapter of Magna Charta? “No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties,
or free Customs, or outlawed or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed, nor will we pass
upon him, nor condemn him, but lay lawful Judgment of his Peers, or the Law of the
Land.” Englishmen are inviolably attached to the important Right expressed in this Clause24 which for many Centuries has been the noblest Monument, and firmest Bulwark of their
Liberties. One Proof of this Attachment, given Us, by a great Sage of the Law, we
think proper to mention, not for your Information, but as the best Expression of the
Sense of your Constituents. “Against this ancient and fundamental Law, and in the Face thereof, says Lord Coke
I find an Act of Parliament made, that as well Justices of Assize, as Justices of
Peace, without any finding or Presentment of twelve Men, upon a bare Information for
the King before them made, should have full Power and Authority, by their Discretions, to hear and try Men,” for Penalties and Forfeitures.”25 His Lordship, after mentioning the Repeal of this Statute, and the Fate of Empson
and Dudley, who received the full Weight of the national Vengeance for acting under
it, concludes with a Reflection which, if well considered, might { 228 } be sufficient to discourage such attacks upon fundamental Principles. “The ill success of this statute and the fearfull End of these two oppressors, should
deter others from committing the like, and should admonish Parliaments, that instead
of this ordinary and precious Tryal by the Law of the Land, they bring not in absolute
and partial Tryals by Discretion.” Such are the Feelings and Reflections of an Englishman upon a statute, <very like> not unlike the statute now under Consideration, and upon Courts and Judges, <very like> not unlike26 the Courts and Judges of Admiralty, in America.27
The formidable Power of these Courts, and their distressing Course of Proceedings,
have been Severely felt within the past Year, many of your fellow Citizens having
been worn out with Attendance upon them, in Defence against Informations for extravagant
and enormous Penalties. And we have the highest Reason to fear from past Experience
that if no Relief is <granted> obtained for28 us, the Properties and Liberties, and the Morals too, of this unhappy Country, will
be ruined, by these Courts, and the Persons employed to support them.
We therefore earnestly recommend to you, by every legal Measure to endeavor that the
Power of these Courts may be confined to their proper Element, according to the ancient
English Statutes, and that you petition and remonstrate against the late Extensions
of their Jurisdiction: And we doubt not, the other Colonies and Provinces, who <begin to> Suffer, with us, under them, will chearfully harmonise with <you> this, in any justifiable Measures that may be taken for Redress.
10 We need not here take occasion to instruct you That while you in the most ample
manner testify your loyalty to our gracious Sovereign you29 strenuously assert and maintain, the Right of the subject jointly or severally30 to Petition the King; or to declare it as our clear opinion, that the House of Representatives
in any one Province, has an undeniable Right, whenever a just occasion shall offer,
to communicate their Sentiments upon a common Concern, to the Assemblys of any or
all the other Colonies and to unite with them in humble, dutifull and loyal Petitions
for Redress of a general Grievance.
Dft (MB); mainly in the hand of JA; endorsed by William Cooper, town clerk: “Draft of Instructions.” Numerous additions
and amendments in several unknown hands are noted below. Numerical subheadings entered
in margins. Printed text in Boston Gazette, 15 May 1769. Minor variations between Dft and printed text are ignored.
The additions and changes disprove JA's claims that these instructions, { 229 } like the ones he drafted for the town in 1768, were accepted “without Alteration”
(see 17 June 1768, note 1, above). Rather, the alterations confirm the town meeting records of 8 May which
note that the draft report was carefully “considered and Voted Paragraph by Paragraph”
before the meeting voted to adopt the modified instructions and to order their printing
in the local press (Boston Record Commissioners, 16th Report, p. 285–289). A large portion of sections 8 and 9 in the draft instructions was adapted
by JA from an argument he had prepared during the period Oct. 1768-March 1769 in the case
of Sewall v. Hancock (see JA, Legal Papers, 2:199–202, for the text of this section of the draft argument).
1. “Even of Capital Causes” in the Boston Gazette.
2. When Gov. Bernard sought quarters for British regiments in Boston in Sept. 1768, the
Council and the town selectmen contended that the town was under no obligation to
provide for the troops until all available space in local barracks was filled. Bostonians
maintained this interpretation of the Quartering Act's provisions throughout the pre-Revolutionary
occupation (Hutchinson, Massachusetts Bay, ed. Mayo, 3:149–157).
3. For specific occasions on which Atty. Gen. Jonathan Sewall was accused of having entered
pleas of nolle prosequi in cases involving soldiers who had harrassed townspeople, see Boston Evening-Post, 27 March and 19 June 1769.
4. “Should” in another hand.
5. “That . . . such” in the same hand as the previous addition.
6. “Should . . . Freedom” in a second unknown hand.
7. “To drain . . . left” in the second unknown hand.
8. “Importance” in a third unknown hand.
9. “Flagrant” in the third unknown hand.
10. “Not only . . . Copys of” in the third unknown hand.
11. This sentence in the third unknown hand.
12. Substitution made in the third unknown hand.
13. “As Representative . . . himself” in the third unknown hand.
14. “They have . . . yet greater” in the third unknown hand.
15. “Utmost Endeavors . . . have” in the third unknown hand.
16. Copies of Letters from Governor Bernard &c. to the Earl of Hillsborough, a pamphlet containing six letters to Hillsborough from Bernard and one from Gen.
Gage, appeared in Boston in April. Copies of the letters had been sent to the Massachusetts
Council by William Bollan, the former provincial agent who still acted as an agent
for the Council. Very influential Bollan was able to gain access to the correspondence
when it was laid before Commons in Jan. 1769 (T. R. Adams, American Independence, No. 68a–e; Hutchinson, Massachusetts Bay, ed. Mayo, 3:163).
Although paragraph “7” is canceled from the draft, it appeared in the Boston Gazette in this form:
“Another Object of great Importance, and which requires your earliest Attention, is
a late flagrant and formal Attack upon the Constitution itself: An Attempt, not only
to deprive us of the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of our Charter, but the
Rights of British Subjects. We have seen Copies of Letters published here, authenticated
by the Clerk of the Papers to the Honorable House of Commons, the Contents of which
must have awakened the Jealousy of the Country—the Design of the Writer is sufficiently
apparent: And considering his Station, as Representative of the first Personage in
the Empire, and the rank of the Minister to whom he addressed himself, we cannot wonder
that Credit has been given to his Letters in Great-Britain, and that they have already
produced Effects alarming to the Colonies, and dangerous to both Countries. It is
therefore expected that you use the whole Influence you may have, that the injurious
Impressions which they have unhappily made, may be removed, and that an effectual
Antidote { 230 } may be administered, before the Poison shall have wrought the Ruin of the Constitution.”
17. “Well known” in the third unknown hand.
18. “Levyd upon” in the third unknown hand.
19. “A great Number of” in the third unknown hand.
20. “Your” in the third unknown hand.
21. “The least” in the third unknown hand.
23. An act of Parliament of 1768 stipulated that colonial violators of trade or revenue
acts were to be tried only in juryless vice-admiralty courts. Hitherto, such cases
could be heard either in viceadmiralty courts or in local courts of record. For a
summary of the expansion of vice-admiralty jurisdiction in such cases, see Gipson, Empire before the Revolution, 11:120–125. The two paragraphs which follow are based on JA's argument in Sewall v. Hancock. See descriptive note, above.
24. A phrase following “Law of the Land” has been deleted so completely as to be illegible. “Englishmen ... Clause” is added
in the margin in an unidentified hand and keyed with an asterisk for insertion at
this point.
25. Quotation marks supplied from Boston Gazette text. JA mentioned this opinion of Coke's on Empson and Dudley in his first Clarendon-to-Pym
letter, 13 Jan. 1766, above.
