On 20 January 1766 the Boston Gazette printed “Clarendon”
to “William Pym” No. II that was written by John Adams.
Here are the inspiring last two paragraphs:
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 Virtue.
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 shown
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
through 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 irresistible
Vengeance of the People to renounce their Offices.
Such and so universal has been the Resentment,
that every Man, who has dared to speak in Favor of them,
or to soften the Detestation in which they are held,
how great so ever 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, Humor,
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 everywhere groaned;
and the Pulpits have thundered:
And such of the Crown Officers as have wished
to see them enslaved, have everywhere 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.1
On December 18 Adams wrote in his journal that his life
was being shifted, and he did not know why.
The next day he wrote in his diary,
But I am now under all obligations of interest
and ambition, as well as honor, gratitude, and duty,
to exert the utmost of my abilities in this important cause.
How shall it be conducted?
Shall we contend that the Stamp Act is void—
that the Parliament have no legal authority to impose
internal taxes upon us, because we are not represented
in it—and, therefore, that the Stamp Act ought to be waved
by the judges as against natural equity and the constitution?
Shall we use these as arguments
for opening the courts of law?
Or shall we ground ourselves on necessity only?2
On December 20 Governor Bernard and the Council met with closed doors,
and John Adams as the youngest lawyer began an argument.
He described that in his journal,
Then it fell upon me, without one moment’s 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;
i. e. whether the courts of law should be open or not?
I grounded my argument on the invalidity of the Stamp Act,
it not being in any sense our act,
having never consented to it.
But, lest 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.
Mr. Otis reasoned, with great learning and zeal,
on the judges’ oaths &c.
Mr. Gridley on the great inconveniences
that would ensue the interruption of justice.3
The Governor and Council decided it as a question of law by themselves.
Chief Justice Thomas Hutchinson concluded that the people were to be
punished by suspending the administration of justice, and that view prevailed.
Governor Bernard and his Council decided that the courts must determine that.
On November 5 the Governor prorogued the General Court until 15 January 1766.
The Stamp Act was repealed on March 18, and that was soon followed by
a declaratory act that asserted the right of Parliament
to enact laws binding the colonies in all cases.
When the legislature met in June 1766, they learned that the Stamp Act was repealed.
The House chose six councilors, and the Governor
rejected them including Otis as Speaker.
In the summer of 1767 merchants learned that the British had passed
the Townshend Duties and were still taxing British imports to the colonies.
In the spring of 1768 John Adams moved to Boston.
His friend Jonathan Sewall, the province’s attorney general, persuaded
Governor Francis Bernard to appoint Adams temporary advocate-general
in the court of admiralty which Adams quickly declined.
He also informed the town of Braintree that he chose not to be re-elected a selectman.
On 23 May 1768 John Adams published in the
Boston Gazette “Sui Juris” that begins with this quote by David:
“Who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he
should defy the Armies of the living God?”
Not many Years ago, were transmitted to the Public,
through 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.
That those apprehensions were too well founded,
Time has, already, sufficiently shown: 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.
It is claimed as an incontestable 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 Labors will be interrupted whenever the Paroxisms
of the Gout or the Spleen, the Fits of Dullness or Laziness,
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 who has lately with so much Heroism
challenged America to contest with him
the Right of Diocesan 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 favor 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 persuade 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 Exorbitance
of their Wealth and Power, is Sacrilege, 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 Diocesan Bishops,
and that those who deny 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.4
On June 20 the Boston Gazette published
“Instructions to Boston’s Representatives,” namely James Otis,
Thomas Cushing, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock.
John Adams wrote,
After the repeal of the late American Stamp Act,
we were happy in the pleasing project 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 flattered 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 control;
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 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 endeavors
for the preservation of peace and order among ourselves.
Waiting with anxious expectation, for a favorable answer
to the petitions and solicitations 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 Dependents,
all novel in this country, we have seen already.
Their imperious tempers, their rash inconsiderate
and weak behavior, 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 harbor; 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 unlimited 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; 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 the ship.
In addition to all this, we are continually alarmed
with rumors 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 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 endeavor 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. 37. 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 rumors
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 both.
Then the Meeting was dissolved.4
Gov. Bernard had dissolved the General Court,
and he refused to convene the legislature.
Troops were quartered in Boston.
At a town meeting on September 12 the people
chose delegates to a convention on the 22nd.
They met for eight days and asked the Governor to convene the General Court.
He refused and warned them about treason.
Arrival of British troops provoked angry debates.
The Council advised the Governor to put the troops on Castle Island or in barracks.
General Gates came from New York to Boston and hired houses for the troops.
Quartering soldiers in people’s houses inflamed passions.
In January and February 1770 people often gathered to protest.
On February 22 Ebenezer Richardson, who had informed
the customs service, criticized the protestors.
They chased him to his home which they pelted with stones and garbage.
After his wife was hit in the head, Ebenezer was seen at a window with a musket.
As zealots attempted to break down the front door,
he fired into the crowd and killed the boy Christopher Seider.
Some men entered the house and captured Richardson.
A few were for lynching, and leaders prevented that.
Instead he was handed over to a justice of the peace for a trial.
Fights broke out between rowdy men and the soldiers.
About 2,000 people marched in the procession for Seider’s funeral,
and John Adams said he never had seen such a large crowd.
On 5 March 1770 in the evening crowds gathered at three places in Boston.
The commanding General Thomas Gage had opposed placing troops in Boston,
and this was also criticized by protestors and soldiers.
Near the home of John Adams by the barracks near Draper’s Alley
a crowd at 9 p.m. began arguing with some soldiers.
John Adams was at a monthly Sodalitas meeting, and his pregnant wife Abigail
could hear the riot.
A barber’s boy offended a sentinel, and Captain Thomas Preston
and six soldiers came to his aid holding muskets with bayonets in a semi-circle.
A crowd of about 400 taunted them, and some even dared them to shoot.
The bookseller Henry Knox spoke to the British commander and urged him not to fire.
When someone threw a club that hit a soldier, a shot was heard.
After a short pause there were other shots, and the African
Crispus Attacks, Samuel Gray, Samuel Maverick,
James Caldwell, and Patrick Carr were mortally wounded.
Captain Preston was angry and tried to get them to stop shooting.
He got their attention and had them march away from the Customs House.
The wounded were carried away.
The undefended building was not attacked.
An hour later more troops arrived, and they saw the blood in the snow.
Thomas Hutchinson went to the balcony of the Town House
and told the crowd that the soldiers who fired would be tried.
The people then dispersed.
John and Abigail that night discussed for hours the
incident that
was called the “Boston Massacre,” though Adams would always refer to it
as the “murder on King Street” or “the slaughter in King Street.”
People demanded that the murderers be punished, and a committee
was sent to demand that the Governor remove the troops from Boston.
Also on March 5 the British Government had repealed the
1767 Townshend Duties with the lone exception for tea.
Acting Governor Hutchinson agreed to move the soldiers
from the city of Boston to Castle William by the harbor.
The streets were peaceful as Samuel Adams and others spoke to people.
The pamphlet, A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston,
argued that there was a conspiracy by the customs commissioners.
Captain Thomas Preston, the soldiers, and two customs men accused
of shooting from a window were indicted by a grand jury by the end of March.
The court named Samuel Quincy as a special prosecutor
with Robert Treat Paine as an assistant.
The soldiers did not have a lawyer until John Adams agreed to represent them,
and he was assisted by younger Josiah Quincy and two others.
Adams took on the responsibility because
he believed the men were entitled to a fair trial.
On June 6 John Adams was elected to the legislature with 418 out of 536 votes
to replace James Bowdoin who had joined the Council.
In June 1770 the General Court convened, and John Adams
and John Hancock went to Cambridge where they were meeting.
