Title: I. Reply of the House to Hutchinson’s First Message, 26 January 1773
From: Adams, John,Massachusetts House of Representatives
To: Hutchinson, Thomas

       Martis, 26 Die Januarii, A.D. 1773, Post-Meridiem
       May it please your Excellency,

      Your Excellency’s Speech to the General Assembly at the Opening of this Session, has been read with great Attention in this House.
      We fully agree with your Excellency, that our own Happiness as well as his Majesty’s Service, very much depends upon Peace and Order; and we shall at all Times take such Measures as are consistent with our Constitution and the Rights of the People to promote and maintain them. That the Government at present is in a very disturbed State is apparent! But we cannot ascribe it to the People’s having adopted unconstitutional Principles, which seems to be the Cause assigned for it by your Excellency. It appears to us to have been occasioned rather, by the British House of Commons assuming and exercising Power inconsistent with the Freedom of the Constitution to give and grant the Property of the Colonists, and appropriate the same without their Consent.
      It is needless for us to enquire what were the Principles that induced the Councils of the Nation to so new and unprecedented a Measure. But when the Parliament by an Act of their own expressly declared, that the King, Lords and Commons of the Nation “have, had, and of Right ought to have full Power and Authority to make Laws and Statutes of sufficient Force and Validity to bind the Colonies and People of America, Subjects of the Crown of Great-Britain, in all Cases whatever,” and in Consequence hereof another Revenue Act was made, the Minds of the People were filled with Anxiety, and they were justly alarmed with Apprehensions of the total Extinction of their Liberties.

      The Result of the free Enquiries of many Persons into the Right of the Parliament to exercise such a Power over the Colonies, seems in your Excellency’s Opinion to be the Cause of what you are pleased to call the present “disturbed State of the Government;” upon which you “may not any longer consistent with your Duty to the King, and your Regard to the Interest of the Province, delay communicating your Sentiments.” But that the Principles adopted in Consequence hereof, are unconstitutional, is a Subject of Enquiry. We know of no such Disorders arising therefrom as are mentioned by your Excellency. If Grand Jurors have not on their Oaths found such Offences, as your Excellency with the Advice of his Majesty’s Council have ordered to be prosecuted, it is to be presumed they have followed the Dictates of good Conscience. They are the constitutional Judges of these Matters, and it is not to be supposed, that moved from corrupt Principles, they have suffered Offenders to escape a Prosecution, and thus supported and encouraged them to go on offending. If any Part of the Authority, shall in an unconstitutional Manner, interpose in any Matter, it will be no wonder if it be brought into Contempt; to the lessening or confounding of that Subordination which is necessary to a well regulated State. Your Excellency’s Representation that the Bands of Government are weakened, we humbly conceive to be without good Grounds; though we must own the heavy Burthens unconstitutionally brought upon the People have been and still are universally and very justly complained of as a Grievance.
      You are pleased to say, that “when our Predecessors first took Possession of this Plantation or Colony, under a Grant and Charter from the Crown of England, it was their Sense and it was the Sense of the Kingdom, that they were to remain subject to the Supreme Authority of Parliament;” whereby we understand your Excellency to mean in the Sense of the Declaratory Act of Parliament aforementioned, in all Cases whatever. And indeed it is difficult, if possible, to draw a Line of Distinction between the universal Authority of Parliament over the Colonies and no Authority at all. It is therefore necessary for us to enquire how it appears, for your Excellency has not shown it to us, that when or at the Time that our Predecessors took Possession of this Plantation or Colony, under a Grant and Charter from the Crown of England, it was their Sense, and the Sense of the Kingdom, that they were to remain subject to the Supreme Authority of Parliament. In making this Enquiry, we shall, according to your Excellency’s Recommendation, treat the Subject with Calmness and Candor, and also with a due Regard to Truth.