26. The two substitutions of “not unlike” for “very like” in this passage made by the
third unknown hand.
28. “Obtained for” in the first unknown hand.
29. “That while ... you” in the first unknown hand.
30. “Jointly or severally” in the first unknown hand.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0075
Date: 1769-10-18
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Boston Town Meeting Committee Report on Measures for the Vindication of the Town
Boston, 18 October 1769. MS (MB). Printed: Boston Record Commissioners, 16th Report, p. 299–300, 303–325. On 4 Oct., JA was named to a committee “to Consider what Measures are proper to be taken to vindicate
the Character of the Town” from charges made by Gov. Bernard and others in letters
to Lord Hillsborough (same, p. 297). The first part of the committee's report, submitted
on 18 Oct., was a direct reply to those accusations as they had appeared in two pamphlets:
Copies of Letters from Governor Bernard &c. (see Draft Instructions, 8 May 1769, note 16, above) and Letters to the Ministry from Governor Bernard, General Gage, and Commodore Hood (Boston, Sept. 1769; see T. R. Adams, American Independence, No. 69a–c). This section of the report, approved by the town and ordered to be printed
that day, was published as An Appeal to the World; Or a Vindication of the Town of Boston (see same, No. 62a–d; Evans, No. 11133). An Appeal to the World has traditionally been credited to Samuel Adams (see Wells, Samuel Adams, 1:282–287, and Samuel Adams, Writings, 1:396–445). However, JA commented in 1819: “It is not at all improbable that Mr. [Samuel] Adams and Mr. [James] Otis together may have composed the 'Appeal to the world'” (letter to Alden Bradford,
12 March 1819, LbC, Adams Papers).
The second portion of the committee's report, less well known than An Appeal to the World, consisted of a set of resolutions adopted by the { 231 } town later that same afternoon. The first resolve condemned Bernard and the Commissioners
of Customs for their “virulent Endeavors to traduce it [the town of Boston] even to his Majesty himself.” The second endorsed the House petition seeking Bernard's
removal, and the third criticized the “unreasonable Prejudice” against Boston shown
by Gage and Hood as well as the “want of Candor” Hillsborough betrayed in accepting their charges at face value without making an
“impartial Enquiry.” The fourth, and most remarkable, of the resolutions called on
the selectmen to bring charges of libel against the crown officials involved. JA's contribution to this section of the committee's report has not been ascertained.
MS (MB). Printed (Boston Record Commissioners, 16th Report, p. 299–300, 303–325).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0076
Recipient: De Berdt, Dennys
Date: 1769-10-23
Boston Town Meeting Committee to Dennys De Berdt
[dateline] Boston October 23d. [1769]1
[salute] Sir
In pursuance of the directions of the Town of Boston we have the honor to transmit
you a Pamphlet containing some observations upon diverse letters and memorials wrote
by Governor Bernard and others wherein the Town has been injuriously aspersed and
its Inhabitants grosly misrepresented.2
Your unwearied endeavors to serve the interest of this Province and the American Colonies
in general has been observed with pleasure and will ever be had in grateful remembrance
by this people, and we are perswaded from your well known attachment to the cause
of liberty that you will exert your self in behalf of this much injured Town and imp[rove]3 their vindication now sent you in such a manner as will best serve to set their Character
in a true point of light—and that you will also employ your influence to obtain the
speedy removal of all the American grieveances we at present labour under.
The inclosed Pamphlet will give you some idea what relief is expected by the People
here, they will never think their grievances redressed till every Revenue Act is repealed,
the Board of Commissioner dessolved and the Troops removed, and things restored to
the state they were in before the late measures of Administration were taken. These
things being accomplished we doubt not that the harmony which heretofore subsisted
between Great Britain and the Colonies will be happily restored—an event ardently
wished for by every friend to the British Empire.
{ 232 } [salute] We are in strict truth Sir Your most obedient humble Servants
[signed] Thomas Cushing
[signed] Saml. Adams
[signed] John Adams
[signed] James Otis
[signed] Jos. Warren
[signed] Rid. Dana
[signed] Joshua Henshaw
[signed] Joseph Jackson
[signed] Benja. Kent
Committee of the Town of BostonRC (MHi:Mass. Papers, Elwyn Gift); at foot of text: “(Copy)”; endorsed: “Thos. Cushing, Esqr.
Boston Octr. 23d. Recd. Decr. 2d. Answered Decr. 5th.” Duplicate RC, without JA's signature, (in same collection); endorsed: “Cushing. 23d. octo. Received 29 Nov. from the
Commite. of Merchans.” On the enclosure in these letters, see note 2, below.
2. On 18 Oct., the town meeting adopted this committee's draft report and ordered its
publication as the pamphlet which became known as An Appeal to the World (see preceding document). The same committee was then directed to transmit copies of the pamphlet to De Berdt,
the London agent for the House of Representatives, and to Isaac Barré, Thomas Pownall,
Benjamin Franklin, William Bollan, and Barlow Trecothick (Boston Record Commissioners, 16th Report, p. 299). For the committee's letter to Franklin, see the following document.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0077
Recipient: Franklin, Benjamin
Date: 1769-10-23
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Boston Town Meeting Committee to Benjamin Franklin
[dateline] Boston, 23 October 1769
Printed: Franklin, Papers, 16:222–224. For the circumstances of the committee's appointment and its correspondence
with Franklin, see the preceding document.
Printed (Franklin, Papers, 16:222–224).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0078
Recipient: Wilkes, John
Date: 1769-11-04
Committee of the Boston Sons of Liberty to John Wilkes
[dateline] Boston Novr. 4. 1769
[salute] Sir
Many unforeseen engagements, and unavoidable accidents, furnish us with our only apology
for not transmitting a seasonable answer to your favour of March last.1 We flatter ourselves you will be so kind as yet to accept of our most sincere thanks,
for all your noble and generous expressions of regard for the Colonies. We yet too
sensibly feel the loss of every right, liberty and privilege, that can distinguish
a { 233 } Freeman from a Slave, not to sympathize in the most tender manner with you, in the conflicts you have
been so long engaged in, and in the sufferings you now severely labor under, so far
as we can judge, only for a firm and intrepid opposition to ministerial despotism. We easily perceive the causes and motives of
that relentless and unremitted ardor and fury with which you are persecuted. It is
not more for your own sake, than for the invincible resolution with which you have
supported the cause of liberty, and of Mankind.
With us also the laws seem to lie prostrate at the foot of power. Our City is yet
a Garrison filled with armed Men, as our harbour is with Cruizers, Cutters and other
armed Vessells. A main guard is yet placed at the doors of our State house. The other
side of the Exchange is turned into a guarded den of Revenue officers to plunder our
trade, and drain the Country of its money, not only without our consent, but against
repeated remonstrances.2 The Military are guilty of all kinds of licentiousness. The public streets are unsafe
to walk in for either sex, by night or by day. Prosecutions, Civil and Criminal against
the inhabitants, are pushed with great rancor and rigor; while those against the troops,
and the revenue officers, and their confederates are frowned upon and embarrassed,
by every possible means in the power of those who are inimical to the rights of the
subject. Sometimes small fines are imposed that tend to encourage a repetition of
enormities. When every thing else fails a Nole Pros.3 is entered, and that power is claimed here, as an uncontrolable prerogative of the
Crown; and by the Attorney General exercised with as little ceremony, or modesty,
as in the reigns of any of the Stuarts. Such, without exaggeration, is the present
wretched state of the once happy and flourishing City of Boston. Such in a degree,
is the state of all our trading towns, and such in effect, is the state of the whole
Continent: This would be intolerable had England been really at the expence of settling
and defending the ancient Colonies: For even that would not have deprived us of the
rights of men, or the freedom of Citizens.