On June 27 John Adams resumed writing in his diary.
Adams joined a committee with his cousin Samuel Adams.
They petitioned the Lt. Governor Hutchinson to dismiss the House,
and he did so until the end of September.
That month Hutchinson followed the British order to
put the Massachusetts Bay colony under martial law.
The Assembly announced a day of fasting and
humiliation to draw attention to this tyranny.
The defendants were arraigned in early September,
and the trial began in Boston’s new courthouse in October.
Adams asked that Captain Thomas Preston be given a separate trial.
The magistrate agreed, and that trial started on October 24.
In five days 15 witnesses testified for the prosecution
followed by 23 witnesses for the defense.
None of the soldiers testified, and the jury needed only three hours
to acquit Captain Preston who had not given an order to fire
and had tried to get them to stop.
The larger trial of the other eight soldiers began on November 27, and Adams said,
May it please your Honors,
and you gentlemen of the Jury,—
I am for the prisoners at the bar;
and shall apologize for it
only in the words of the Marquis Beccaria:
“If I can but be the instrument of preserving life,
his blessing and tears of transport shall be a sufficient
consolation to me for the contempt of mankind.”5
Beccaria’s Essay on Crimes and Punishments
had just been published in English that year.
In his arguments Adams said,
I have endeavored to produce the best authorities,
and to give you the rules of law in their words;
for I desire not to advance anything of my own.
I choose to lay down the rules of law
from authorities which cannot be disproved….
If Heaven, in its anger, shall ever permit time to come
when, by means of an abandoned administration at home,
and the outrages of the soldiery here, the bond of parental
affection and filial duty between Britain and the colonies
shall be dissolved, when we shall be shaken loose
from the shackles of the common law and our allegiance,
and reduced to a state of nature, the American and British
soldier must fight it out upon the principles
of the law of nature and of nations.
But it is certain such a time is not yet arrived,
and every virtuous Briton and American prays it never may.
Till then, however, we must try causes
in the tribunals of justice, by the law of the land….
Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be
our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions,
they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
Nor is the law less stable than the fact.
If an assault was made to endanger their lives,
the law is clear; they had a right to kill in their own defense.
If it was not so severe as to endanger their lives, yet if
they were assaulted at all, struck and abused by blows
of any sort, by snowballs, oyster-shells, cinders, clubs,
or sticks of any kind, this was a provocation, for which
the law reduces the offence of killing down to manslaughter,
in consideration of those passions in our nature
which cannot be eradicated.
To your candor and justice
I submit the prisoners and their cause.
The law, in all vicissitudes of government,
fluctuations of the passions, or flights of enthusiasm,
will preserve a steady undeviating course.
It will not bend to the uncertain wishes,
imaginations, and wanton tempers of men.
To use the words of a great and worthy man, a patriot
and a hero, an enlightened friend of mankind, and
a martyr to liberty, I mean Algernon Sidney, who,
from his earliest infancy, sought a tranquil retirement
under the shadow of the tree of liberty with his tongue,
his pen, and his sword:—
The law no passion can disturb.
’Tis void of desire and fear, lust and anger.
’Tis mens sine affectu, written reason,
retaining some measure of the divine perfection.
It does not enjoin that which pleases a weak, frail man,
but, without any regard to persons, commends
that which is good, and punishes evil in all,
whether rich or poor, high or low.
’Tis deaf, inexorable, inflexible.
On the one hand, it is inexorable to the cries
and lamentations of the prisoner;
on the other, it is deaf, deaf as an adder,
to the clamors of the populace.6
The judge said to Mr. Adams,
“I see you are determined to explore the constitution,
and bring to life all its dormant and latent powers,
in defense of your liberties, as you understand them.”
John Adams replied, “I should be very happy if the constitution
could carry them safely through all their difficulties,
without having recourse to higher powers not written.”7
Adams had argued that if the soldiers were in danger,
they had a right to self-defense;
if they were provoked, they could be guilty of manslaughter.
He also believed that it was better to protect
the innocent rather than punish the guilty.
The trial ended in late December.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted,
and the other two were found guilty of manslaughter.
John Adams had been elected to the Massachusetts
House of Representatives replacing the declining Otis.
Adams was handling hundreds of cases as a lawyer,
and he hired two or three law clerks who had graduated from Harvard.
He suffered a serious illness in February 1771,
and he decided not to run for re-election.
While Samuel Adams was writing against British imperialism,
John Adams was praising the British constitution.
They agreed that the Stamp Act was a violation.
John Adams represented many criminal defendants accused of
murder, rape, assault, theft, and counterfeiting.
He also took on tax cases and even a divorce case.
On February 12 John Adams wrote this draft of an essay on juries.
At a Time, when the Barriers against Popery, erected
by our Ancestors, are suffered to be destroyed,
to the hazard even of the Protestant Religion:
When the system of the civil Law which has for so many
Ages and Centuries, been withstood by the People
of England, is permitted to become fashionable:
When so many Innovations are introduced,
to the Injury of our Constitution of civil Government:
it is not surprising that the great Securities of the People,
should be invaded, and their fundamental Rights,
drawn into Question.
While the People of all the other great Kingdoms in Europe,
have been insidiously deprived of their Liberties,
it is not unnatural to expect that such as are interested
to introduce Arbitrary Government should see with Envy,
Detestation and Malice, the People of the British Empire,
by their Sagacity and Valor defending theirs,
to the present Times.
There is nothing to distinguish the Government of
Great Britain, from that of France, or of Spain,
but the Part which the People are by the Constitution
appointed to take, in the passing and Execution of Laws.
Of the Legislature, the People constitute
one essential Branch—
And while they hold this Power, unlimited, and exercise it
frequently, as they ought, no Law can be made and continue
long in Force that is inconvenient, hurtful, or disagreeable
to the Mass of the society.
No Wonder then, that attempts are made, to deprive
the Freeholders of America and of the County of Middlesex,
of this troublesome Power, so dangerous to Tyrants
and so disagreeable to all who have Vanity enough
to call themselves the better Sort.—
In the Administration of Justice too,
the People have an important Share.
Juries are taken by Lot or by Suffrage from the Mass
of the People, and no Man can be condemned of Life,
or Limb, or Property or Reputation,
without the Concurrence of the Voice of the People.
As the Constitution requires, that, the popular Branch
of the Legislature, should have an absolute Check
so as to put a peremptory Negative upon every Act
of the Government, it requires that the common People
should have as complete a Control, as decisive a Negative,
in every Judgment of a Court of Judicature.
No Wonder then that the same restless Ambition,
of aspiring Minds, which is endeavoring to lessen or destroy
the Power of the People in Legislation, should attempt
to lessen or destroy it, in the Execution of Lawes.
The Rights of Juries and of Elections,
were never attacked singly in all the English History.
The same Passions which have disliked one
have detested the other, and both have always been
exploded, mutilated or undermined together.
The British Empire has been much alarmed, of late Years,
with Doctrines concerning Juries, their Powers and Duties,
which have been said in Printed Papers and Pamphlets to
have been delivered from the highest Tribunals of Justice.
Whether these Accusations are just or not,
it is certain that many Persons are misguided
and deluded by them, to such a degree, that we often hear
in Conversation Doctrines advanced for Law, which if true,
would render Juries a mere Ostentation and Pageantry
and the Court absolute Judges of Law and fact.
It cannot therefore be an unseasonable Speculation
to examine into the real Powers and Duties of Juries,
both in Civil and Criminal Cases, and to discover the
important Boundary between the Power of the Court
and that of the Jury, both in Points of Law and of Fact.
Every intelligent Man will confess that Cases frequently
occur, in which it would be very difficult for a Jury
to determine the Question of Law.