      Previous to a direct Consideration of the Charter granted to this Province or Colony, and the better to elucidate the true Sense and Meaning of it, we would take a View of the State of the English North American Continent at the Time when and after Possession was first taken of any Part of it, by the Europeans. It was then possessed by Heathen and Barbarous People, who had nevertheless all that Right to the Soil and Sovereignty in and over the Lands they possessed, which God had originally given to Man. Whether their being Heathen, inferred any Right or Authority to Christian Princes, a Right which had long been assumed by the Pope, to dispose of their Lands to others, we will leave to your Excellency or any one of Understanding and impartial Judgment to consider. It is certain they had in no other Sense forfeited them to any Power in Europe. Should the Doctrine be admitted that the Discovery of Lands owned and possessed by Pagan People, gives to any Christian Prince a Right and Title to the Dominion and Property, still it is invested in the Crown alone. It was an Acquisition of Foreign Territory, not annexed to the Realm of England, and therefore at the absolute Disposal of the Crown. For we take it to be a settled Point, that the King has a constitutional Prerogative to dispose of and alienate any Part of his Territories not annexed to the Realm. In the Exercise of this Prerogative, Queen Elizabeth granted the first American Charter; and claiming a Right by Virtue of Discovery, then supposed to be valid, to the Lands which are now possessed by the Colony of Virginia, she conveyed to Sir Walter Rawleigh, the Property, Dominion and Sovereignty thereof, to be held of the Crown by Homage, and a certain Render, without any Reservation to herself of any Share in the Legislative and Executive Authority. After the Attainder of Sir Walter, King James the First created two Virginia Companies, to be governed each by Laws transmitted to them by his Majesty and not by the Parliament, with Power to establish and cause to be made a Coin to pass current among them; and vested with all Liberties, Franchises and Immunities within any of his other Dominions, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding, and born within the Realm. A Declaration similar to this is contained in the first Charter of this Colony, and in those of other American Colonies, which shows that the Colonies were not intended or considered to be within the Realm of England, though within the Allegiance of the English Crown. After this, another Charter was granted by the same King James, to the Treasurer and Company of Virginia, vesting them with full Power and Authority, to make, ordain and establish all Manner of Orders, Laws, Directions, Instructions, Forms and Ceremonies of Government, and Magistracy, fit and necessary, and the same to abrogate, &c. without any Reservation for securing their Subjection to the Parliament and future Laws of England. A third Charter was afterwards granted by the same King to the Treasurer and Company of Virginia, vesting them with Power and Authority to make Laws, with an Addition of this Clause, “so always that the same be not contrary to the Laws and Statutes of this our Realm of England.” The same Clause was afterwards copied into the Charter of this and other Colonies, with certain Variations, such as that these Laws should be “consonant to Reason,” “not repugnant to the Laws of England,” “as nearly as conveniently may be to the Laws, Statutes and Rights of England,” &c. These Modes of Expression convey the same Meaning, and serve to show an Intention that the Laws of the Colonies should be as much as possible, conformant in the Spirit of them to the Principles and fundamental Laws of the English Constitution, its Rights and Statutes then in Being, and by no Means to bind the Colonies to a Subjection to the Supreme Authority of the English Parliament. And that this is the true Intention, we think it further evident from this Consideration, that no Acts of any Colony Legislative, are ever brought into Parliament for Inspection there, though the Laws made in some of them, like the Acts of the British Parliament are laid before the King for his Assent or Disallowance.
      We have brought the first American Charters into View, and the State of the Country when they were granted, to show that the Right of disposing of the Lands was in the Opinion of those Times vested solely in the Crown—that the several Charters conveyed to the Grantees, who should settle upon the Territories therein granted, all the Powers necessary to constitute them free and distinct States—and that the fundamental Laws of the English Constitution should be the certain and established Rule of Legislation, to which the Laws to be made in the several Colonies were to be as nearly as conveniently might be, comformable or similar, which was the true Intent and Import of the Words, “not repugnant to the Laws of England,” “consonant to Reason,” and other variant Expressions in the different Charters. And we would add, that the King in some of the Charters reserves the Right to judge of the Consonance and Similarity of their Laws with the English Constitution to himself, and not to the Parliament; and in Consequence thereof to affirm, or within a limited Time, disallow them.
      These Charters, as well as that afterwards granted to Lord Baltimore, and other Charters, are repugnant to the Idea of Parliamentary Authority: And to suppose a Parliamentary Authority over the Colonies under such Charters would necessarily induce that Solecism in Politics Imperium in Imperio. And the King’s repeatedly exercising the Prerogative of disposing of the American Territory by such Charters, together with the Silence of the Nation, thereupon, is an Evidence that it was an acknowledged Prerogative.
      But further to show the Sense of the English Crown and Nation that the American Colonists and our Predecessors in particular, when they first took Possession of this Country by a Grant and Charter, from the Crown did not remain subject to the Supreme Authority of Parliament, we beg leave to observe; that when a Bill was offered by the two Houses of Parliament to King Charles the First, granting to the Subjects of England the free Liberty of Fishing on the Coast of America, he refused his Royal Assent, declaring as a Reason, that “the Colonies were without the Realm and Jurisdiction of Parliament.”
      In like Manner, his Predecessor James the First, had before declared upon a similar Occasion, that “America was not annexed to the Realm, and it was not fitting that Parliament should make Laws for those Countries.” This Reason was, not secretly, but openly declared in Parliament. If then the Colonies were not annexed to the Realm, at the Time when their Charters were granted, they never could be afterwards, without their own special Consent, which has never since been had, or even asked. If they are not now annexed to the Realm, they are not a Part of the Kingdom, and consequently not subject to the Legislative Authority of the Kingdom. For no Country, by the Common Law was subject to the Laws or to the Parliament, but the Realm of England.
      We would, if your Excellency pleases, subjoin an Instance of Conduct in King Charles the Second, singular indeed, but important to our Purpose; who, in 1679, framed an Act for a permanent Revenue for the Support of Virginia, and sent it there by Lord Colpepper Culpeper, the Governor of that Colony; which was afterwards passed into a Law, and “Enacted by the King’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the Consent of the General Assembly of Virginia.” If the King had judged that Colony to be a Part of the Realm, he would not, nor could he consistently with Magna Charta, have placed himself at the Head of, and joined with any Legislative Body in making a Law to Tax the People there, other than the Lords and Commons of England.
      Having taken a View of the several Charters of the first Colony in America, if we look into the old Charter of this Colony, we shall find it to be grounded on the same Principle: That the Right of disposing the Territory granted therein was vested in the Crown, as being that Christian Sovereign who first discovered it, when in the Possession of Heathen; and that it was considered as being not within the Realm, but only within the Fee and Seignory of the King. As therefore it was without the Realm of England, must not the King, if he had designed that the Parliament should have had any Authority over it, have made a special Reservation for that Purpose, which was not done.
      Your Excellency says, it appears from the Charter itself, to have been the Sense of our Predecessors who first took Possession of this Plantation or Colony, that they were to remain subject to the Authority of Parliament. You have not been pleased to point out to us how this appears from the Charter, unless it be in the Observation you make on the above-mentioned Clause, viz. “That a favourable Construction has been put upon this Clause, when it has been allowed to intend such Laws of England only as are expressly made to respect us,” which you say “is by Charter a Reserve of Power and Authority to Parliament to bind us by such Laws at least as are made expressly to refer to us, and consequently is a Limitation of the Power given to the General Court.” But we would still recur to the Charter itself, and ask your Excellency, How this appears from thence to have been the Sense of our Predecessors? Is any Reservation of Power and Authority to Parliament thus to bind us, expressed or implied in the Charter? It is evident, that King Charles the first, the very Prince who granted it, as well as his Predecessor, had no such Idea of the supreme Authority of Parliament over the Colony, from their Declarations before recited. Your Excellency will then allow us further to ask, by what Authority in Reason or Equity the Parliament can enforce a Construction so unfavourable to us. Quod ab anitio injustum est, nullum potest habere juris effectum, said Grotius. Which with Submission to your Excellency may be rendered thus, Whatever is originally in its Nature wrong, can never be satisfied or made right by Reputation and Use.
      In solemn Agreements subsequent Restrictions ought never to be allowed. The celebrated Author whom your Excellency has quoted, tells us that “neither the one or the other of the interested or contracting Powers hath a Right to interpret at Pleasure.” This we mention to show, even upon a Supposition that the Parliament had been a Party to the Contract, the Invalidity of any of its subsequent Acts, to explain any Clause in the Charter; more especially to restrict or make void any Clause granted therein to the General Court. An Agreement ought to be interpreted “in such a Manner as that it may have its Effect:” But if your Excellency’s Interpretation of this Clause is just, “that it is a Reserve of Power and Authority to Parliament to bind us by such Laws as are made expressly to refer to us,” it is not only “a Limitation of the Power given to the General Court” to Legislate, but it may whenever the Parliament shall think fit, render it of no Effect; for it puts it in the Power of Parliament to bind us by as many Laws as they please, and even to restrain us from making any Laws at all. If your Excellency’s Assertions in this and the next succeeding Part of your Speech were well grounded, the Conclusion would be undeniable, that the Charter even in this Clause, “does not confer or reserve any Liberties” worth enjoying “but what would have been enjoyed without it;” saving that within any of his Majesty’s Dominions we are to be considered barely as not Aliens. You are pleased to say, it cannot “be contended that by the Liberties of free and natural Subjects” (which are expressly granted in the Charter to all Intents, Purposes and Constructions whatever) “is to be understood an Exemption from Acts of Parliament because not represented there; seeing it is provided by the same Charter that such Acts shall be in Force.” If, says an eminent Lawyer, “the King grants to the Town of D. the same Liberties which London has, this shall be intended the like Liberties.” A Grant of the Liberties of free and natural Subjects is equivalent to a Grant of the same Liberties. And the King in the first Charter to this Colony expressly grants that it “shall be construed, reputed and adjudged in all Cases most favourably on the Behalf and for the Benefit and Behoof of the said Governor and Company and their Successors—any Matter, Cause or Thing whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding.” It is one of the Liberties of free and natural Subjects, born and abiding within the Realm, to be governed as your Excellency observes, “by Laws made by Persons in whose Elections they from Time to Time have a Voice.” This is an essential Right. For nothing is more evident, than that any People who are subject to the unlimited Power of another, must be in a State of abject Slavery. It was easily and plainly foreseen that the Right of Representation in the English Parliament could not be exercised by the People of this Colony. It would be impracticable, if consistent with the English Constitution. And for this Reason, that this Colony might have and enjoy all the Liberties and Immunities of free and natural Subjects within the Realm as stipulated in the Charter it was necessary, and a Legislative was accordingly constituted within the Colony; one Branch of which consists of Representatives chosen by the People, to make all Laws, Statutes, Ordinances, &c. for the well-ordering and governing the same, not repugnant to the Laws of England, or, as nearly as conveniently might be, agreeable to the fundamental Laws of the English Constitution. We are therefore still at a Loss to conceive where your Excellency finds it “provided in the same Charter, that such Acts,” viz. Acts of Parliament made expressly to refer to us, “shall be in Force” in this Province. There is nothing to this Purpose expressed in the Charter, or in our Opinion even implied in it. And surely it would be very absurd, that a Charter, which is evidently formed upon a Supposition and Intention, that a Colony is and should be considered as not within the Realm; and declared by the very Prince who granted it, to be not within the Jurisdiction of Parliament, should yet provide, that the Laws which the same Parliament should make expressly to refer to that Colony, should be in Force therein. Your Excellency is pleased to ask, “Does it follow that the Government by their (our Ancestors) Removal from one Part of the Dominions to another, loses its Authority over that Part to which they remove; And that they are freed from the Subjection they were under before?” We answer, if that Part of the King’s Dominions to which they removed was not then a Part of the Realm, and was never annexed to it, the Parliament lost no Authority over it, having never had such Authority; and the Emigrants were consequently freed from the Subjection they were under before their Removal: The Power and Authority of Parliament being constitutionally confined within the Limits of the Realm and the Nation collectively, of which alone it is the representing and legislative Assembly. Your Excellency further asks, “Will it not rather be said, that by this their voluntary Removal, they have relinquished for a Time at least, one of the Rights of an English Subject, which they might if they pleased have continued to enjoy, and may again enjoy, whenever they return to the Place where it can be exercised?” To which we answer; They never did relinquish the Right to be governed by Laws made by Persons in whose Election they had a Voice. The King stipulated with them that they should have and enjoy all the Liberties of free and natural Subjects born within the Realm, to all Intents, Purposes and Constructions whatsoever; that is, that they should be as free as those who were to abide within the Realm: Consequently he stipulated with them that they should enjoy and exercise this most essential Right, which discriminates Freemen from Vassals, uninterruptedly in its full Sense and Meaning; and they did and ought still to exercise it, without the Necessity of returning, for the Sake of exercising it, to the Nation or State of England.