It may not be disagreeable to you to receive a short sketch, of our humble opinion,
of the present situation of North America in some other respects. There has not been
since the last War a Naval force stationed in St. Lawrence, nor in the Northern seas
of America sufficient to cover a City from an attack of six sail of the Line. The
forces are in a manner all drawn down to the coasts of the Ocean, in conjunction with
an army of revenue Officers and a Fleet of small cruizers and cutters, to destroy
your own commerce: And they are accordingly as greedy after their prey as if cruizing
upon a foreign enemy. { 234 } { 235 } The Indian Nations on the great Rivers St. Lawrence and the Missisippi, which are
well known to surround all the British Colonies, are left at liberty to intrigue as
usual with the French and Spaniards and to cut the throats of our back inhabitants
at pleasure. Some in power here and at home 'tis said have hinted this as done by
design to enforce obedience to the revenue laws. Something of the kind has been thrown
out in the publications on both sides the Atlantic. What foundation there may be for
the conjectures that Canada will be given up for partial considerations or interest,
or suffered to fall a sacrifice to a few ridiculous Acts for raising an American revenue,
which will never defrey the charge of collecting we know not. This however may be
depended on, that the French and Spaniards are strong in the West-Indias: four or
five thousand regulars from Old Spain have actually repossessed his Spanish Majesty
of Orleans in the Mississipi. And we all know that a strong squadron from Brest with
Troops have a chance of a passage to Quebec, while a Fleet if ready may be beating
out of the English Channell. Forewarn'd, Forearm'd! The French and Spaniards never
will forget nor forgive the severe drubbing they received in the last War. And from all appearances, it is much to be apprehended,
the parties to the family compact are meditating some great blow, and are as likely
to strike in North America as in Corsica. Perhaps that very expedition was the rather
formed against that hero Paoli,4 but to whet their swords, and discipline the French slaves for the further carnage
of the Sons of liberty. Where so likely to begin as in North America? And however
light some may make of the loss of Canada, there is reason to fear, should the French
ever be suffered to repossess themselves of that Country, the event would soon prove
fatal to Britain, if not to the whole British empire.5 We have not thought it best to publish your letters: You are at liberty to dispose
of ours as you think fit.
That you may be soon fully restored to your liberty, your family, your friends, your
Country, and to the world; and enjoy all imaginable prosperity, is the ardent wish
and fervent prayer of the Friends of Liberty in Boston.
[signed] James Otis
[signed] Saml Adams
[signed] John Hancock
[signed] Rd Dana
[signed] Jos Warren
[signed] Benja Church Junr.
[signed] Benj. Kent
{ 236 } [signed] John Adams
[signed] Tho Young
[signed] Josiah Quincy junr.
1. For Wilkes' letter of 30 March, see 5 Oct. 1768, note 3, above. This letter was delivered to the Boston Sons of Liberty in the first week
of June, and the committee responsible for corresponding with Wilkes was enlarged
by the addition of James Otis, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Richard Dana, and Josiah
Quincy Jr. A formal answer to Wilkes was first postponed until the outcome of the
General Court session was known (Thomas Young to Wilkes, 6 July 1769, MHS, Procs., 47 [1913–1914]: 202–203). The political situation fluctuated so drastically that
summer, however, that successive drafts prepared by the committee did not have “the
good fortune to obtain the finishing hand till a new face of affairs determined on
alteration” (Young to Wilkes, 6 Sept., same, p. 209).
2. The Customs Commissioners, who had fled to Castle William after the riots following
the seizure of John Hancock's sloop Liberty, returned to Boston in Nov. 1768 when the presence of the British regiments could
insure their safety (Boston Evening-Post, 9 Jan. 1769). The Customs House was located a block from the State House on the
corner of King Street and Exchange Place.
5. In their attack on the revenue acts, presumably passed in part to help pay for the
defense of the empire, the whigs often denied that the conquest of Canada was of any
benefit to the colonies. Here, in an interesting reversal, they argue that neglect
of the defense of Canada may destroy the empire.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0079
DateRange: 1770-01-03 - 1774-07-26
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Suffolk County Bar Book
Boston,3 January 1770 – 26 July 1774. MS book containing 138 numbered pages (MHi). Printed: MHS, Procs., 1st ser., 19 (1881–1882): 147–179. The first 16 pages (of which p. 13–14 are blank)
contain entries in JA's hand for meetings of the Suffolk co. bar, 1770–1774. The remaining pages, carrying
entries in various other hands, give the minutes of the bar from 21 July 1778 to 26
March 1805.
MS book containing 138 numbered pages (MHi). Printed (MHS, Procs., 1st ser., 19 (1881–1882): 147–179).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0080
Date: 1770-01
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Governor Winthrop to the Inhabitants of New England
Boston, January? 1770. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:349. Apparently the fragment of an intended newspaper contribution; for JA's earlier use of this pseudonym, see Replies to Philanthrop, [ante 9 Dec. 1766]–16 Feb. 1767, above.
Printed (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:349).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0001
Editorial Note
In the first week of June 1770, Adams accepted a seat in the Massachusetts House,
a step which at the time he considered “a devotion of my family to ruin and myself
to death” (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 3:294). The doubtful honor devolved upon him when James Bowdoin, chosen in May as a member
of the House from Boston, was elected to the Provincial Council, vacating his seat
in the lower chamber of the General Court. At a special town meeting on the morning
of 6 June, Adams scored an easy victory over John Ruddock, a wealthy businessman with
a strong following among “the Tradesmen and Mechanicks.” Adams made a brief acceptance
speech to the town meeting at Faneuil Hall and set out to take his place in the House
(same).
To assume his seat in the legislature, Adams was forced to journey across the Charles
River to Cambridge, for the General Court had been moved out of Boston to Harvard
College; its “removal” overshadowed every other issue in the first four months of
Adams' service. (See Donald C. Lord and Robert M. Calhoon, “The Removal of the Massachusetts
General Court from Boston, 1769–1772,” JAH, 55:735–755 [March 1969].) Gov. Francis Bernard had ordered the transfer in June
1769, acting on instructions from Secretary of State Hillsborough that he exert his
“constitutional Authority” to summon the General Court outside Boston in order to
rescue the legislature from the influence of the town's “licentious and unrestrained
Mob” (Hillsborough to Bernard, 30 July 1768, MHi:Transcripts of Instructions to Governors of Mass., 1768–1775). After Bernard's return
to England later that year, Lt. Gov. Thomas Hutchinson received somewhat ambiguous
instructions to continue the General Court at Cambridge only if developments arose
“of such a nature as to outweigh” two considerations that Hillsborough mentioned:
the continuation of troops in Boston and the behavior of its citizens (Hillsborough
to Hutchinson, 9 Dec. 1769, MHi:Transcripts of Instructions to Governors). In March 1770, Hutchinson called the General
Court into session at Cambridge. “Only from absolute Necessity,” the legislators agreed to proceed to business during that brief session, and they
refused to concede the right of the acting governor to change their meeting place
(Mass., House Jour., 1769–1770, p. 101).
When a new House was chosen in the annual elections of May 1770, Hutchinson continued
his policy. The House met in Cambridge on 31 May, and, although the representatives
agreed to elect a Council, opposi• { 239 } { 240 } tion to their “removal” hardened. Before Adams took his seat on 6 June, the House
had submitted a message challenging Hutchinson's right to remove the legislature,
and the Lieutenant Governor replied with a message asserting his legal and constitutional
right to hold the assembly where he wished. In a second exchange on 5 June, the House
demanded to see the instructions under which Hutchinson acted; he refused, both because
of the ambiguity of Hillsborough's instructions and because other instructions forbade
him to make such communications to the General Court (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 15–16; Bailyn, Thomas Hutchinson, p. 172–173).