Long Chains of intricate Conveyances; obscure, perplexed
and embarrassed Clauses in Writings:
Researches into remote Antiquity, for Statutes, Records,
Histories, judicial Decisions, which are frequently found
in foreign Languages, as Latin and French, which may be
all necessary to be considered, would confound a common
Jury and a decision by them
would be no better than a Decision by Lot.
And indeed Juries are so sensible of this and of the great
Advantages the Judges have to determine such Questions,
that, as the Law has given them the Liberty of finding
the facts specially and praying the Advice of the Court
in the Matter of Law, they very seldom neglect
to do it when recommended to them,
or when in any doubt of the Law.
But it will by no Means follow from thence, that
they are under any legal, or moral or divine Obligation
to find a Special Verdict where they themselves
are in no doubt of the Law.
The Oath of a Juror in England, is to determine
Causes “according to your Evidence”—
In this Province “according to Law
and the Evidence given you.”
It will be readily agreed that the Words of the Oath
at Home, imply all that is expressed by the Words
of the Oath here.
And whenever a general Verdict is found,
it assuredly determines both the Fact and the Law.
It was never yet disputed, or doubted,
that a general Verdict, given under the Direction of the Court
in Point of Law, was a legal Determination of the Issue.
Therefore the Jury have a Power of deciding an Issue
upon a general Verdict.
And if they have, is it not an Absurdity to suppose that
the Law would oblige them to find a Verdict
according to the Direction of the Court,
against their own Opinion, Judgment and Conscience.
It has already been admitted to be most advisable
for the Jury to find a Special Verdict
where they are in doubt of the Law.
But, this is not often the Case—
1000 Cases occur in which the Jury would have no doubt
of the Law, to one, in which they would be at a Loss.
The general Rules of Law and common Regulations
of Society, under which ordinary Transactions arrange
themselves, are well enough known to ordinary Jurors.
The great Principles of the Constitution, are intimately
known, they are sensibly felt by every Briton—
it is scarcely extravagant to say, they are drawn in
and imbibed with the Nurses Milk and first Air.
Now should the Melancholy Case arise,
that the Judges should give their Opinions to the Jury,
against one of these fundamental Principles,
is a Juror obliged to give his Verdict generally
according to this Direction, or even to find the fact
specially and submit the Law to the Court.
Every Man of any feeling or Conscience will answer, no.
It is not only his right but his Duty in that Case to find
the Verdict according to his own best Understanding,
Judgment and Conscience,
though in Direct opposition to the Direction of the Court.
A religious Case might be put off a Direction
against a divine Law.
The English Law obliges no Man to decide a Cause
upon Oath against his own Judgment, nor does it oblige
any Man to take any Opinion upon Trust,
or to pin his faith on the sieve of any mere Man.8
John Adams May 1772 wrote in his Diary
these Notes for an Oration on Government:
The Origin, the Nature, the Principles and the Ends
of Government, in all Ages, the ignorant as well as
the enlightened, and in all Nations, the barbarous as well as
civilized, have employed the Wits of ingenious Men.
The Magi, the Mufti, the Brahmins, and Brahmans,
Mandarins, Rabbis, Philosophers, Divines, Schoolmen,
Hermits, Legislators, Politicians, Lawyers, have made
these the subjects of their Enquiries and Reasonings.
There is nothing too absurd, nothing too enthusiastic
or superstitious, nothing too wild or whimsical,
nothing too profane or impious,
to be found among such Thinkers, upon such Subjects.
Any Thing which subtlety could investigate
or imagination conceive, would serve for an Hypothesis,
to support a System, excepting only what alone
can support the System of Truth—Nature, and Experience.
The Science of Government, like all other Sciences,
is best pursued by Observation And Experiment—
Remark the Phenomena of Nature, and from these
deduce the Principles and Ends of Government.
Men are the Objects of this Science, as much as Air,
Fire, Earth and Water, are the Objects of Philosophy,
Points, Lines, Surfaces and Solids of Geometry,
or the Sun, Moon and Stars of Astronomy.
Human Nature therefore and human Life
must be carefully observed and studied.
Here we should spread before Us a Map of Man—
view him in different Soils and Climates,
in different Nations and Countries,
under different Religions and Customs,
in Barbarity and Civility, in a State of Ignorance
and enlightened with Knowledge,
in Slavery and in freedom, in Infancy and Age.
He will be found, a rational,
sensible and social Animal, in all.
The Instinct of Nature impels him to Society,
and Society causes the Necessity of Government.
Government is nothing more than the combined Force
of Society, or the united Power of the Multitude,
for the Peace, Order, Safety, Good and Happiness
of the People, who compose the Society.
There is no King or Queen Bee distinguished from all others,
by Size or Figure, or beauty and Variety of Colors,
in the human Hive.
No Man has yet produced any Revelation from Heaven in his
favor, any divine Communication to govern his fellow Men.
Nature throws us all into the World equal and alike.
Nor has any Form of Government the Honor
of a divine original or Appointment.
The Author of Nature has left it wholly in the Choice
of the People, to make what mutual Covenants,
to erect what Kind of Governments,
and to exalt what Persons they please to power and
dignities, for their own Ease, Convenience and Happiness.
Government being according to my Definition
the collected Strength of all for the general Good of all,
Legislators have devised a Great Variety of forms
in which this Strength may be arranged.
There are only Three simple Forms of Government.
When the whole Power of the Society is lodged
in the Hands of the whole Society, the Government
is called a Democracy, or the Rule of the Many.
When the Sovereignty, or Supreme Power is placed
in the Hands of a few great, rich, wise Men,
the Government is an Aristocracy, or the Rule of the few.
When the absolute Power of the Community is entrusted
to the Discretion of a single Person,
the Government is called a Monarchy, or the Rule of one,
in this Case the whole Legislative and Executive Power
is in the Breast of one Man.
There are however two other Kinds of Monarchies.
One is when the supreme Power is not in a single Person
but in the Laws, the Administration being committed
solely to the Prince.
Another Kind is a limited Monarchy,
where the Nobles or the Commons or both have
a Check upon all the Acts of Legislation of the Prince.
There is an indefinite Variety of other Forms
of Government, occasioned by different Combinations
of the Powers of Society, and different Intermixtures
of these Forms of Government, one with another.
The best Governments of the World have been mixed.
The Republics of Greece, Rome, Carthage,
were all mixed Governments.
The English, Dutch and Swiss, enjoy
the Advantages of mixed Governments at this Day.
Sometimes Kings have courted the People
in Opposition to the Nobles.
At other Times the Nobles have
united with the People in Opposition to Kings.
But Kings and Nobles have much oftener combined together,
to crush, to humble and to Fleece the People.
But this is an unalterable Truth, that the People
can never be enslaved but by their own Tameness,
Pusillanimity, Sloth or Corruption.
They may be deceived, and their Simplicity, Ignorance,
and Docility render them frequently liable to deception.
And of this, the aspiring, designing, ambitious few
are very sensible.
He is the Statesman qualified by Nature to scatter Ruin
and Destruction in his Path who by deceiving a Nation
can render Despotism desirable in their Eyes
and make himself popular in Undoing.
The Preservation of Liberty depends upon
the intellectual and moral Character of the People.
As long as Knowledge and Virtue
are diffused generally among the Body of a Nation,
it is impossible they should be enslaved.
This can be brought to pass only by debasing
their Understandings, or by corrupting their Hearts.
What is the Tendency of the late Innovations?
The Severity, the Cruelty of the late Revenue Laws,
and the Terrors of the formidable Engine,
contrived to execute them, the Court of Admiralty?
Is not the natural and necessary Tendency
of these Innovations, to introduce dark Intrigues,
Insincerity, Simulation, Bribery and Perjury,
among Custom house officers, Merchants,
Masters, Mariners and their Servants?
What is the Tendency, what has been the Effect
of introducing a standing Army into our Metropolis?