      We cannot help observing, that your Excellency’s Manner of Reasoning on this Point, seems to us to render the most valuable Clauses in our Charter unintelligible: As if Persons going from the Realm of England to inhabit in America should hold and exercise there a certain Right of English Subjects; but in order to exercise it in such Manner as to be of any Benefit to them, they must not inhabit there, but return to the Place where alone it can be exercised. By such Construction, the Words of the Charter can have no Sense or Meaning. We forbear remarking upon the Absurdity of a Grant to Persons born within the Realm, of the same Liberties which would have belonged to them if they had been born within the Realm.
      Your Excellency is disposed to compare this Government to the Variety of Corporations, formed within the Kingdom, with Power to make and execute By-Laws, &c. And because they remain subject to the Supreme Authority of Parliament, to infer that this Colony is also subject to the same Authority. This Reasoning appears to us not just. The Members of those Corporations are Residant within the Kingdom; and Residence subjects them to the Authority of Parliament, in which they are also represented: Whereas the People of this Colony are not Resident within the Realm. The Charter was granted with the express Purpose to induce them to reside without the Realm; consequently they are not represented in Parliament there. But we would ask your Excellency; Are any of the Corporations formed within the Kingdom, vested with the Power of erecting other subordinate Corporations? Of enacting and determining what Crimes shall be Capital? And constituting Courts of Common Law with all their Officers, for the hearing, trying and punishing capital Offenders with Death? These and many other Powers vested in this Government, plainly show that it is to be considered as a Corporation in no other Light, than as every State is a Corporation. Besides, Appeals from the Courts of Law here, are not brought before the House of Lords; which shows that the Peers of the Realm are not the Peers of America: But all such Appeals are brought before the King in Council, which is a further Evidence that we are not within the Realm.
      We conceive enough has been said to convince your Excellency, that “when our Predecessors first took Possession of this Plantation or Colony by a Grant and Charter from the Crown of England, it was not and never had been the Sense of the Kingdom, that they were to remain subject to the Supreme Authority of Parliament. We will now with your Excellency’s Leave, enquire what was the Sense of our Ancestors of this very important Matter.