On the morning of 6 June, only a few hours before Adams joined the House, debate opened
on the report of a committee charged with considering “what may be proper further
to be done while the General Court is held out of the Town-House in Boston.” As soon
as Adams took his oath that afternoon, the House resumed debate, and Adams cast his
vote with the majority of 96 representatives who adopted the resolution that “it is
by no Means expedient to proceed to Business” while the assembly was “thus constrained”
to meet outside Boston (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 16–21). Adams' appointment to the committee charged with preparing
an address to Hutchinson after the adoption of this resolution (see calendar entry
for 7 June, below) was the first indication of the part he would play in this controversy between
the House and the executive.
That drama continued throughout the summer. The first session of the House ended in
stalemate, and the legislature was prorogued on 25 June, only to be recalled for a
brief second session, 25 July-3 August (see calendar entry for 31 July, below). By 26 September, when the Lieutenant Governor recalled the Court for its
third session, he had received more specific instructions. Hutchinson's decision to
continue the General Court at Cambridge had been approved by his superiors, and he
was directed to maintain that policy unless it “should be attended with any such inconvenience
as may make it adviseable to hold it in some other place,” in which case he might
“remove it to any other Town in the Province except Boston” (Hillsborough to Hutchinson,
6 July 1770, MHi:Transcripts of Instructions to Governors).
In the third session of the General Court for 1770–1771, the opposition continued
the fight to maintain the House's refusal to do business outside Boston (see calendar
entries for 28 Sept., 4 and 5 Oct., below). But in a vote taken during Adams' absence from Cambridge on 9 October,
the House agreed to proceed to official duties “only from absolute necessity” (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 88–91). On 16 October on the motion of James Warren, the House gave
leave to “Members who were absent at the Time [9 Oct.] when the Resolution pass'd to proceed to Business out of the Town-House in Boston
... to declare their Opinion thereon in the House.” Both Warren and John Adams took
advantage of this opportunity to express their opposition to the change of stance
in the House (same, p. 97–98).
{ 241 } Even as Adams protested the House retreat on the issue of “removal,” he was named
to committees which dealt with other conflicts between the General Court and the executive.
The old issue of the presence of British troops in Boston was revived in the dispute
over the command of Castle William (see calendar entry for 23 Oct., below). Hutchinson's refusal to disclose his instructions, and the style of enacting
provincial laws also drew Adams' attention that session (see calendar entries for
4 and 5 Oct. and 6 Nov., below). Committee appointments arising from the failure of the nonimportation
movement (see calendar entry for 16 Nov., below) and the appointment of a new agent in London (see calendar entry for 17 Dec., below) reflected broader aspects of the local conflicts.
The third session of the legislature ended on 20 November, and the General Court did
not meet again until 3 April 1771. Adams was relatively inactive in this fourth session;
his attendance was not recorded until 10 April, and his diary shows that he attended
no meetings after 17 April, nine days before the session's close (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 2:6–9). In this session, the most important committee on which Adams served was undoubtedly
that which drafted a bill for Hutchinson's salary as lieutenant governor (see second
calendar entry for 10 April, below). This bill forced the newly commissioned governor to confirm suspicions that
he expected support directly from the Crown, thus becoming financially independent
of the legislature.
Adams' service on committees in the House for 1770–1771 is described below in a list
of calendar entries for those committees for which there is some documentary record
of their work. (Committees about whose recommendations the record gives no hint and
those with ceremonial duties, such as the delivery of messages and votes, are not
described; for a check list including many of these other appointments, see JA, Works, 2:233–236, note.) The calendar form has been used because the absence of draft versions
of these reports prevents their attribution to Adams or to any of his colleagues.
Adams left no record of his work as a legislative draftsman in 1770–1771, although
he did recall that “this was to me a fatiguing Session, for they put me upon all the
Drudgery of managing all the disputes” (Diary and Autobiography, 3:295). In listing his published writings in 1783, he concluded with the remark that “these
. . . are all that I recollect to have ever written in America, excepting in a public
Character, as a Member of the Legislature of Massachusetts or of Congress, which it
is unnecessary to mention here” (letter to the Abbé de Mably, 17 Jan. 1783, LbC, Adams Papers). “Unnecessary” as such a list may have seemed to Adams at the time, it would have
been of more than passing interest to students of his career two centuries later.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0002
Recipient: Hutchinson, Thomas
Recipient: Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony
Date: 1770-06-07
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Address to Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson Requesting the Return of the General Court to Boston
7 June 1770. MS (M-Ar), in an unidentified hand. Printed: Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 22. Prepared by a committee appointed 6 June composed of Samuel Adams,
JA, { 242 } John Hancock, James Warren, and Daniel Leonard, and reported to the House “by Mr.
Adams.”
After the House adopted its resolutions of 6 June by which the members refused to
conduct business outside Boston, JA was named to this committee charged with preparing an address to Hutchinson, “praying
that he would be pleased to remove the General Assembly to the Town House in Boston”
(Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 16–22). The committee's draft address, submitted 7 June, was approved
by the House and delivered to Hutchinson by a committee of which JA was a member. The Address asserted that convening the General Court in Cambridge
was “a very great Grievance” and concluded with a request that Hutchinson return the
legislature to Boston because of the House's claim that “it is by no Means expedient”
to conduct business out of that town “and as there are Matters now lying before the
Assembly of very great Importance.”
MS (M-Ar), in an unidentified hand. Printed (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 22).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0003
Date: 1770-06-12
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Committee Report on the Reasons for not Proceeding to Business
12 June 1770. MS not found. Printed: Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 25–32. Prepared by a committee appointed 8 June composed of Joseph
Hawley, Samuel Adams, JA, John Pickering Jr., Daniel Leonard, Edward Mitchell, Nathaniel Sumner, Humphrey
Hobson, and Thomas Denny (same, p. 24), and presented to the House by Joseph Hawley.
Upon receipt of the House Address of 7 June (see preceding calendar entry), Lt. Gov. Hutchinson replied with a message which
justified the legality of removing the General Court to Cambridge and urged the need
to proceed with the session's business (Mass., House Jour., 23–24). The committee listed above was named “to state the Reasons of this House
for coming into a Resolution, That it is not expedient to proceed to the Business
of the Session while the General Assembly is held out of the Town-House in Boston; and also for adhering to the same.”
On 12 June the House adopted the committee's report, which recommended publication
of the House resolutions of 6 June along with “Reasons for adhering to said Resolutions”
which the Committee had prepared. The “Reasons” waived “at present . . . any further
Observations on the Legality” of holding legislative sessions out of Boston. Instead,
the report conceded the validity of prerogative when used “to the public Good,” but
attacked Hutchinson's policies as a misuse of power, unjustified by public need and
contrary to the public welfare. The “Reasons” answered each historical and legal precedent
Hutchinson had raised in his defense and closed with the claim that Hutchinson, not
the General Court, must bear the blame for any inconveniences suffered as a result
of the legislature's refusal to conduct business while sessions were held in Cambridge.
The report was adopted with only three dissenting votes (same, p. 31–32).
Printed (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 25–32).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0004
Recipient: Hutchinson, Thomas
Recipient: Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony
Date: 1770-06-15
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Address to Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson Seeking a Recess
15 June 1770. MS not found. Printed: Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 38. Prepared by a committee appointed and reporting the same day,
composed of Thomas Cushing, Joseph Hawley, Samuel Adams, Edward Sheaffe, and JA.
{ 243 } On 13 June the Representatives heard the Council's address to Hutchinson which reiterated
the determination of the House to conduct no business in Cambridge (same, p. 32–36).