Have we not seen horrid Rancor, furious Violence,
infernal Cruelty, shocking Impiety and Profanation,
and shameless, abandoned Debauchery,
running down the Streets like a Stream?
Liberty, under every conceivable Form
of Government is always in Danger.
It is so even under a simple, or perfect Democracy,
more so under a mixed Government, like the Republic
of Rome, and still more so under a limited Monarchy.
Ambition is one of the more ungovernable Passions
of the human Heart.
The Love of Power, is insatiable and uncontrollable.
Even in the simple Democracies of ancient Greece,
Jealous as they were of Power,
even their Ostracism could not always preserve them
from the grasping Desires and Designs,
from the overbearing Popularity, of their great Men.
Even Rome, in her wisest and most virtuous Period,
from the Expulsion of her Kings
to the Overthrow of the Commonwealth,
was always in Danger from the Power of some
and the Turbulence, Faction and Popularity of others.
There is Danger from all Men.
The only Maxim of a free Government, ought to be to trust
no Man living, with Power to endanger the public Liberty.
In England, the common Rout to Power has been
by making clamorous Professions of Patriotism, in early Life,
to secure a great Popularity, and to ride upon that
Popularity, into the highest Offices of State,
and after they have arrived there, they have been generally
found, as little zealous to preserve the Constitution,
as their Predecessors whom they have hunted down.
The Earl of Strafford, in early Life,
was a mighty Patriot and Anti-courtier.
Sir Robert Walpole Committed to the Tower
the Father of Corruption.
Harley also, a great and bold Advocate
for the Constitution and Liberties of his Country.
But I need not go to Greece or to Rome,
or to Britain for Examples.
There are Persons now living in this Province,
who for a long Course of their younger Years,
professed and were believed to be the Guardian Angels
of our civil and Religious Liberties, whose latter Conduct,
since they have climbed up by Popularity to Power,
has exhibited as great a Contrast to their former Professions
and Principles, as ever was seen
in a Strafford, an Harley, or a Walpole.
Be upon your Guard then, my Countrymen.
We see, by the Sketches I have given you, that
all the great Kingdoms of Europe have once been free.
But that they have lost their Liberties, by the Ignorance,
the Weakness, the Inconstancy, and Disunion of the People.
Let Us guard against these dangers;
let us be firm and stable, as wise as Serpents
and as harmless as Doves,
but as daring and intrepid as Heroes.
Let Us cherish the Means of Knowledge—
our schools and Colleges—let Us cherish our Militia,
and encourage military Discipline and skill.
The English Nation have been more fortunate than France,
Spain, or any other—for the Barons, the Grandees,
the Nobles, instead of uniting with the Crown,
to suppress the People, united with the People,
and struggled vs. the Crown, until they obtained
the great Charter, which was but a Restoration
and Confirmation of the Laws and Constitution
of our Saxon King Edward the Confessor.
Liberty depends upon an exact Balance,
a nice Counterpoise of all the Powers of the state.
When the Popular Power becomes grasping,
and eager after Augmentation, or for Amplification,
beyond its proper Weight, or Line,
it becomes as dangerous as any other.
Sweden is an Example.
The Independency of the Governor, his Salary granted
by the Crown, out of a Revenue extorted from this People.
The Refusal of the Governor to consent to any Act
for granting a Salary to the Agent,
unless chosen by the 3 Branches of the General Court.
The Instruction to the Governor, not to consent
to any Tax Bill unless certain Crown Officers are exempted.
The Multiplication of Offices and Officers among Us.
The Revenue, arising from Duties upon Tea,
Sugar, Molasses and other Articles, &c.
It is the popular Power, the democratic Branch
of our Constitution that is invaded.
If King, Lords and Commons, can make Laws
to bind Us in all Cases whatsoever,
the People here will have no Influence,
no Check, no Power, no Control, no Negative.
And the Government we are under, instead of being
a mixture of Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy,
will be a Mixture only of Monarchy and Aristocracy.
For the Lords and Commons may be considered equally
with Regard to Us as Nobles, as the few,
as Aristocratic Grandees, independent of Us the People,
uninfluenced by Us, having no fear of Us, nor Love for Us.
Wise and free Nations have made it their Rule,
never to vote their Donations of Money to their Kings
to enable them to carry on the Affairs of Government,
until they had Opportunities to examine
the State of the Nation, and to remonstrate against
Grievances and demand and obtain the Redress of them.
This was the Maxim in France, Spain, Sweden,
Denmark, Poland, while those Nations were free.
What Opportunities then shall we in this Province have
to demand and obtain the Redress of Grievances,
if our Governors and Judges and other Officers
and Magistrates are to be supported by the Ministry,
without the Gifts of the People.—
Consider the Case of Barbados and Virginia.
Their Governors have been made independent
by the imprudent shortsighted Acts of their own Assemblies.
What is the Consequence?9
In August 1772 John Adams and his family left Braintree after 16 months
to move back to Boston, and they bought a brick house on Queen Street for £533.
On 11 January 1773 John Adams published in the Boston Gazette
his “Independence of the Judges No. 1:
General Brattle, by his rank, station and character,
is entitled to politeness and respect, even when
he condescends to harangue in town-meeting,
or to write in a newspaper.
But the same causes require that his sentiments
when erroneous and of dangerous tendency,
should be considered, with entire freedom,
and the examination be made as public, as the error.
He cannot therefore take offence at any gentleman
for offering his thoughts to the public, with decency
and candor, though they may differ from his own.
In this confidence, I have presumed to publish
a few observations, which have occurred to me,
upon reading his narration of the proceedings
of the late town meeting at Cambridge.
It is not my intention to remark upon all things
in that publication, which I think exceptionable,
but only on a few which I think the most so.
The General is pleased to say, “That no man
in the province could say whether the salaries granted
to the Judges were durante bene placito,
or quam diu bene se gesserint, as the Judges of England
have their salaries granted them.”
“I supposed the latter, though these words
were not expressed, but necessarily implied.”
This is said upon the supposition,
that salaries are granted by the crown to the judges.
Now, it is not easy to conceive, how the General
or any man in the province could be at a loss to say,
upon supposition that salaries are granted,
whether they are granted in the one way or the other.
If salaries are granted by the crown, they must be granted,
in such a manner as the crown has power to grant them.
Now it is utterly denied, that the crown has power to grant
them, in any other manner than durante bene placito.
The power of the crown to grant salaries to any judges
in America is derived solely from the late act of parliament,
and that gives no power to grant salaries for life,
or during good behavior.
But not to enlarge upon this at present.
The General proceeds. “I was very far from thinking
there was any necessity of having
quam diu bene se gesserint in their commissions:
For they have their commissions now by that tenure,
as truly as if said words were in.”
It is the wish of almost all good men,
that this was good law.
This country would be forever obliged to any gentleman
who would prove this point from good authorities,
to the conviction of all concerned in the administration
of government, here and at home.
But I must confess that, my veneration for
General Brattle’s authority, by no means prevails with me,
to give credit to this doctrine.
Nor do his reasons in support of it,
weigh with me, even so much as his authority.
He says, “What right, what estate vests in them,
(i.e. the Judges,) in consequence of their nomination
and appointment, the common law of England,
the Birth-right of every man here, as well as at home,
determines, and that is an estate for life,
provided they behave well:”
I must confess I read these words with surprise and grief.
And the more I have reflected upon them
the more these sentiments have increased in my mind.
The common law of England is so far from determining,
that the Judges have an estate for life in their offices,
that it has determined the direct contrary.
The proofs of this are innumerable and irresistible.
My Ld. Coke in his 4th institute, 74, says,
“Before the reign of E. I. the chief justice of this court,
was created by letters patents, and the form thereof
(taking one for all) was in these words.