      And as your Excellency has been pleased to tell us, you have not discovered that the Supreme Authority of Parliament has been called in Question even by private and particular Persons, until within seven or eight Years past; except about the Time of the Anarchy and Confusion in England which preceeded the Restoration of King Charles the Second; we beg leave to remind your Excellency of some Parts of your own History of Massachusetts-Bay. Therein we are informed of the Sentiments of “Persons of Influence” after the Restoration, from which the Historian tells us, some Parts of their Conduct, that is of the General Assembly, “may be pretty well accounted for.” By the History it appears to have been the Opinion of those Persons of Influence, “that the Subjects of any Prince or State had a natural Right to Remove to any other State or to another Quarter of the World unless the State was weakened or exposed by such Remove; and even in that Case, if they were deprived of the Right of all Mankind, Liberty of Conscience, it would justify a Separation, and upon their Removal their Subjection determined and ceased.” That “the Country to which they had removed, was claimed and possessed by independent Princes, whose Right to the Lordship and Sovereignty thereof had been acknowledged by the Kings of England,” an Instance of which is quoted in the Margin; “That they themselves had actually purchased for valuable Consideration, not only the Soil but the Dominion, the Lordship and Sovereignty of those Princes;” without which Purchase, “in the Sight of God and Men, they had no Right or Title to what they possessed.” That they had received a Charter of Incorporation from the King, from whence arose a new Kind of Subjection, namely, “a voluntary, civil Subjection;” and by this Compact “they were to be governed by Laws made by themselves.” Thus it appears to have been the Sentiments of private Persons, though Persons, by whose Sentiments the public Conduct was influenced, that their Removal was a justifiable Separation from the Mother State, upon which their Subjection to that State determined and ceased. The Supreme Authority of Parliament, if it had then ever been asserted, must surely have been called in Question, by Men who had advanced such Principles as these.
      The first Act of Parliament made expressly to refer to the Colonies, was after the Restoration. In the Reign of King Charles the Second, several such Acts passed. And the same History informs us there was a Difficulty in conforming to them; and the Reason of this Difficulty is explained in a Letter of the General Assembly to their Agent, quoted in the following Words, “They apprehended them to be an Invasion of the Rights, Liberties and Properties of the Subjects of his Majesty in the Colony, they not being represented in Parliament, and according to the usual Sayings of the Learned in the Law, the Laws of England were bounded within the four Seas, and did not reach America: However as his Majesty had signified his Pleasure that those Acts should be observed in the Massachusetts, they had made Provision by a Law of the Colony, that they should be strictly attended.” Which Provision by a Law of their own would have been superfluous, if they had admitted the supreme Authority of Parliament. In short, by the same History it appears that those Acts of Parliament as such were disregarded; and the following Reason is given for it; “It seems to have been a general Opinion that Acts of Parliament had no other Force, than what they derived from Acts made by the General Court to establish and confirm them.”
      But still further to show the Sense of our Ancestors respecting this Matter, we beg Leave to recite some Parts of a Narrative presented to the Lords of Privy Council by Edward Randolph, in the Year 1676, which we find in your Excellency’s Collection of Papers lately published. Therein it is declared to be the Sense of the Colony, “that no Law is in Force or Esteem there, but such as are made by the General Court; and therefore it is accounted a Breach of their Privileges, and a Betraying of the Liberties of their Commonwealth, to urge the Observation of the Laws of England.” And further, “That no Oath shall be urged or required to be taken by any Person, but such Oath as the General Court hath considered, allowed and required.” And further, “there is no Notice taken of the Act of Navigation, Plantation or any other Laws made in England for the Regulation of Trade.” “That the Government would make the World believe they are a free State and do act in all Matters accordingly.” Again, “These Magistrates ever reserve to themselves a Power to alter, evade and disannul any Law or Command, not agreeing with their Humour or the absolute Authority of their Government, acknowledging no Superior.” And further, “He (the Governor) freely declared to me, that the Laws made by your Majesty and your Parliament, obligeth them in nothing, but what consists with the Interests of that Colony, that the Legislative Power and Authority is and abides in them solely.” And in the same Mr. Randolph’s Letter to the Bishop of London, July 14, 1682, he says, “This Independency in Government, claimed and daily practised.” And your Excellency being then sensible that this was the Sense of our Ancestors, in a Marginal Note in the same Collection of Papers observes, that “this,” viz. the Provision made for observing the Acts of Trade, “is very extraordinary, for this Provision was an Act of the Colony declaring the Acts of Trade shall be in Force there.” Although Mr. Randolph was very unfriendly to the Colony, yet as his Declarations are concurrent with those recited from your Excellency’s History, we think they may be admitted for the Purpose for which they are now brought.
      Thus we see, from your Excellency’s History and Publications, the Sense our Ancestors had of the Jurisdiction of Parliament under the first Charter. Very different from that which your Excellency in your Speech apprehends it to have been.
      It appears by Mr. Neal’s History of New-England, that the Agents who had been employed by the Colony to transact its Affairs in England at the Time when the present Charter was granted, among other Reasons gave the following for their Acceptance of it, viz. “The General Court has with the King’s Approbation as much Power in New-England, as the King and Parliament have in England; they have all English Privileges, and can be touched by no Law, and by no Tax but of their own making.” This is the earliest Testimony that can be given of the Sense our Predecessors had of the Supreme Authority of Parliament under the present Charter. And it plainly shows, that they, who having been freely conversant with those who framed the Charter, must have well understood the Design and Meaning of it, supposed that the Terms in our Charter “full Power and Authority,” intended and were considered as a sole and exclusive Power, and that there was no “Reserve in the Charter to the Authority of Parliament, to bind the Colony” by any Acts whatever.
      Soon after the Arrival of the Charter, viz. in 1692, your Excellency’s History informs us, “the first Act” of this Legislative was a Sort of Magna Charta, asserting and setting forth their general Privileges, and this Clause was among the rest, “No Aid, Tax, Tallage, Assessment, Custom, Loan, Benevolence, or Imposition whatever, shall be laid, assess’d, impos’d or levied on any of their Majesty’s Subjects, or their Estates, on any Pretence whatever, but by the Act and Consent of the Governor, Council and Representatives of the People assembled in General Court.” And though this Act was disallowed, it serves to show the Sense which the General Assembly contemporary with the granting the Charter had of their sole and exclusive Right to Legislate for the Colony. The History says, “the other Parts of the Act were copied from Magna Charta;” by which we may conclude that the Assembly then construed the Words “not repugnant to the Laws,” to mean, conformable to the fundamental Principles of the English Constitution. And it is observable that the Lords of Privy Council, so lately as in the Reign of Queen Anne, when several Laws enacted by the General Assembly, were laid before her Majesty for her Allowance, interpreted the Words in this Charter, “not repugnant to the Laws of England,” by the Words “as nearly as conveniently may be agreeable to the Laws and Statutes of England.” And her Majesty was pleased to disallow those Acts, not because they were repugnant to any Law or Statute of England, made expressly to refer to the Colony; but because divers Persons, by Virtue thereof, were punished without being tried by their Peers in the ordinary “Courts of Law,” and “by the ordinary Rules and known Methods of Justice;” contrary to the express Terms of Magna Charta, which was a Statute in Force at the Time of granting the Charter, and declaratory of the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects within the Realm.
      You are pleased to say, that “our Provincial or Local Laws have in numerous Instances had Relation to Acts of Parliament made to respect the Plantations and this Colony in particular.” The Authority of the Legislature, says the same Author who is quoted by your Excellency, “does not extend so far as the Fundamentals of the Constitution.” “They ought to consider the Fundamental Laws as sacred, if the Nation has not in very express Terms, given them the Power to change them. For the Constitution of the State ought to be fixed: And since that was first established by the Nation, which afterwards trusted certain Persons with the Legislative Power, the fundamental Laws are excepted from their Commission.” Now the Fundamentals of the Constitution of this Province are stipulated in the Charter; the Reasoning therefore in this Case holds equally good. Much less then ought any Acts or Doings of the General Assembly, however numerous, to neither of which your Excellency has pointed us, which barely relate to Acts of Parliament made to respect the Plantations in general, or this Colony in particular, to be taken as an Acknowledgment of this People, or even of the Assembly, which inadvertently passed those Acts, that we are subject to the Supreme Authority of Parliament. And with still less Reason are the Decisions in the Executive Courts to determine this Point. If they have adopted that “as Part of the Rule of Law,” which in Fact is not, it must be imputed to Inattention or Error in Judgment, and cannot justly be urged as an Alteration or Restriction of the Legislative Authority of the Province.
      Before we leave this Part of your Excellency’s Speech, we would observe, that the great Design of our Ancestors, in leaving the Kingdom of England, was to be freed from a Subjection to its spiritual Laws and Courts, and to worship God according to the Dictates of their Consciences. Your Excellency in your History observes, that their Design was “to obtain for themselves and their Posterity the Liberty of worshipping God in such Manner as appeared to them most agreeable to the sacred Scriptures.” And the General Court themselves declared in 1651, that “seeing just Cause to fear the Persecution of the then Bishops, and High Commission for nor not conforming to the Ceremonies then pressed upon the Consciences of those under their Power, they thought it their safest Course, to get to this Outside of the World, out of their View and beyond their Reach. But if it had been their Sense, that they were still to be subject to the supreme Authority of Parliament, they must have known that their Design might and probably would be frustrated; that the Parliament, especially considering the Temper of those Times, might make what ecclesiastical Laws they pleased, expressly to refer to them, and place them in the same Circumstances with Respect to religious Matters, to be relieved from which was the Design of their Removal. And we would add, that if your Excellency’s Construction of the Clause in our present Charter is just, another Clause therein, which provides for Liberty of Conscience for all Christians except Papists, may be rendered void by an Act of Parliament made to refer to us, requiring a Conformity to the Rites and Mode of Worship in the Church of England or any other.
      Thus we have endeavoured to shew the Sense of the People of this Colony under both Charters; and if there have been in any late Instances a Submission to Acts of Parliament, it has been in our Opinion, rather from Inconsideration or a Reluctance at the Idea of contending with the Parent State, than from a Conviction or Acknowledgment of the Supreme Legislative Authority of Parliament.
      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 Vassallage, 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 uncontrouled 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 Rigour, 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 Independance on the Crown. Our Charters reserve great Power to the Crown in its Representative, fully sufficient to balance, analagous 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.