Hutchinson's reply to the Council reaffirmed his position and was presented to the
House on 15 June. The committee described above was then named to prepare a message
to the Lieutenant Governor restating the lower chamber's decision “not to enter upon
Business out of the Town of Boston” and adding the prayer that if Hutchinson was “determined
not to remove the Assembly there, he would be pleased to give Leave to the Members
to retire to their respective Homes” (same, p. 37). Upon the adoption of the report,
JA was named to the committee which delivered the message to Hutchinson. It was not
until 25 June, however, that Hutchinson recessed the intransigent legislators (same,
p. 38, 47).
Printed (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 38).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0005
Recipient: Hutchinson, Thomas
Recipient: Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony
Date: 1770-07-31
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Reply to a Speech of Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson
31 July 1770. MS, fair copy, in the hand of Samuel Adams (MB). Printed: Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 63–71. Prepared by a committee appointed 26 July, composed of Thomas
Cushing, John Hancock, Daniel Leonard, Samuel Adams, JA, Thomas Denny, and John Gallison (same, p. 62).
The second session of the General Court began 25 July with a speech from Hutchinson
to both houses. He pressed his arguments for maintaining the legislature in Cambridge
and urged House and Council to reconsider their decision not to proceed to business
until back in Boston (same, p. 58–61). The following day the House voted to adhere
to the resolution of 6 June (see calendar entry for 7 June, above) and to refuse to conduct business in Cambridge. The committee described above
was named to draft an answer to Hutchinson's speech and to notify him of the representatives'
decision to stand by their earlier policy. Before acceptance, the report was recommitted,
and when resubmitted it was debated paragraph by paragraph (Mass., House Jour., p. 62–63). On 3 August, despairing of any cooperation from the General Court, Hutchinson
prorogued the legislature to 5 September (same, p. 78).
MS, fair copy, in the hand of Samuel Adams (MB). Printed (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 63–71).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0006
Date: 1770-09-28
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Committee Report on Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson's Speech
28 September 1770. MS not found. Prepared by a committee appointed 27 September, composed of Thomas Cushing,
Samuel Adams, Jedediah Foster, Thomas Denny, JA, John Hancock, George Godfrey, James Warren, and Humphrey Hobson Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 82.
The third session of the 1770–1771 General Court, continued by prorogations, met in
Cambridge on 26 September. The following day Hutchinson delivered a speech to the
Council and House meeting jointly in which he catalogued matters requiring the legislature's
attention and urged proceeding “with all Diligence” (same, p. 80–82). On 28 September,
Cushing “reported as their unanimous Opinion, That it is for the Interest of the Province,
that this House still adhere to their former Resolution, viz. That it is by no Means expedient to proceed to the public Business” (same, p. 82).
For House action on the report, see calendar entries for 4 and 65 October, below.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0007
Recipient: Hutchinson, Thomas
Recipient: Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony
Date: 1770-10-04
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Message to Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson on his Speech to the General Court
4 October 1770. MS not found. Printed: Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 86–87. Prepared by a committee appointed and reporting the same day
composed of John Hancock, JA, David Ingersoll Jr., Samuel Adams, and Abraham Fuller.
On 4 October, the House first considered the committee report of 28 September (see preceding calendar entry) which called for a reaffirmation of the assembly's
refusal to conduct business out of Boston. Instead of taking direct action on this
recommendation, the House named the committee listed above to prepare a message to
Hutchinson doing two things: seeking clarification of a section of his speech of 27
September, and demanding information concerning any recent instructions Hutchinson
had received concerning the site of General Court sessions. Clarification was sought
for Hutchinson's mention of “Affairs depending of a very interesting Nature, which
had not then [during the June and July sessions of the General Court] come to our Knowledge, and which may be determined before we can have another Opportunity
of acting upon them” if the legislature continued to refuse to conduct business. The
committee's report was approved by the House and answered by Hutchinson the same day
(Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 80, 86–87; see following calendar entry).
Printed (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 86–87).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0008
Date: 1770-10-05
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Committee Report on Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson's Message
5 October 1770. MS not found. Prepared by a committee appointed and reporting 5 October, composed of
John Murray, Joseph Gerrish, JA, Jedediah Prebble, and Samuel Adams. Murray reported the same day.
In his reply to the House Message of 4 October (see preceding calendar entry), Hutchinson claimed he was “not at Liberty” to communicate
the order in council of 6 July to which he had referred obliquely in his speech at
the opening of the session. He referred to the “entire Approbation” the Crown had
given to his transfer of the legislature to Cambridge and asserted that he was now
“restrained from removing it to Boston” (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 87). After Hutchinson's message was read to the House on 5 October,
Murray reported the committee's “unanimous Opinion, That his Honor's said Message does not afford that Light which the House
requested in their Message to him; and that it appears to them from his Honor's Message,
that he was restrained by Instruction, from communicating the same to the House in a Parliamentary Manner” (same, p. 88).
JA was then named to a committee “to prepare an Address and Remonstrance accordingly,”
but the Journal records no presentation of any such “Address” in that session; indeed, the need for
such a protest was superseded by House action on 9 October (see Editorial Note, above).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0009
Date: 1770-10-17
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Committee Report on Naming a Day of Prayer and Humiliation
17 October 1770. MS not found. Draft prepared by a committee appointed 16 October composed of JA, Timothy Danielson, and James Warren. The committee's report, submitted the following
day, was recommitted and, at { 245 } the same time, JA was excused from the committee with Samuel Holten appointed in his place (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 101–102).
The original committee was instructed to prepare an Address to Lt. Gov. Hutchinson,
“praying that he would be pleas'd to appoint a Day of solemn Prayer and Humiliation
to be observ'd throughout this Province” (same, p. 98). There is no way of knowing
how similar the committee's draft was to the address on this subject adopted by the
House on 23 October (same, p. 110). For Hutchinson's discussion of the political implications
of the House request, see Massachusetts Bay, ed. Mayo, 3:244.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0010
Recipient: Hutchinson, Thomas
Recipient: Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony
Date: 1770-10-23
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Message to Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson on the Command of Castle William
23 October 1770. MS not found. Printed: Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 111. Prepared by a committee appointed 17 October composed of Samuel
Adams, JA, James Warren, John Hancock, and James Prescott (same, p. 101).
In his speech at the opening of the General Court's third session (27 Sept.), Hutchinson
announced that provincial troops had been withdrawn from Castle William and, by order
of the Crown, replaced by British regulars (same, p. 81). The House expressed indignation
at the “very false Representations” that presumably had persuaded the King to take
this step and demanded to know whether Hutchinson still commanded the post or whether
Castle William had been transferred from civilian to military jurisdiction (same,
p. 94–95).
When Hutchinson's reply to the House (17 Oct.) did not satisfy the representatives,
they named the committee described above. The committee's report proposed a message
demanding that Hutchinson “in an explicit Manner assure us, Whether you still hold
the Command of his Majesty's Castle-William.” Hutchinson's reply is printed at p.
112–113.
Printed (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 111).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0011
Recipient: Hutchinson, Thomas
Recipient: Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony
Date: 1770-11-06
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Message to Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson on the Style of Enacting Laws
6 November 1770. MS not found. Printed: Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 134–135. Prepared by a committee appointed 2 November composed of
Daniel Leonard, Samuel Adams, JA, Joseph Hawley, and David Ingersoll Jr. (same, p. 128).
After voting to conduct business despite their removal to Cambridge, members of the
House added the phrase “in general court assembled” to the usual form for the authority
under which provincial statutes were enacted. The committee described above was appointed
immediately after the House received Hutchinson's protest that the “Stile of enacting”
new laws would force him to violate instructions of thirty years' standing which required
the governor to allow only the form “by the Governor, Council and House of Representatives” (same, p. 128). The committee's report of 6 November declared that the additional
phrase was “of Substance, and necessary,” but the House did not press the matter.
As Hutchinson pointed out, the representatives “sent for their bills from the council,
took out the exceptionable words, and omitted them in all the other bills passed in
the session” (Massachusetts Bay, ed. Mayo, 3:226).