“Rex, &c. Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibus, Prioribus,
Comitibus, Baronibus, Vice-comitibus, Forestariis,
et omnibus aliis fidelibus Regni Angliae, salutem,
cum pro Conservatione nostra, et tranquilitatis Regni nostri,
et ad Justitiam universis et singulis de Regno nostro
exhibendum constituerimus dilectum et fidelem nostrum
Philippum Basset Justiciarium Angliae
quam diu nobis placuerit capitalem.—&c.”
And my Lord Coke says, afterwards in the same page,
“King E. I. being a wise and prudent prince, knowing that
cui plus licet quam par est plus vult quam licet
(as most of the summi justiciarii did) made three alterations.
1. By limitation of his authority.
2. By changing summus justiciarius to capitalis justiciarius.
3. By a new kind of creation, viz. by writ, lest if he had
continued his former manner of creation,
he might have had a desire of his former authority,
which three do expressly appear by the writ, yet in use, viz.
Rex, &c. E.C. militi salutem, sciatis quod constitumus vos
justiciarium nostrum capitalem, ad placita coram nobis
tenenda, durante beneplacito nostro teste, &c.”
Afterwards in the same page Ld. Coke observes,
“it is a rule in law, that ancient offices must be granted
in such forms and in such manner, as they have been used
to be unless the alteration were by authority of parliament.
And continual experience approves, that for many
successions of ages without intermission, they have been,
and yet are called by the said writ.”
His Lordship informs us, also in the same page, that
“the rest of the Judges of the King’s bench have their offices
by letters patent in these words.
Rex omnibus ad quos presentes literae pervenient, salutem,
sciatis quod constituimus dilectum et fidelem Johannem
Doderidge militem unum justiciariorum ad placita coram
nobis tenenda durante beneplacito, nostro, teste, &c.”
His Lordship says indeed, from Bracton,
that “these Judges are called Perpetui by Bracton,
because they ought not to be removed without just cause.”
But the question is not what the Crown ought to do,
but what it had legal power to do.
The next reason given by the General in support
of his opinion, is that these points of law have been settled
and determined by the greatest sages
of the law formerly and more lately.
This is so entirely without foundation, that the General
might both with safety and decency be challenged,
to produce the name of any one sage of the law ancient or
modern, by whom it has been so settled and determined,
and the book in which such determination appears.
The General adds, “It is so notorious that
it becomes the common learning of the law.”
I believe he may decently and safely be challenged again;
to produce one Lawyer in this country, whoever before
entertained such an opinion, or, heard such a doctrine.
I would not be misunderstood;
there are respectable Lawyers, who maintain that
the Judges here hold their offices during good behavior;
but it is upon other principles,
not upon the common law of England.
“My Lord chief justice Holt settled it so,
not long before the statute of William and Mary,
that enacts that the words quam diu bene se gesserint,
shall be in the Judges Commissions.”
And afterwards he says, that “the commissions
as he apprehends, were without these words
inserted in them, during the reigns of
King William, Queen Mary and Queen Ann.”
This I presume must have been conjectured
from a few words of Lord Holt in the case of
Harcourt against Fox, which I think are these.
I repeat them from memory,
having not the book before me at present.
“Our places as judges are so settled,
determinable only upon misbehavior.”
Now, from these words I should draw an opposite
conclusion from the General, and should think that
the influence of that interest in the nation which
brought King William to the throne, prevailed upon him
to grant the commissions to the Judges,
expressly during good behavior.
I say, this is the most natural construction,
because it is certain, their places were not at that time,
viz. 5 Wm. and Mary, determined by an act of parliament
to be determinable only upon Misbehavior,
and it is as certain, from Lord Coke,
and from all history, that they were not so settled
by the common law of England.
However, we need not rest upon this reasoning,
because we happen to be furnished with the most explicit
and decisive evidence, that my conclusion is just,
from my Lord Raymond.
In the beginning of his second volume of reports,
his lordship has given us a list of the chief officers
in the law at the time of the death of
King William the third 8 March 1701, 2.
And he says in these words, that “Sir John Holt, knight,
chief justice of the King’s bench, holding his office by writ,
though it was quam diu se bene gesserint,
held it to be determined by the demise of the King,
notwithstanding the act of 12 & 13 Will. 3d.
And therefore the Queen in council gave orders,
that he should have a new writ, which he received
accordingly, and was sworn before the lord keeper
of the great seal the Saturday following, viz.
the 14th of March, Chief Justice of Kings Bench.”—
From this several things appear,
1. That General Brattle is mistaken in apprehending that
the Judges’ commissions were without the clause
quam diu bene se gesserint, in the reign of King William
and Queen Mary, and most probably also
in the reign of Queen Ann, because, it is not likely that
Lord Holt would have accepted a commission
from the Queen during pleasure, when he had before
had one from King William during good behavior.
And because if Queen Ann had made such an alteration
in the commission, it is most likely
Lord Raymond would have taken notice of it.
2. That Lord Holt’s opinion was, that by common law
he had not an estate for life in his office, for if he had,
it could not expire on the demise of the King.
3. That Lord Holt did not think the clause
in the statute of 12 & 13 Wm. 3. to be a declaration
of what was common law before, nor in affirmance
of what was law before, but a new law and
a total alteration of the tenure of the Judges commissions,
established by parliament, and not to take place
till after the death of the Princess Ann.
4. That in Lord Holt’s opinion it was not in the power
of the Crown, to alter the tenure of the Judges commissions,
and make them a tenure for life determinable
only upon misbehavior, even by inserting,
that express clause in them, quam diu se bene gesserint.
I have many more things to say upon this subject,
which may possibly appear some other time.10
In January and February 1773 John Adams wrote
seven essays that were published in the Boston Gazette.
Governor Hutchinson gave assemblymen a treatise arguing that
Parliament was sovereign over America repeating previous arguments.
The Council replied quickly.
The House asked Daniel Dulany and John Dickinson of Pennsylvania
to respond, and they declined.
John Adams accepted and worked with his cousin Samuel Adams
and the assemblyman Joseph Hawley,
and the House of Representatives approved their resolution.
They agreed that the colonists would prefer independence instead of tyranny.
The Adams response on January 26 to Hutchinson’s first message
was quite long, and they concluded,
Your Excellency tells us, “you know of no Line
that can be drawn between the Supreme Authority
of Parliament and the total Independence of the Colonies.”
If there be no such Line, the Consequence is, either
that the Colonies are the Vassals of the Parliament,
or, that they are totally independent.
As it cannot be supposed to have been the Intention
of the Parties in the Compact, that we should be reduced
to a State of Vassalage, the Conclusion is,
that it was their Sense, that we were thus Independent.
“It is impossible, your Excellency says, that there should be
“two independent Legislatures in one and the same State.”
May we not then further conclude, that it was their Sense
that the Colonies were by their Charters made distinct States
from the Mother Country?
Your Excellency adds, “For although there may be
but one Head, the King, yet the two Legislative Bodies
will make two Governments as distinct as the Kingdoms
of England and Scotland before the Union.”
Very true, may it please your Excellency;
and if they interfere not with each other, what hinders
but that being united in one Head and common Sovereign,
they may live happily in that Connection
and mutually support and protect each other?
Notwithstanding all the Terrors which your Excellency
has pictured to us as the Affects of a total Independence,
there is more Reason to dread the Consequences,
of absolute uncontrolled Supreme Power, whether of a
Nation or a Monarch; than those of a total Independence.
It would be a Misfortune “to know by Experience,
the Difference between the Liberties of an English Colonist
and those of a Spanish, French and Dutch.