Title: Petition to Have Boston Accept Pleasant Street, 5 May 1773
From: Adams, John,Boston Town Meeting
To:

     Boston, ante 5 May 1773. MS (MB). John Adams was among the 52 signers who sought to have Pleasant Street “Accepted of and recorded as a Town street as is Usual.” The petition was approved by the Boston town meeting on 5 May 1773 (Boston Record Commissioners, 18th ReportCity of Boston, Record Commissioners, Reports, Boston, 1876–1909; 39 vols., p. 134). Pleasant Street ran south and southeastward from the southwest corner of the Common to join Orange Street, the main road leading to the Neck (Lester J. Cappon, Barbara Bartz Petchenik, and John Hamilton Long, eds., Atlas of Early American History, Princeton, 1976, p. 9).


Title: Elected Council Members Negatived by Governor Thomas Hutchinson, 26 May 1773
From: Hutchinson, Thomas,Massachusetts, Governor of
To:

     Boston, 26 May 1773. MS (M-Ar:vol. 50:449–450. Of the 24 elected by joint ballot of the House of Representatives and outgoing Council, John Adams was one of three rejected by Hutchinson. The others were Jerathmeel Bowers and William Phillips.


Title: Chrispus Attucks to Thomas Hutchinson, 19 July 1773; 26 July 1773
From: Adams, John,Attucks, Chrispus
To: Thomas, Hutchinson

     Boston, 19 or 26 July 1773. Printed: JA, Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 2:84–85. Unpublished newspaper contribution.


Title: Genealogical Note, 7 August 1773
From: Adams, John
To:

      Boston August 7 1773

     Mr Henry Adams before the year 1640, I cant Say how long before, came from Bristol in England, with Eight Sons, and fixed himself at Braintree, in an House nearly opposite to the present Parsonage House of the Church of England, near the late Dr and the present Major Millers—being a Maltster by Trade he Set up a Malt House there upon a Piece of Land between the Brook on the North a Rivulet that crosses the Road on the East, the Road on the South, which Malt house is now Standing and has been in Possn of the Family, to this day. One of the Eight Sons went back to England, the other Seven remained in this Country, and from one or another of them are descended the Multitude who bear the Name of Adams in Boston, Braintree Medfield, Chelmesford, &c &c &c, one of the Eight Sons was named John. He lived upon the Place with his father. He had issue among others Samuel who was afterwards a Justice of the Peace and a Representative of Boston, who was the Father of the intrepid Patriot of the Same Name, who for a Course of Years has been Clerk of the House of Representatives and a Member for Boston, and Joseph, who lived, about a Mile out of the public Road near the Common where Several of his Posterity remain,—This Joseph was the Father of John Adams who lived and died near the foot of Pens hill, and left his two Houses and Estate there to his two Sons John, and Peter Boylstone, who are now living.
     [October 25th. 1764 John Adams the son above mentioned was married to Abigail Smith
     July 14th. 1765 Abigail Adams the daughter of John Adams and Abigail his wife was born and (it being Sunday) was baptized in the afternoon by Mr. Smith at Braintree.
     July 11th. 1767. John Quincy Adams son of John Adams and Abigail his wife was born and it being Saturday was baptized next day by Mr. Wibert at Braintree. The childs Great Grandfather for whom he was named was dying when the child was christened.
     December 28. 1768 Susanna daughter of the above John and Abigail was born (Wednesday) at Boston and the next Sabbath was baptized 1st. January 1769, by Dr. Cooper. Died Feby. 4th. 1770.
     May 29. 1770 Charles son of said John and Abigail was born Thursday morning at Boston and was baptized by Dr. Cooper the next Sunday.
     Sept. 15. 1772 Thomas Boylston Adams was born at Braintree and Christened the next Sunday by Mr. Wibert. The childs great, great Grandfather was of the name of Thomas Boylston and built the Old house at Brooklyne where my mother was born; My mother had also an Uncle of the same name The father of the late Nich. Boylston Esq. and the present Thomas Boylston. Merchant.]