{ 246 } JA himself referred to the matter as a “laboured controversy,” which he mentioned in
passing in his Autobiography only as the inspiration for Governor Shirley's remark
on “this brace of Adams's” who served in the House in 1770 (Diary and Autobiography, 2:54–56, 3:295). For a discussion of the usage of the controversial phrase in earlier provincial
statutes, see Mass., Province Laws, 5:139–140.
Printed (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 134–135).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0012
Date: 1770-11-16
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Committee Report on the State of the Province
16 November 1770. MS not found. Printed: Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 164. Prepared by a committee appointed 16 October composed of Thomas
Cushing, Samuel Adams, Joseph Hawley, JA, John Hancock, John Worthington, John Pickering Jr., James Warren, and John Whitcomb
(same, p. 97).
In its report the committee dealt with the colony's economic problems, recently aggravated
by the Boston merchants' vote to end the nonimportation of most British goods (for
this vote of 12 Oct., see Massachusetts Gazette, 15 Oct.). The House adopted the committee's resolutions calling on members of that
chamber to “use their utmost Endeavors, and enforce them [their fellow citizens] by their Example, to discourage Prodigality and Extravagance” and “to discourage
the Use of Foreign Superfluities, and to promote our own Manufactures in the several
Towns we represent.”
Pursuant to these resolutions, Thomas Cushing, John Hancock, William Heath, Samuel
Adams, JA, Ebenezer Thayer, Samuel Bacheller, Samuel Howe, and Benjamin White were appointed
“to prepare a Plan for the Encouragement of Arts, Agriculture, Manufactures and Commerce,
and report at the next Session” (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 164). No plan for the encouragement of manufactures was introduced
at the fourth session of the General Court (April 1771), but see JA, Diary and Autobiography, 2:2, for an account of a meeting on 7 or 8 February 1771 of the committee charged with
drawing up this plan.
Printed (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 164).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0013
Date: 1770-11-20
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
An Act for the Limitation of Personal Actions
20 November 1770. MS, engrossed copy, signed by Hutchinson (M-Ar). Printed: Mass., Province Laws, 5:109–111. Prepared by a committee appointed 16 October composed of JA, John Worthington, and Joseph Hawley (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 98).
The need to regularize limitations on suits at law was one of the “important Matters”
cited by Hutchinson in his plea to the House to resume business in June (same, p.
23). Legislation limiting such actions had been passed in earlier years, but had been
“repeatedly suspended before it could have any operation” (Hutchinson to Board of
Trade, 21 Dec. 1770, Mass., Province Laws, 5:143; a list of earlier statutes on limitations of actions is printed at p. 109).
The committee was ordered to consider “all the Laws relating to the Limitation of
Actions, reduce them to one Bill, and report.” In the absence of earlier draft versions
it is impossible to assess the contributions made by the House committee.
MS, engrossed copy, signed by Hutchinson (M-Ar). Printed (Mass., Province Laws, 5:109–111).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0014
Recipient: Hutchinson, Thomas
Recipient: Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony
Date: 1770-11-20
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Message to Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson on the Command of Castle William
{ 247 }
MS not found. Printed: Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 171–172. Prepared by the committee on the state of the province, appointed
16 October (see calendar entry for 16 Nov., above).
After its exchange of messages with Hutchinson on the Castle William controversy in
mid-October (see calendar entry for 1723 Oct., above), the House ordered the committee on the state of the province to take affidavits
from Capt. John Phillips, former commander of the fort, and from Stephen Hall, former
chaplain of the post (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 145). Hutchinson recalled that the House “gave him notice by a committee,
that they should proceed to examine witnesses present at the transfer [of Castle William], and that he might be present at the examination, if he thought fit. This he did
not think in character, but did not think proper to interrupt them” (Massachusetts Bay, ed. Mayo, 3:224).
The committee report based on these investigations was presented in the form of a
message to Hutchinson. As adopted by the House on 20 November, the message remonstrated
against the Lieutenant Governor's having, “merely in Obedience to Instructions,” surrendered
command of Castle William, “a Power . . . which by the Charter is vested in [him] for the Safety of the People” and prayed that Hutchinson would “take effectual Measures,
that the Power of garrisoning his Majesty's Castle-William, may be restored to the
Governor of the Province to whom it by Charter it belongs.”
Printed (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 171–172).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0015
Date: 1770-12-17
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Committee of Correspondence to Benjamin Franklin
Boston, 17 December 1770. RC (MeHi). Printed: Franklin, Papers, 17:301–304. Prepared by a “Committee of Correspondence” appointed 7 November composed
of Thomas Cushing, John Hancock, Stephen Hall, Samuel Adams, and JA. Although “Boston” was used in the date line, the House was still meeting in Cambridge.
This committee was “to communicate such Intelligence as may be necessary, to the Agent
and others in Great-Britain; and also to the Speakers of the several Assemblies thro'
the Continent, or to such Committee of Correspondence as they have, or may appoint”
(Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 139). The first letter sent to Franklin, the newly appointed agent
in London for the House, is the only one of the committee's letters known to survive.
RC (MeHi). Printed (Franklin, Papers, 17:301–304).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0016
Date: 1771-04-10
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Committee Report on the Petition of Gyles Merrill
10 April 1771. MS not found. Prepared by a committee appointed and reporting the same day, composed
of JA, Samuel Batcheller, and John Noyes.
Gyles Merrill, pastor of the First Church of Plaistow, N.H. (formerly the Second Church
of Haverhill, Mass.), sought the legislature's consent to an offer from the Haverhill
parish to grant him his parsonage in fee simple. The committee's report, described
as recommending “That a Bill be bro't in to enable the North Precinct in Haverhill,
to grant the Premises described in the Petition . . . notwithstanding any former Vote
or Votes of the Town or Proprietors of Haverhill,” was approved. Batcheller was { 248 } ordered to prepare the bill (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 201). For the bill adopted in response to the committee's recommendations,
see Mass., Province Laws, 5:121, with Merrill's petition at p. 145–146.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0082-0017
Date: 1771-04-10
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
A Bill for Granting Support to Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson
10 April 1771. MS (P.R.O.: Colonial Office, 5:760). Prepared by a committee appointed and reporting the same
day, composed of John Hancock, JA, and John Gallison.
The committee listed above was to prepare a bill for a grant of £506 to Hutchinson
for his services as lieutenant governor. A second committee, of which JA was not a member, was appointed to draft a bill for Hutchinson's support as governor,
an appointment which he had announced to the General Court on the opening day of its
fourth session, 3 April. Both bills were passed on 10 April, and JA served on the committees which delivered them to the Council that day (Mass., House Jour., 1770–1771, p. 200–202). Admitting that Parliament had made provision “for the Support
of the Civil Government in the Colonies as His Majesty shall judge Necessary” (same,
252), Hutchinson delayed action on the engrossed bills and finally disallowed them
(Hutchinson to Hillsborough, May 1771, MHi:Hutchinson Lb Transcripts, 27:273–276).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0083
Recipient: Macaulay, Catharine Sawbridge
Date: 1770-08-09
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
To Catharine Macaulay
Boston9 August 1770. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:360–361. For Mrs. Macaulay's reply, see 19 July 1771, below.
Printed (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:360–361).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0084
Date: 1770-08
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Draft of a Newspaper Communication
August? 1770. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:364–365.