And since the British Parliament has passed an Act
which is executed even with Rigor, though not voluntarily
submitted to, for raising a Revenue and appropriating
the same without the Consent of the People who pay it,
and have claimed a Power of making such Laws
as they please to order and govern us,
your Excellency will excuse us in asking,
whether you do not think we already experience
too much of such a Difference, and have not Reason to fear
we shall soon be reduced to a worse Situation
than that of the Colonies of France, Spain or Holland.
If your Excellency expects to have the Line of Distinction
between the Supreme Authority of Parliament,
and the total Independence of the Colonies drawn by us,
we would say it would be an arduous Undertaking;
and of very great Importance to all the other Colonies.
And therefore, could we conceive of such a Line, we should
be unwilling to propose it, without their Consent in Congress.
To conclude, these are great and profound Questions.
It is the Grief of this House, that by the ill Policy
of a late injudicious Administration,
America has been driven into the Contemplation of them.
And we cannot, but express our Concern,
that your Excellency by your Speech has reduced us
to the unhappy Alternative, either of appearing
by our Silence to acquiesce in your Excellency’s Sentiments,
or of thus freely discussing this Point.
After all that we have said, we would be far from being
understood to have in the least abated that just Sense
of Allegiance which we owe to the King of Great-Britain,
our rightful Sovereign.
And should the People of this Province be left to the free
and full Exercise of all the Liberties and Immunities granted
to them by Charter, there would be no Danger
of an Independence on the Crown.
Our Charters reserve great Power to the Crown
in its Representative, fully sufficient to balance,
analogous to the English Constitution,
all the Liberties and Privileges granted to the People.
All this your Excellency knows full well—
And whoever considers the Power and Influence,
in all their Branches, reserved by our Charter to the Crown,
will be far from thinking that
the Commons of this Province are too Independent.11
The Sons of Liberty had chapters in several colonies,
and Samuel Adams had organized committees of correspondence.
The great Benjamin Franklin was working as an agent for Massachusetts in London,
and he revealed secret letters that had been discovered.
John Adams followed Franklin’s instructions to keep them secret.
They were especially concerned about the abridgment of English liberties.
The British were trying to end the independence of the provincial judiciary,
and Gov. Hutchinson opposed colonial autonomy.
On March 2 John Adams gave the reply of the
Massachusetts House of Representatives to the second major speech
by Gov. Hutchinson; these are his concluding paragraphs:
The Act of Parliament passed in 1741, for putting an End
to several unwarrantable Schemes, mentioned
by your Excellency, was designed for the general Good,
and if the Validity of it was not disputed, it cannot be urged
as a Concession of the Supreme Authority,
to make Laws binding on us in all Cases whatever.
But if the Design of it was for the general Benefit
of the Province, it was in one Respect at least greatly
complained of by the Persons more immediately affected
by it; and to remedy the Inconvenience, the Legislative
of this Province passed an Act, directly militating with it;
which is the strongest Evidence, that although they may
have submitted sub silentio to some Acts of Parliament that
they conceived might operate for their Benefit, they did not
conceive themselves bound by any of its Acts which they
judged would operate to the Injury even of Individuals.
Your Excellency has not thought proper to attempt
to confute the Reasoning of a learned Writer on the
Laws of Nature and Nations, quoted by us on this Occasion,
to shew that the Authority of the Legislature does not extend
so far as the Fundamentals of the Constitution.
We are unhappy in not having your Remarks upon
the Reasoning of that great Man; and until it is confuted,
we shall remain of the Opinion, that the Fundamentals
of the Constitution being excepted from the Commission
of the Legislators, none of the Acts or Doings of the
General Assembly, however deliberate and solemn,
could avail to change them, if the People have not in
very express Terms given them the Power to do it;
and that much less ought their Acts and Doings
however numerous, which barely refer to Acts of Parliament
made expressly to relate to us, to be taken as
an Acknowledgment that we are subject
to the Supreme Authority of Parliament.
We shall sum up our own Sentiments in the Words
of that learned Writer Mr. Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Policy,
as quoted by Mr. Locke, “The lawful Power of
making Laws to command whole political Societies of Men,
belonging so properly to the same entire Societies,
that for any Prince or Potentate of what kind so ever,
to exercise the same of himself, and not from express
Commission immediately and personally received from God,
is no better than mere Tyranny.
Laws therefore they are not which public Approbation
hath not made so, for Laws human
of what kind so ever are available by Consent.”
“Since Men naturally have no full and perfect Power
to command whole politick Multitudes of Men, therefore,
utterly without our Consent we could in such Sort be
at no Man’s Commandment living.
And to be commanded we do not consent when that Society
whereof we be a Part, hath at any Time before consented.”
We think your Excellency has not proved, either that
the Colony is a Part of the politick Society of England,
or that it has ever consented that the Parliament of England
or Great-Britain should make Laws
binding upon us in all Cases whatever,
whether made expressly to refer to us or not.
We cannot help before we conclude, expressing our
great Concern, that your Excellency has thus repeatedly,
in a Manner insisted upon our free Sentiments on Matters
of so delicate a Nature, and weighty Importance.
The Question appears to us to be no other, than
Whether we are the Subjects of absolute unlimited Power,
or of a free Government formed
on the Principles of the English Constitution.
If your Excellency’s Doctrine be true, the People
of this Province hold their Lands of the Crown
and People of England, and their Lives,
Liberties and Properties are at their Disposal;
and that even by Compact and their own Consent.
They are subject to the King as the Head
alterius Populi of another People,
in whose Legislative they have no Voice or Interest.
They are indeed said to have a Constitution and
a Legislative of their own, but your Excellency has explained
it into a mere Phantom; limited, controlled,
superseded and nullified at the Will of another.
Is this the Constitution which so charmed our Ancestors,
that as your Excellency has informed us, they kept
a Day of solemn Thanksgiving to Almighty God
when they received it? and were they Men of so little
Discernment, such Children in Understanding,
as to please themselves with the Imagination that
they were blessed with the same Rights and Liberties
which natural-born Subjects in England enjoyed?
when at the same Time they had fully consented to be ruled
and ordered by a Legislative a Thousand Leagues
distant from them, which cannot be supposed
to be sufficiently acquainted with their Circumstances,
if concerned for their Interest, and in which
they cannot be in any Sense represented.12
When the Massachusetts General Court met on May 26,
the House of Representatives elected John Adams to the Governor’s Council.
Governor Hutchinson vetoed his election.
Early in 1773 the British Parliament had approved the Tea Act
that maintained the three-pence tax from 1767 and granted the
East India Company a monopoly on the export of tea to the colonies.
In September and October that Company sent four ships with tea to Boston
and one ship with tea to New York, one to Philadelphia,
and another to Charleston, South Carolina.
Protestors in those three towns persuaded tea consignees to resign,
and customs officials seized the unclaimed tea.
The Boston Gazette printed a notice “to the freemen of this and neighboring towns”
to meet at the Liberty Tree on November 3 so that consignees could resign
their commissions and promise to ship the tea consigned to them back to London.
About 500 people showed up while the consignees did not.
The consignees refused, and a committee declared them enemies of their country
and called a legal meeting at which they elected
John Hancock moderator and adopted eight resolves.
Samuel Adams proposed that the tea should be returned without any duty paid.
On November 28 the Dartmouth arrived in Boston Harbor with 114 chests of tea,
and Samuel Adams called for a mass meeting at Faneuil Hall the next day.
The ship’s owners hired John Adams to advise them
whether the tea would be seized or destroyed.
Some leaders urged contacting Hutchinson in Milton
about sending the ships with tea back to London.
Hutchinson said he would enforce the law.
The radicals decided that the tea should not be unloaded.
Benjamin Edes and John Gill printed broadsides saying,
Friends! Brethren! Countrymen! That worst of plagues,
the detested TEA … is now in this harbor.
The hour of destruction, or manly opposition to the
machinations of tyranny, stares you in the face.