Title: From John Adams to James Warren, 17 December 1773
From: Adams, John
To: Warren, James

      Dr Sir
      Boston Decr 17 1773

     The Dye is cast: The People have passed the River and cutt away the Bridge: last Night Three Cargoes of Tea, were emptied into the Harbour. 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 Coll 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 burn’d 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 thier 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 annull’d—Treason—Tryals 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.
     Please to make Mrs Adams’s most respectfull Compliments to Mrs Warren and mine.

      I am your Friend,
      John Adams


Title: From John Adams to James Warren, 22 December 1773
From: Adams, John
To: Warren, James

      Dr Sir
      Boston Der. 22. 1773

     Yesterday, the Governor called a Council at Cambridge. Eight Members met at Brattles. This no doubt was concerted last Saturday, at Neponsit Hill, where Brattle and Russell dined, by Way of Caucass I Suppose.
     Sewall dined with their Honours Yesterday. But Behold what a falling off, was there. The Governor, who last Fryday, was fully persuaded, and told the Council, that some late Proceedings were high Treason, and promised them the Attendance of the Attorny General to prove it to them out of Law Books; now, Such is his Alacrity in Sinking, was rather of Opinion they were Burglary. I Suppose he meant what we call New England Burglary—that is breaking open a shop or ship &c which is punished with Branding, &c.
     But The Council, thought it would look rather awkward, to issue a Proclamation against the whole Comunity, and therefore contented them Selves with ordering Mr Attorney to prosecute such as he should knew or be informed of.
     They have advised a Prorogation of Gen. Ct. for a fortnight.
     It is whispered that the Sachem has it in Contemplation to go home Soon, and perhaps the Prorogation is to give him time to get away. Few think he will meet the House again.
     The Spirit of Liberty is very high in the Country and universal. Worcester is aroused. Last Week, a Monument to Liberty was erected there in the Heart of the Town within a few Yards of Coll Chandlers Door. A Gentn. of as good Sense and Character as any in that County told me this day, that nothing, which has been ever done is more universally approved, applauded and admired than these last Efforts. He Says, that whole Towns in the County were on Tiptoe to come down.
     Make my Compliments to Mrs Warren and tell her that I want a poetical Genius.—to describe a late Frolic among the Sea Nymphs and Goddesses. There being a scarcity of Nectar and Ambrosia, among the Celestials of the sea, Neptune has determined to substitute Hyson and Congo, and for some of the inferiour Divinities Bohea. Amphitrite, one of his Wives, vizt the Land, and Salacia, another of his Wives the Sea went to pulling Caps upon the occasion, but Salacia prevailed.
     The syrens should be introduced somehow. I cant tell how and Proteus, a son of Neptune, who could some times flow like Water, and sometimes burn like Fire bark like a Dog howl like Wolf, whine like an Ape, Cry like a Crokadile, or roar like a Lyon. But for want of this Same Poetical Genius I can do nothing. I wish to See a late glorious Event, celebrated, by a certain poetical Pen, which has no equal that I know of in this Country.
     We are anxious for the Safety of the Cargo at Province Town. Are there no Vineyard, Mashpee, Metapoiset Indians, do you think who will take the Care of it, and protect it from Violence. I mean  from the Hands of Tyrants and oppressors who want to do Violence with it, to the Laws and Constitution, to the present Age and to Posterity.
     I hope you have had an happy aniversary Festival. May a double Portion of the Genius and Spirit of our forefathers rest upon us and our Posterity.

      I am yr friend,
      John Adams


Title: To John Adams from James Warren, 3 January 1774
From: Warren, James
To: Adams, John

      Dr. Sir
      Plymo. Jany. the 3d. 1774

     I Received your last and am to Acknowledge that the Contents of it gave me great pleasure. I have for some time thought it necessary that the People should strike some Bold stroke and Try the Issue. They have long enough Submitted to Oppressions and Insults following one another in A rapid Succession without finding any Advantage. They have now Indeed passed the River and left no retreat and must therefore Abide the Consequences. What those will be seems to be the great matter of Speculation and as People are determined by Reason or by the frightful List of Scarecrows and Bugbears (mentioned in your last and which are Employed on this Occasion) their speculations will differ. As your Judgment will be regulated by the first I should be glad to hear it. I think the Ministry have one way at least to avoid the necessity of Advancing or retreating at this time and that is by laying the Blame of the whole on their own and East India Compy. officers who have drove the People to this desperate step. And this, Justice and Truth (Company they have not been used too), will Countenance them in. In what proportion this Blame is to be laid to Each may be Adjusted Among them and if they quarrel in the settlement of that Matter we may Avail ourselves of the old Proverb. I Admire Doanes reasoning and if he was not Assisted by the Author of the Letter in the Methodical Arraignment of his Propositions I think he reasoned better on this, than any other Occasion. I made good Use of your Letter without mentioning the Authors Name to Encounter the Tory Bugbears and Allay the frightful Apprehensions they had raised in some minds Otherwise firm. I Congratulate you on the Union of Sentiment and Spirit prevailing through the Continent, which makes even our Toric Protestors hang their Ears, and may in Time Affect the Obdurate Heart and Inveterate Resolution of H——n himself especially when he finds himself forsaken by a Tryon. The recantation made in Boston by one of our Protestors has sickend some Others. Divers of them Intending to Boston last week are still at Home. I am Inclined to think many or several Others here will follow his Example, tho’ great Pains are taken to prevent it. I am Obliged to write in A great Hurry the Bearer haveing determind to go sooner this Morning than I Expected. I can therefore only Add that Mrs. Warren Joins in Compliments and Regards to Mr. and Mrs. Adams and that I am with great Sincerity Your Friend and Humb. Servt,

      Jas. Warren


Title: Editorial Note
From:
To:

      A year after his newspaper debate with William Brattle and his contributions to the exchanges of the House of Representatives with Governor Hutchinson over constitutional issues (see 11 Jan. – 22 Feb. 1773 and 26 Jan. – 2 March 1773, above), John Adams took part in the closing chapter of the dispute over crown salaries for superior court judges. This last episode, an attempt to impeach Chief Justice Peter Oliver in February 1774, was also the last in a series of bitter controversies between Hutchinson and the House. It contributed to the weakening of the judicial system of the province.
      While Adams in early 1773 had examined the theoretical issues raised by crown salaries for the judges, others had concerned themselves with the practical question of what action to take should the judges accept royal money. First, the House sought to obtain from the judges a refusal of crown salaries by asserting that failure to refuse would impugn their character. When neither the judges nor the Governor vouchsafed assurances, the House spoke in stronger language. Those who took crown salaries were enemies to the constitution and promoters of arbitrary government (Mass., House Jour.Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts [1715–], Boston, reprinted by the Massachusetts Historical Society, 1919–. (For the years for which reprints are not yet available, the original printings are cited, by year and session.), 1772–1773, p. 224, 281–282).
      Shortly after the General Court was adjourned in March 1773, Chief Justice Oliver (1713–1791) and the four puisne judges of the superior court—Edmund Trowbridge (1709–1793), Foster Hutchinson (1724–1799), Nathaniel Ropes (1726–1774), and William Cushing (1732–1810)—accepted half the salary voted them by the House for 1772, expecting the other half to be furnished by the Crown. (For sketches of members of the court, see Sibley-Shipton, Harvard GraduatesJohn Langdon Sibley and Clifford K. Shipton, Biographical Sketches of Graduates of Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Cambridge and Boston, 1873– ., 8:507–520, 737–763; 11:237–243, 572–574; 13:26–39. See also references to these jurists in JA, Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols..) Their action did not become generally known until the treasurer, Harrison Gray, testified before the House in June 1773. Out of patience, the House called for explicit statements from the judges on how each stood and threatened that if no response was forthcoming it would impeach them before the Governor and Council (House Jour.Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts [1715–], Boston, reprinted by the Massachusetts Historical Society, 1919–. (For the years for which reprints are not yet available, the original printings are cited, by year and session.), p. 76, 86–88, 94). By late August, when the superior court met in Boston, the position of the various judges was still not clear. Uncertainty over their intentions became an excuse for the grand jury formally to express its troubled concern over the issue and for a petit juryman to refuse service. Shortly thereafter it became public knowledge that all but Oliver had declared their intention to the speaker of the House to accept their salaries from the General Court (Massachusetts Spy, 2 Sept. 1773; Boston Gazette, 6, 13 Sept. 1773).
      When the General Court came back into session, in January 1774, it accepted Trowbridge’s written declaration that he would continue to draw his pay from the province and set a deadline of 8 February for the other judges to make similar declarations (House Jour.Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts [1715–], Boston, reprinted by the Massachusetts Historical Society, 1919–. (For the years for which reprints are not yet available, the original printings are cited, by year and session.), p. 113, 117–118). Oliver, first to reply to the House demand, submitted a long statement explaining why he could not comply; this became part of the articles of impeachment printed below. The other judges made answers deemed satisfactory to the House, but Oliver’s reply was referred to a committee for suggestions for further action (same, 136–139). At this point John Adams came into the picture.
      In his Autobiography (Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 3:299–302), Adams gives a lively account of how he astonished members of a dinner party early in 1774 with a proposal that judges accepting crown pay be impeached. All present had expressed fear that province liberties were threatened, but none had had an idea of what to do. Adams compared the House of Representatives to the Commons as a body of grand inquest, and the Council to the Lords as a body competent to try an impeachment. When some protested that the Council would not act, Adams calmly replied that if the House decided it had the power to go ahead, the Council would be forced to look into its own powers and duty. Failure to proceed would leave the Council responsible for whatever consequences ensued.
      As Adams had expected, his proposal was soon carried abroad and attracted the attention of Joseph Hawley, a member of the House committee named to deal with Oliver’s intransigence. According to Adams, Hawley, nearly ignorant of what impeachment was, found the proposal a very strange one and asked him for clarification. Adams lent him several legal treatises. Although Hawley had been a member of the House at the time it threatened impeachment of the judges, he had been absent when the threat was made and had missed whatever discussion had taken place. Adams himself seems not to have known that the word had already been uttered in the House chamber, or time had erased all recollection of the resolution.
      How seriously the word “impeach” had been used in the resolution of 28 June 1773 remains a mystery. The term may have been employed without full deliberation, for it is obvious that in February 1774 the House was willing to try every method short of impeachment to remove the Chief Justice. It petitioned the Governor to remove him; it changed the date of the February superior court session in Suffolk co. so that Oliver would not have to sit while the petition was under consideration; and it responded to the Governor’s denial that Oliver had done any wrong and that the Council could play any part in hearing charges against him by sending a message to the Council asking for advice and for action as that body saw fit. The House even petitioned the Governor once again, urging him to take the advice of the Council. None of this sounded like a House eager for impeachment (House Jour.Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts [1715–], Boston, reprinted by the Massachusetts Historical Society, 1919–. (For the years for which reprints are not yet available, the original printings are cited, by year and session.), p. 146–151, 153–154, 159, 162–163, 167–168).
      It was during this period, the second and third weeks of February, that Adams recorded visits from Hawley and an unnamed lawyer with whom Adams discussed the impeachment process. He recalled that Hawley also visited Judge Trowbridge, whom Hawley regarded highly for his knowledge of the law and who advised him that the House did indeed have the impeachment power, but that the Council would never carry through the process. When Judge Trowbridge encountered Adams later, he remarked upon Adams’ determination “to explore the Constitution and bring to Life all its dormant and latent Powers, in defence of your Liberties as you understand them.” Adams was ready with his answer: “I should be very happy if the Constitution could carry Us safely through all our difficulties without having recourse to higher Powers not written” (Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 3:301)—a lawyer’s clear preference for written instruments over less manageable rights based on natural law.
      Finally, on 22 February, an angry governor summoned the members of the House to the Council chamber to point out to them that nothing in the charter required him to call the Council together for its advice. When the members got back to their chamber, they resolved at once to impeach the Chief Justice (House Jour.Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts [1715–], Boston, reprinted by the Massachusetts Historical Society, 1919–. (For the years for which reprints are not yet available, the original printings are cited, by year and session.), p. 183). Hawley, a member of the committee to prepare articles of impeachment, was as dependent on Adams for aid as he had been a year earlier when the House engaged in constitutional debate with Hutchinson. Adams recalled that the Northampton lawyer “would do nothing without me, and insisted on bringing them the articles of impeachment to my house, to examine and discuss the Articles paragraph by Paragraph, which was readily consented to by the Committee. Several Evenings were spent in my Office, upon this Business, till very late at night” (Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 3:301–302).
      By 24 February the articles were ready for submission to the House, where they were adopted by a vote of 92 to 8 (House Jour.Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts [1715–], Boston, reprinted by the Massachusetts Historical Society, 1919–. (For the years for which reprints are not yet available, the original printings are cited, by year and session.), p. 199–200). They declared that Oliver’s refusal to accept a province salary and his explanation for his refusal constituted a misrepresentation of the character of the Massachusetts government and exposed an intention to alienate the province from the King, all with the purpose of supplanting the existing form of government with “an arbitrary and tyrannical Government in its Stead.” In line with the insistence of Adams and others that the House shared the functions and powers of the House of Commons, the articles closed with a paragraph that paraphrased the customary concluding statements in articles of impeachment brought in Parliament. (See, for example, such statements in T. B. and T. J. Howell, comps., A Complete Collection of State Trials, 34 vols., London, 1816–1828, 12:1215; 14:244; 15:40; 16:784; 18:548.)
      Governor Hutchinson continued to deny any competence in the Council to hear charges and any constitutional authority in the House to institute impeachment proceedings. Even though the House persisted in laying the articles of impeachment before the Council and in the Governor’s absence, declaring that he was “presumed” present, and even though the House wrote a new preamble to its articles and dropped the word “impeach” in favor of requesting “a Hearing and Trial,” Hutchinson remained unmoved. But when it became clear that the Council was almost as eager as the House to act, with or without the Governor present, Hutchinson adjourned the General Court and thus prevented the Council from taking up the charges (House Jour.Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts [1715–], Boston, reprinted by the Massachusetts Historical Society, 1919–. (For the years for which reprints are not yet available, the original printings are cited, by year and session.), p. 205, 216–217; M-Ar:Legislative Council Records, 30:257; Hutchinson, Massachusetts Bay, ed. MayoThomas Hutchinson, The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts-Bay, ed. Lawrence Shaw Mayo, Cambridge, 1936; 3 vols., 3:325).
      Although the effort to remove Oliver was not successful, the impeachment process won another kind of victory: the undermining of Oliver’s position on the bench. Adams was correct in his assessment that when Hutchinson blocked the removal, “the Friends of Administration thought they had obtained a Tryumph but they were mistaken” (Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 3:302). Jurors in Charlestown protested Oliver’s presence on the bench, and in Worcester jurors probably would not have served had he appeared. The mood of ordinary men was so menacing that Oliver dared not join the court in Barnstable or Plymouth as it moved around on its circuit (Sibley-Shipton, Harvard GraduatesJohn Langdon Sibley and Clifford K. Shipton, Biographical Sketches of Graduates of Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Cambridge and Boston, 1873– ., 8:752–753). By the end of August 1774 this open disrespect for the dignity of a judge perhaps made it easier for Massachusetts people to close the courts altogether in protest against changes in their charter mandated by the Massachusetts Government Act, one of the Intolerable Acts passed by Parliament in retaliation for the Boston Tea Party.