Printed (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:364–365).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0085
Date: 1770-09-29
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Boston Town Committee Report on a Society to Promote the Arts, Agriculture, Manufactures, and Commerce
Boston, 29 September 1770. MS not found. At the Boston Town Meeting of 20 Sept., JA was named to a committee including John Hancock, Thomas Cushing, Samuel Adams, Thomas
Boylston, Joseph Warren, and William Dennie to consider the “Proposal of a number
of Inhabitants for forming a Society in order to promote Arts, Agriculture, Manufactures
and Commerce in this Province.” The town meeting records for 29 Sept. show that “the
Committee . . . not being present their Report which had been lodged with the Town
Clerk, was not read, but the consideration { 249 } thereof referred to the Adjournment” (Boston Record Commissioners, 18th Report, p. 37–38). No evidence of further consideration of the report has been found.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0086
Recipient: Lowell, John
Date: 1770-12-15
To John Lowell?
[dateline] Decr. 15. 1770
[salute] Dr sir
Being generally Speaking a son of Liberty, notwithstanding the Cloud of Toryism that
has lately, you know, passed over me,1 a Number of Gentlemen have retain[d] me, with you, in Defence of that great and inestimable Right, Liberty and Priviledge
by Charter of digging Clams upon the Ipswich Clam Banks. The Proprietors of Ipswich
have sued Varrill before a Justice &c.—Varrill2 will shew you the Copies. Will it not be best (if the Ptfs should enter) for [unknown amount of text missing][the Propri]etors will bring the next Action before the Superiour Court and have this great constitutional
Question decided at last by the Kings Bench.—I wish you a pleasant and profitable
Court and am with great Esteem your Brother3
[signed] John Adams
1. Presumably a reference to his unpopularity for defending the soldiers charged with
the Boston Massacre.
3. That is, cocounsel. John Lowell may be meant, for he served in this capacity in Patch
v. Herrick, which involved litigation over the Ipswich clam bank (JA, Legal Papers, 2:4–9).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0087
Date: 1771-04-22
Announcement of Changes of Address of John Adams' Law Office
[dateline] [Boston, 22 April 1771]
John Adams,
Notifies the Removal of his Office to a Room in Queen-Street, in the House of Mr.
John Gill, within a few Steps of the New Court-House, but on the opposite Side of
the Street.1
Reprinted from (Boston Gazette, 22 April 1771).
1. The transfer of JA's law office was probably dictated by the Adams family's return to Braintree earlier
this month. Before becoming Gill's tenant, JA had apparently maintained his office in the quarters “near the steps of the Town
{ 250 } house Stairs” mentioned in his account of the events of March 1770 (JA, Legal Papers, 1:lxv–lxvi). Gill, copublisher of the whig Boston Gazette, was a grateful former client, whom JA had successfully represented in 1768 and 1769 in the printer's suits against John
Mein (same, p. 151–157). This Queen Street law office was used until Nov. 1772, when JA moved into Shrimpton Hunt's house, also on Queen Street, which he had purchased in
August.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0088
Recipient: Adams, John
Date: 1771-07-19
From Catharine Macaulay
[dateline] London July 19. 1771
[salute] Sr
A very laborious attention to the finishing the fifth vol of my history of England
with a severe fever of five months duration the consequence of that attention has
hitherto deprived me of the opportunity of answering your very polite letter of August
9. 1770.1
Your observations of the history of England are highly favorable and flattering to
the Author but you must give me leave to say that on the principle of having a right
to treat your own performances with freedom you have not done common justice to the
work entitled a Dissertation on the Common and the feudal laws.2
I am really very much concerned to hear that you labor under the heavy misfortune
of a weak and infirm state of health. I simpathise with you in body and mind having
rarely any alternative from either labor or pain.
A correspondence with so worthy and ingenious a person as your self Sr will ever be
prised by me as part of the happiness of my life.
I wish to your numerous family continued health and prosperity and to you every other
blessing which can ballance the unavoidable evils attending our human existence.
[salute] I am Sr with esteem regard and gratitude Your most Obed And most obliged humble Servt
[signed] Catharine Macaulay
RC (Adams Papers).
1. JA's letter to Mrs. Macaulay is printed in JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:360–361, with a sketch of Mrs. Macaulay in a note at p. 361. The fifth volume of her History of England from the Accession of James I to that of the Brunswick line, London, 1763–1783, appeared in 1771 (DNB).
2. JA had opened his correspondence with Mrs. Macaulay when he learned of her favorable
reaction to his “Dissertation.” Mrs. Macaulay's error in citing the title was entirely
her own; the essays were never published under that name (see “A Dissertation on the
Canon and the Feudal Law,” May–21 October 1765, above).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0089
Recipient: Whipple, William
Date: 1772-01-27
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
To William Whipple
Boston, 27 January 1772. Printed: Letters by Washington . . . and Others ... to John Langdon, Philadelphia, 1880, p. 12. JA's reply to Whipple's letter of 16 Jan. on cases involving himself and “Mr. Cutt.”
For this litigation, see JA, Legal Papers, 2:104 note.
Printed (Letters by Washington . . . and Others ... to John Langdon, Philadelphia, 1880, p. 12).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0090
Date: 1772-02-09
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Draft of a Newspaper Communication
9 February 1772. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 2:53–54
Printed (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 2:53–54).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0091
Date: 1772-02-09
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
The Brace of Adamses
9 February 1772. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 2:54–56.
Printed (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 2:54–56).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0092
Recipient: Adams, John
Date: 1772-02-13
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
From William Whipple
Portsmouth, 13 February 1772. RC (Adams Papers); addressed: “To John Adams Esqr. at Boston favoured P Mr. Cutts”; endorsed. Whipple
gives directions for litigation in the admiralty cases involving himself and Cutt.
See entry for 27 Jan., above.
RC (Adams Papers).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0093
DateRange: 1772-03-02 - 1772-05-18
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
Notes for an Oration at Braintree Concerning Government
Braintree, 2 March – 18 May 1772.. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 2:56–61.
Printed (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 2:56–61).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0094
Recipient: Adams, John
Date: 1772-10-04
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
From Nathaniel Freeman
Sandwich, 4 October 1772. RC (MiU-C); addressed to John Adams in Boston; endorsed. Freeman notifies Adams that he is
appealing a case to the Superior Court and urges Adams, who has been his attorney,
not to “take up against me.” Adams' one-sentence reply that he is “ready to engage
for him” is on the verso.
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0095
Recipient: Macaulay, Catharine Sawbridge
Date: 1772-12-31
This is a summary of a document and does not contain a transcription. If it is available elsewhere in this digital edition, a page number link will be provided below in the paragraph beginning "Printed."
To Catharine Macaulay
Boston31 December 1772. Printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography, 2:75–76.
Printed (JA, Diary and Autobiography, 2:75–76).
Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0096-0001
Editorial Note
The issue addressed by John Adams and William Brattle in this exchange in the pages
of the Boston Gazette was a narrow one: the degree to which English judges had historically been dependent
upon the Crown and its ministers. But this question arose as part of a broader debate
in contemporary Massachusetts politics: the provision for Bay Colony judges in the
royal civil list. The General Court had registered strong protests in 1771 when it
became known that the governor was to receive his salary from the Crown rather than
from the provincial legislature (see Adams' Service in the House, 7 June 1770–16 April 1771, 2d calendar entry for 10 April 1771, above). Opposition to this extension of the civil list, however, was comparatively
mild, for, as one historian has remarked, “it was at least logical that the King's
servant be paid by the King” (Brown, Revolutionary Politics, p. 52). That moderation ended when Boston received reports in the fall of 1772 that
superior court judges were to get crown salaries as well.
The Boston town meeting took the lead in investigating these reports and exploiting
them as a political issue. After vain attempts to obtain clarification of the rumors
from Governor Hutchinson, the town met on 2 November and named a committee of correspondence
“to communicate { 253 } their Sentiment to other towns” (Boston Record Commissioners, 18th Report, p. 93; for an able summary of the exchanges between the town meeting and Hutchinson,
Oct.–Nov. 1772, see Brown, Revolutionary Politics, p. 48–57; see also Editorial Note, The Constitutional Debate between Thomas Hutchinson and the Massachusetts House,
26 Jan. – 2 March 1773, below). The committee's work bore fruit in Boston's adoption
of two reports on rights and an accompanying letter for other Massachusetts towns,
all bound together as The Votes and Proceedings of the Town of Boston. This pamphlet soon brought action in Cambridge.