Every friend to his country, to himself and posterity, is now
called upon to meet at Faneuil Hall at nine o’clock THIS DAY
… to make a united and successful resistance to this last,
worst, and most destructive measure of administration.13
When 5,000 people gathered at Faneuil Hall, they moved to
the Old South Church to plan united and successful resistance.
Samuel Adams proposed that they return the tea with the duty unpaid.
At the next meeting the Sheriff of Suffolk County read
the Governor’s proclamation that ordered the crowd to disperse.
They voted to adjourn.
On December 16 the radicals met, and that night about 175 men
dressed as Indians and called themselves “Mohawks.”
In their “tea party” they boarded the ship and ruined the tea by tossing
the 114 chests that were worth £10,000 into the ocean.
The next day John Adams wrote in his diary:
Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea
were emptied into the Sea.
This Morning a Man of War sails.
This is the most magnificent Movement of all.
There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity,
in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire.
The People should never rise, without doing something
to be remembered—something notable And striking.
This Destruction of Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm,
intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important
Consequences, and so lasting,
that I can’t but consider it as an Epocha in History.14
That day he also wrote this letter to James Warren:
The Dye is cast: The People have passed the River
and cut away the Bridge: last Night
Three Cargoes of Tea, were emptied into the Harbor.
This is the grandest, Event, which has ever yet happened
Since, the Controversy, with Britain, opened!
The Sublimity of it, charms me!
For my own Part, I cannot express my own Sentiments
of it, better than in the Words of Col. Doane to me,
last Evening—Balch Should repeat them—
The worst that can happen, I think, Says he in
Consequence of it, will be that the Province must pay for it.
Now, I think the Province, may pay for it, if it is burned
as easily as if it is drank—and I think it is a matter
of indifference whether it is drank or drowned.
The Province must pay for it, in Either Case.
But there is this Difference.
I believe, it will take them 10 Years
to get the Province to pay for it.
If so, we shall Save 10 Years Interest of the Money.
Whereas if it is drank it must be paid for immediately.
Thus He—However, He agreed with me that the Province,
would never pay for it.
And also in this that the final Ruin, of our Constitution
of Government, and of all American Liberties, would be
the certain Consequence of Suffering it to be landed.
Governor Hutchinson and his Family and Friends
will never have done, with their good services
to Great Britain and the Colonies!
But for him, this Tea might have been Saved
to the East India Company.
Whereas this Loss if the rest of the Colonies
Should follow our Example, will in the opinion
of many Persons bankrupt the Company.
However, I dare Say, that the Governors, and Consignees,
and Custom House Officers, in the other Colonies
will have more Wisdom than ours have had,
and take effectual Care that
their Tea shall be sent back to England untouched.
If not it will as surely be destroyed there
as it has been here.
Threats, Phantoms, Bugbears, by the million,
will be invented and propagated
among the People upon this occasion.
Individuals will be threatened with Suits and Prosecutions.
Armies and Navies will be talked of—military Execution—
Charters annulled—Treason—Trials in England and all that—
But—these Terrors, are all but Imaginations.
Yet if they should become Realities,
they had better be Suffered, than the great Principle,
of Parliamentary Taxation given up.
The Town of Boston, was never more Still and calm
of a Saturday night than it was last Night.
All Things were conducted with great order,
Decency and perfect Submission to Government.
No Doubt, we all thought the Administration
in better Hands, than it had been.15
Lt. Gov. Andrew Oliver died on 3 March 1774.
King George III said that the colonies were harassing
British commerce and subverting the Constitution.
He declared, “We must master them or totally leave them
to themselves and treat them as aliens.”16
The British Parliament reacted by passing the Port Act that closed Boston Harbor.
They approved the Coercive Acts that were announced in Boston on May 10;
the colonists called them the “Intolerable Acts.”
Parliament and King George III passed the Massachusetts Government Act
on May 20, and it increased the power of the royal governor.
Prime Minister North implemented the
Boston Port Act by closing Boston Harbor to trade.
The Regulation Acts took the power from the General Court
and gave it to the King and his royal Governor.
The King could remove Superior Court judges,
and the Governor could replace Inferior Court judges.
Those charged with capital offenses could be tried in England or Nova Scotia.
News of the Port Bill reached Boston in early May.
General Thomas Gage returned from London
and moved the government offices to Salem.
He replaced Governor Hutchinson who left Boston on June 1.
On June 5 the committee of correspondence agreed with the
Solemn League
and Covenant and pledged to suspend all trade with the British Empire.
They planned to stop buying English products after August.
By June 15 about 800 tradesmen had agreed to join the Solemn League.
In a meeting on June 17 Samuel Adams proposed that they form a national congress,
and they elected four delegates to attend the Continental Congress.
They were Samuel Adams, John Adams, James Bowdoin,
and the lawyer-politician Robert Treat Paine.
Bowdoin withdrew and was replaced by the lawyer and merchant Thomas Cushing.
On August 10 they left for Philadelphia.
They were welcomed by the merchant Thomas Mifflin at Princeton
and then by Dr. Benjamin Rush in Philadelphia.
The first 25 delegates to arrive gathered at the City Tavern on September 5
while
they waited for delegates from Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and New York.
Virginia’s delegation arrived with Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee,
George Washington, Richard Bland, Benjamin Harrison,
Edmund Pendleton, and Peyton Randolph who was elected president.
New York had 9 delegates; Pennsylvania had 8;
New Jersey, Maryland, and South Carolina had 5;
Connecticut, Delaware, and North Carolina had 3;
and New Hampshire and Rhode Island had 2 for a total of 56.
They agreed that each colony would have one vote.
John Adams often met with John Dickinson, Benjamin Rush,
Charles Thomson, and Thomas Mifflin, and he was on the
committee of 24 men that worked on defining American rights.
On September 9 Suffolk County, Massachusetts organized a boycott
of imported British goods called “the Suffolk Resolves” that
Paul Revere took to the First Continental Congress
which accepted them on September 17.
They agreed to stop importing British, Irish, and West Indian goods on December 1.
Virginia and Maryland asked that export of tobacco be allowed for a year,
and they set 10 September 1775 as the date to begin banning exports.
John Adams was also on a committee that established the minutemen.
He worked on the Declaration of Rights and Grievances,
and his report on 14 October 1774 included this draft:
Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British
parliament claiming a power of right to bind the people
of America by statutes in all cases whatsoever, hath
in some acts expressly imposed taxes on them,
and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact
for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates
and duties payable in these colonies, established a board
of commissioners with unconstitutional powers,
and extended the jurisdiction of courts of Admiralty,
not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial
of causes merely arising within the body of a county.
And whereas, in consequence of other statutes, judges,
who before held only estates at will in their offices, have
been made dependent on the Crown alone for their salaries,
and standing armies kept in times of peace:
And it has lately been resolved in Parliament,
that by force of a statute, made in the thirty-fifth year
of the reign of king Henry the eighth, colonists may be
transported to England, and tried there upon accusations
for treasons, and misprisions, or concealments of treasons
committed in the colonies; and by a late statute,
such trials have been directed in cases therein mentioned.
And whereas, in the last session of parliament,
three statutes were made; “one, entitled “An act to
discontinue, in such manner and for such time as
are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading,
or shipping of goods, wares and merchandise, at the town,
and within the harbor of Boston, in the province
of Massachusetts-Bay, in North-America;” another, entitled
“An act for the better regulating the government
of the province of Massachusetts-bay in New England;”
and another, entitled “An act for the impartial administration
of justice, in the cases of persons questioned for any act
done by them in the execution of the law,
or for the suppression of riots and tumults,
in the province of the Massachusetts-bay in New-England.”
And another statute was then made,
“for making more effectual provision
for the government of the province of Quebec, &c.”