Title: To John Adams from Edward Dilly, 4 March 1774
From: Dilly, Edward
To: Adams, John

      Dear Sir
      London March 4th 1774

     The Letters you sent for Mrs. Macaulay directed, under Cover, for me, were put into the Post office on Capt Scott’s arrival at Dover, and on their coming to my Hands I immediately transmitted the same to Mrs. Macaulay. You mentioned in your Letter to her, that you had sent the Proceeding of the Assembly relative to Certain Letters, but upon examining the Packet, they were not inclosed. I applied to Capt Scott who said that he did not know any thing concerning them.
     Mrs. Macaulay from her close application to the writing her History (Viz. The 6th Volume containing the Hist of Charles the Second) is now much indisposed, and obliged to go to Bath on Account of her Health, she has however found some benefit by Drinking the Waters, and requested me to present her best Compliments to you, and inform you that she will imbrace the earliest Opportunity (when her Health will permit) to Answer your last favour, and likewise that of the Bostonian Lady, in the mean Time I send you inclosed a Letter which was written by Mrs. Macaulay to a friend upon the necessary Qualifications for a representative in Parliament which will be distributed upon the Eve of the General Election. I have also sent you a copy of Mr. Burgh’s Political Disquisiti
       ons
       a Book just published, which the Author begs you will accept of as a small token of his esteem for a just Character as a friend to Liberty. I flatter myself that you will find much pleasure in the perusal. His Ideas of Government are very just and clear, and many useful hints may be gathered, which may furnish sufficient matter for the establishment of a New Government upon a solid foundation. Long Parliaments are the bane to this, as well as every other Country, nothing is more conducive to the Welfare of a Nation as frequent Appeals to the People. We were speaking upon this Subject a few Days ago when I had the pleasure of a Select Number of friends to Dine with me Viz Dr Franklin, Mr Alderman Sawbridge (Brother to Mrs. Macaulay) The Red Mr. Ewin and Dr. Williamson. Dr. Franklin was observing the very great difference there was between a Person’s soliciting for a Seat in Parliament in England, and in America, the former making great Promises of what he woud do for his Constituents, and the latter requesting that he may be excused from Serving any longer on account of his own Affairs—the first wants either a Place or Pension, and the other means only to serve his Country.
     The Affairs relative to North America are expected to come on in the House of Commons in a few Days, and Lord Dartmouth will lay the Papers concerning the Transactions of Boston before the House of Lords at the same Time so that we shall know in a short Time, what Steps the Ministry will take to Subdue what they call the Evil Spirit which is gone forth in America, but what Others would Term a noble exertion of the just rights of the People against Ministerial encroachments. For my own part I am inclined to think that they will be fearful of pursueing vigorous Measures, and indeed we are not in a Capacity of doing much,—a Treasury almost exhausted, and burdened with an Immense National Debt. Under these Circumstances good Policy would lead me to pursue such Steps only as will Conciliate the Affections of the Colonies to the Mother Country, our Interest like that of Husband and Wife is reciprocal, one cannot be hurt without the Other’s being equally injured. I most sincerely Wish the breach was healed, and that hence forward, we shall never be more at variance.
     I presume you will have heard before this comes to your Hand of the Death of Mr. Thos. Hollis the great friend of America, and who was well known by the Donations he made to Harvard College. He has bequeathd about Ten Thousand Pounds in Legacies, among which he has left One Hundred Pounds to Dr. Mayhew’s Widow and the like Sum to Mrs. Elliot of Boston. I shall be very happy to be favoured with a Line from you, when Opportunity offers, and of being informed of the present State of Affairs in Boston, and whatever you have for Mrs. Macaulay may be transmitted to me. I beg you will accept of my most cordial Wishes for the Prosperity of America.

      I am Sir Your most Obedt Servt,
      Edwd Dilly