A number of freeholders petitioned the Cambridge selectmen for a town meeting at which
the issue of crown salaries for the judges might be discussed. The warrant for the
meeting on 14 December included an article responding to the petition. When the town
met, Maj. Gen. William Brattle, widely regarded as a staunch defender of colonial
liberties, was elected moderator.
At the meeting Brattle displayed a startling political about-face. A wealthy landowner
who had dabbled in medicine, theology, and the law before winning recognition as a
military administrator, Brattle emerged that day as a defender of crown measures.
(For a sketch of Brattle, see Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates, 7:10–23.) More than forty years later, Adams described him as one who, before the
Cambridge meeting of December 1772, “had acquired great popularity by his zeal, and
I must say, by his indiscreet and indecorous ostentation of it, against the measures
of the British government.” He ascribed Brattle's conversion to Hutchinson, and especially
to Jonathan Sewall (to Jedediah Morse, 22 Dec. 1815, JA, Works, 10:194).
Although Adams' explanation of the General's behavior may well be oversimplified,
there is no doubt that a conversion had taken place. Brattle used all his considerable
authority and influence to discourage discussion of the judges' salaries at the Cambridge
meeting. When the letter from the Boston town meeting was read, he objected to taking
any action on the communication, for the article in the warrant had not specifically
mentioned the letter from Boston.
Brattle's objections were not limited to technicalities. He argued that the town would
be “too premature in acting upon this matter at present” and that the next packet
from England would probably “give us more light in the affair.” As it was, he continued,
“no man in the province could say whether the salaries granted to the judges were
durante bene placito, or quamdiu bene se gesserint, as the judges of England have their salaries granted them.” Brattle told the meeting
that he “supposed” the salaries were to be granted in the latter fashion, that is,
during good behavior, and argued that this would make the judges “independent both
upon the king and the people.” He was “very far from thinking there was any necessity
of having quamdiu bene se gesserint in their commissions; for they have their commissions now by that tenure as truly
as if said words were in,” He closed his arguments for accepting the new method which
he sup• { 254 } posed would govern the judges' salaries by remarking “that by the charter and common
law of England, there is no necessity of their having any commission at all; a nomination
and appointment recorded is enough; nomination and appointment are the words of the charter, a commission for them not so much as mentioned in it”
(Brattle to the Massachusetts Gazette, 16 Dec.; JA, Works, 3:516–517).
Brattle's harangue had little effect. The town appointed a committee of correspondence
and adopted instructions to the Cambridge representative, Thomas Gardner, which described
the judges' salaries as “so great a Grievance, especially when added to the many other
Grievances we have been so long groaning under, as to be almost insupportable” (Boston Gazette, 21 Dec.).
Here the matter might have ended had not Brattle decided to live up to his promise
to protest the illegality of any action on the Boston letter. Within days of the Cambridge
meeting he carried the dispute to the press, summarizing his town meeting oration
in a letter dated 26 December and published in the Massachusetts Gazette of 31 December. When his position was questioned in the Boston Gazette, Brattle replied in the Massachusetts Gazette on 7 January, offering to answer those who had leisure to dispute the line of argument
he had laid down.
In his autobiographical writings, Adams offers two slightly different versions of
why he decided to enter the dispute. In his Diary, he mentions Brattle's publication
of 31 December as one of the topics of conversation for Adams' friends the next evening.
Adams neglected his Diary for the next nine weeks, and on resuming on 4 March, he
explained: “The two last Months have slided away. I have written a tedious Examination
of Brattle's absurdities.” Adams described Brattle's pieces in the newspapers of 31
December and 7 January as “vain and frothy Harrangues and Scribblings,” which “would
have had no Effect upon me, if I had not seen that his Ignorant Doctrines were taking
Root in the Minds of the People” (Diary and Autobiography, 2:77–78). This explanation, which implies that Adams did not begin drafting his reply to
Brattle until he had seen the Massachusetts Gazette of 7 January, seems unlikely since Adams' first essay appeared in the Boston Gazette on 11 January.
Adams had more personal reasons for accepting Brattle's challenge. During the Cambridge
meeting, Adams recalled, Brattle had said the complete independence of the judges
“I averr to be Law, and I will maintain it, against any Body, I will dispute it, with
Mr. Otis, Mr. Adams, Mr. John Adams I mean, and Mr. Josiah Quincy. I would dispute
with them, here in Town Meeting, nay, I will dispute it with them in the Newspapers”
(same, 2:78).
In his Autobiography, Adams recalled that perhaps he would have said nothing publicly
about Brattle's argument had Brattle not “the Week before . . . challenged me by name,
to dispute the point with him” (same, 3:297). This version, which suggests that Adams accepted the challenge as soon as he saw
Brattle's essay in the Massachusetts Gazette of 31 Decem• { 255 } ber, is more credible. Of course, Adams could have completed two or more of his essays
before the first was printed in the Gazette; any more precise dating is impossible considering the complete lack of manuscript
versions of Adams' essays and of any dates appended to the published letters. All
of Adams' contributions printed below are taken from the Gazette and are given the dates on which they appeared in that paper.
Before he had answered Brattle to his own satisfaction, Adams produced seven learned
essays. These appeared in weekly installments along with Brattle's only contribution
to the debate he had courted so eagerly. Probably the General despaired of defending
himself against Adams' “torrents of law, records and history.” Adams himself did not
know whether Brattle's failure to write more rose “from Conviction, or from Policy,
or Contempt” (same, 2:78). And although Adams dismissed his own effort as a “tedious
Examination,” one suspects that he relished the “delightful work of quotation,” at
times losing sight of his opponent in his enthusiasm for exhausting every legal consideration.
These essays, published without title in 1773, appear in Charles Francis Adams' edition
of his grandfather's works under the title “On the Independence of the Judiciary”
(JA, Works, 3:519–574). John Adams himself, however, referred to them consistently as being
“On the Independence of the Judges” (to Cotton Tufts, 3 May 1789, MH:Schaffner Collection; Diary and Autobiography, 3:298). The present editors have chosen to revive Adams' title.
More accurately, Adams should have called his essays “On the Dependence of the Judges,”
for he employed English history and legal treatises to demonstrate that the celebrated
“independence” of the judiciary was a comparatively recent innovation, resting on
limited statute law rather than on common law or time-honored tradition, as Brattle
had claimed. Adams left his readers to draw their own conclusions about the dangers
of such a system.
These lessons were all the more obvious to his audience since Adams' newspaper series
coincided with a full-scale debate between the Governor and the House on constitutional
issues involving the judiciary. In the weeks in which he penned the concluding numbers
of his series, he was engaged as well, but not publicly, in drafting the central portions
of the replies of the House to Governor Hutchinson on the broader issues raised by
the prospect of crown salaries for the judges (see 26 Jan. – 2 March 1773, below). These newspaper pieces, to which Adams signed his name, are the first public
papers since “Sui Juris” (23 May 1768, above) which he is known to have composed as an individual, rather than as a member
of a public committee.
The moral of these essays, the need for a judiciary whose independence was guarded
from changing public opinion and legislative whim, proved clearer to Adams than to
his countrymen. Shortly after taking office as vice president, Adams suggested that
his letters to Brattle be republished. Sixteen years after accepting the General's
challenge, Adams { 256 } reflected ruefully, the essays “contain Information that is much wanted. The Constitutional
learning on that head is very little known, excepting to those few who read those
Letters in their Season. Younger Gentlemen and the rising Generation, know nothing
of it, and nothing is of more