All which statutes are impolitic, unjust, and cruel,
as well as unconstitutional,
and most dangerous and destructive of American rights.
And whereas, Assemblies have been frequently dissolved,
contrary to the rights of the people, when they attempted
to deliberate on grievances; and their dutiful, humble, loyal,
and reasonable petitions to the crown for redress,
have been repeatedly treated with contempt,
by his majesty’s ministers of state:
The good people of the several Colonies of New Hampshire,
Massachusetts-bay, Rhode-island and Providence
plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Newcastle, Kent and Sussex on Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina,
justly alarmed at these arbitrary proceedings of parliament
and administration, have severally elected, constituted,
and appointed deputies to meet and sit in general congress,
in the city of Philadelphia, in order to obtain such
establishment, as that their religion,
laws, and liberties may not be subverted:
Whereupon the deputies so appointed being now assembled,
in a full and free representation of these Colonies,
taking into their most serious consideration, the best means
of attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place, as
Englishmen, their ancestors in like cases have usually done,
for asserting and vindicating
their rights and liberties, declare,
That the inhabitants of the English Colonies
in North America, by the immutable laws of nature,
the principles of the English constitution, and the several
charters or compacts, have the following Rights:
Resolved, N.C.D.2 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty,
and property, and they have never ceded to any
sovereign power whatever,
a right to dispose of either without their consent.
Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled
these colonies, were, at the time of their emigration
from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties,
and immunities of free and natural-born subjects,
within the realm of England.
Resolved, N.C.D. 3. That by such emigration they by
no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights,
but that they were, and their descendants now are,
entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them,
as their local and other circumstances
enable them to exercise and enjoy.
Resolved,3 4. That the foundation of English liberty,
and of all free government, is a right in the people
to participate in their legislative council: and as the English
colonists are not represented, and from their local and other
circumstances, cannot be properly represented
in the British parliament, they are entitled to a free
and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial
legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be
preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity,
subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such
manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed.
But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard
to the mutual interest of both countries,
we cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts
of the British parliament, as are bona fide,
restrained to the regulation of our external commerce,
for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages
of the whole empire to the mother country,
and the commercial benefits of its respective members;
excluding every idea of taxation, internal or external,
for raising a revenue on the subjects in America,
without their consent.
Resolved, N.C.D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled
to the common law of England, and more especially
to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their
peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.
Resolved, 6. That they are entitled to the benefit
of such of the English statutes as existed at the time
of their colonization; and which they have, by experience,
respectively found to be applicable
to their several local and other circumstances.
Resolved, N.C.D. 7. That these, his majesty’s colonies,
are likewise entitled to all the immunities and privileges
granted and confirmed to them by royal charters,
or secured by their several codes of provincial laws.
Resolved, N.C.D. 8. That they have a right peaceably
to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the
King; and that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations,
and commitments for the same, are illegal.
Resolved, N.C.D. 9. That the keeping a Standing army
in these colonies, in times of peace, without the consent
of the legislature of that colony,
in which such army is kept, is against law.
Resolved, N.C.D. 10. It is indispensably necessary
to good government, and rendered essential
by the English constitution, that the constituent branches
of the legislature be independent of each other; that,
therefore, the exercise of legislative power in several
colonies, by a Council appointed, during pleasure,
by the crown, is unconstitutional, dangerous,
and destructive to the freedom of American legislation.
All and each of which the aforesaid deputies, in behalf
of themselves and their constituents, do claim, demand,
and insist on, as their indubitable rights and liberties;
which cannot be legally taken from them,
altered or abridged by any power whatever,
without their own consent, by their representatives
in their several provincial legislatures.
In the course of our inquiry, we find many infringements
and violations of the foregoing rights, which, from an ardent
desire, that harmony and mutual intercourse of affection
and interest may be restored, we pass over for the present,
and proceed to state such acts and measures
as have been adopted since the last war, which
demonstrate a system formed to enslave America.
Resolved, N.C.D. That the following acts of Parliament are
infringements and violations of the rights of the colonists;
and that the repeal of them is essentially necessary
in order to restore harmony between
Great-Britain and the American colonies, viz:
The several acts of 4 Geo. 3. ch. 15, and ch. 34.—5 Geo. 3.
ch. 25.— 6 Geo. 3. ch. 52.—7 Geo. 3. ch. 41, and
ch. 46.—8 Geo. 3. ch. 22, which impose duties for the
purpose of raising a revenue in America, extend the power
of the admiralty courts beyond their ancient limits,
deprive the American subject of trial by jury,
authorize the judges’ certificate to indemnify the prosecutor
from damages, that he might otherwise be liable to,
requiring oppressive security from a claimant of ships
and goods seized, before he shall be allowed to defend
his property, and are subversive of American rights.
Also the 12 Geo. 3. ch. 24, entitled “An act for the better
securing his Majesty’s dock-yards, magazines, ships,
ammunition and stores,” which declares a new offence
in America, and deprives the American subject
of a constitutional trial by jury of the vicinage,
by authorizing the trial of any person, charged with
the committing any offence described in the said act,
out of the realm, to be indicted and tried
for the same in any shire or county within the realm.
Also the three acts passed in the last session of parliament,
for stopping the port and blocking up the harbour of Boston,
for altering the charter and government of the
Massachusetts-bay, and that which is entitled
“An act for the better administration of Justice,” &c.
Also the act passed in the same session for establishing
the Roman Catholic Religion in the province of Quebec,
abolishing the equitable system of English laws,
and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger,
from so total a dissimilarity of Religion, law,
and government of the neighboring British colonies,
by the assistance of whose blood and treasure
the said country was conquered from France.
Also the act passed in the same session for the better
providing suitable quarters for officers and soldiers
in his Majesty’s service in North-America.
Also, that the keeping a standing army in several
of these colonies, in time of peace, without the consent
of the legislature of that colony in which
such army is kept, is against law.
To these grievous acts and measures, Americans
cannot submit, but in hopes their fellow subjects
in Great-Britain will, on a revision of them, restore us to
that state in which both countries found happiness
and prosperity, we have for the present only
resolved to pursue the following peaceable measures:
Resolved, unanimously, That from and after
the first day of December next, there be no importation into
British America, from Great Britain or Ireland of any goods,
wares or merchandize whatsoever, or from any other place
of any such goods, wares or merchandize.
1st. To enter into a non-importation, non-consumption,
and non-exportation agreement or association.
2. To prepare an address to the people of Great-Britain,
and a memorial to the inhabitants of British America, and
3. To prepare a loyal address to his Majesty;
agreeable to Resolutions already entered into.17
The Continental Congress adjourned on October 26,
and they agreed to meet in Philadelphia again on 10 May 1775.
Notes
1. John Adams Revolutionary Writings 1755-1775 ed. Gordon Wood, p. 153-155.
2. The Works of John Adams: Second President of the United States, Volume 1
by Charles Francis Adams, p. 77.
3. Ibid., p. 77-78.
4. Ibid., p. 174-175.
5. Ibid., p. 176-178.
6. The Works of John Adams: Second President of the United States, Volume 1
by Charles Francis Adams, p. 111.
7. Ibid., p. 112-114.
8. Ibid., p. 138.
9. John Adams Revolutionary Writings 1755-1775, p. 191-194.
10. Ibid., p. 212-217.
11. Ibid., p. 223-227.
12. Ibid., p. 249-250.
13. Ibid., p. 281-283.
14. John Adams Volume 1 by Page Smith, p. 146.
15. John Adams Revolutionary Writings 1755-1775, p. 286-287.
16. Ibid., p. 288-289.
17. Ibid., p. 149.
18. IV. The Bill of Rights; a List of Grievances, 14 October 1774 (on line).
This work has not yet been published as a book, and all the chapters are free in this website.