Title: Editorial Note
From:
To:

      Perhaps none of John Adams’ services to Massachusetts was so demanding and time-consuming as the report on the boundaries of the province that he prepared for the General Court in 1774—and perhaps none of his public papers has offered so many challenges to students of his career. In 1961, the editors of The Adams Papers had to describe this triumph of legal and historical scholarship as an “elaborate but apparently irrecoverable report” (JA, Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 3:304, note). Since then, the work of other scholars and a more exhaustive canvass of the Adams manuscripts have enabled the present editors to identify a fragmentary draft of one of the report’s three sections (No. II, below) and a draft fragment and contemporary copy of a second portion of that document (Nos. III and VI, below). The manuscript report itself remains lost, and identification of surviving portions was made possible only by painstaking investigation, some of it by other than Adams editors, of the task facing Adams and James Bowdoin on 1 March 1774 when they were named to prepare a “State of the Provinces Title” to lands claimed by her neighbors, New Hampshire and New York.
      Preparation of this “State,” which fell to Adams, required a mastery of the history of boundary lines on no fewer than four frontiers, with reference to Dutch and English explorations and analyses of grants from kings to princes and from chartered companies to individuals. The claims of Massachusetts rested on three grants of the early seventeenth century: James I’s charter to the Plymouth Council in 1620; that Council’s conveyance of lands from three miles south of the Charles River to three miles north of the Merrimack River to Sir Henry Rosewell and his associates in 1628; and the charter of 1629, which incorporated the Rosewell grant into the colony of Massachusetts Bay. (The charters of 1620 and 1629 are printed in Thorpe, Federal and State ConstitutionsFrancis N. Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America, Washington, 1909; 7 vols., 3:1827–1860; terms of the Rosewell grant are on p. 1847–1848.) All three granted lands with explicit north-south bounds which were to extend from “sea to sea.” The 1629 charter, however, added the proviso that the grant became void if the granted lands were already possessed or settled by some other Christian prince (same, p. 1850).
      The validity of these ancient grants was weakened by the revocation of the colony’s charter in 1684. Under a new charter, issued in 1691, that made Massachusetts Bay a royal province, the description of its bounds was altered. The province retained jurisdiction over Maine and was enlarged to include the old Plymouth Colony, but the north-south boundaries of Massachusetts were to extend west only as far as those of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and the Narragansett Country, that is, “King’s Province” in Rhode Island (same, p. 1876).
      The creation of the colony of New York in 1664 jeopardized even these western bounds of New England provinces. By a grant to his brother the Duke of York Charles II established a vast proprietorship which included ungranted lands in Maine, the islands of Martha’s Vineyard and Long Island, and the claims of the Dutch in New Netherland. This last tract, encompassing the lands between the Connecticut and Delaware rivers, cut squarely across the claims of New England colonies with sea-to-sea charters. With this fact in mind, Charles II’s letters patent of 1664 contained the proviso that the grant to his brother was to be good despite grants made earlier by any former king to any person or corporation. The grant of 1664 was made in anticipation of the conquest of New Netherland by England. After the conquest and Dutch cession of their North American claims, the grant to James was confirmed in a second charter in identical terms in 1674 (same, p. 1640, 1641–1644).
      In 1774 Adams would have to immerse himself in these charters and in the history of the attempts to reconcile their contradictory terms and inaccurate descriptions of New England geography. The Bay Colony’s land disputes with New Hampshire had, supposedly, been ended by a decision of the King in Council, 5 March 1740. This decree, which settled New Hampshire’s boundary both on the east with the province of Maine and, on the south, with Massachusetts proper, was considered unjust by Massachusetts partisans. In setting the Maine–New Hampshire boundary, the decree interpreted a line running “north-westward” to be one running north, two degrees west, instead of north, forty-five degrees west, as Massachusetts and most geographers would have defined the term.
      The decree’s settlement of New Hampshire’s southern boundary seemed equally unfair to the Bay province. Seventeenth-century grants to both colonies had been made on the assumption that the Merrimack River followed an east-west course. Thus the grant to Rosewell in 1628 had been for lands extending three miles north of the Merrimack “or to the northward of any and every parte thereof.” All Privy Council actions upon disputes arising between Massachusetts and New Hampshire grantees in the seventeenth century, and even the charter from William and Mary in 1691, had repeated this description of the northern boundary of Massachusetts. The Merrimack, however, follows an east-west course for only some thirty miles between Pawtucket Falls and the Atlantic coast. Going upstream beyond the falls, one travels almost due north; so a strict interpretation of the line would have confined New Hampshire to a narrow strip east of the Merrimack.
      Refusing to accept this boundary definition, New Hampshire began formal appeals to the Crown in 1726. Massachusetts responded by accelerating the settlement of towns in the disputed area west of the Merrimack. Despite this tactic, Massachusetts lost its claim to lands beyond the river. The Privy Council decree of 1740 invalidated the Merrimack as the basis for most of the Massachusetts–New Hampshire line: the boundary was to parallel the river from the coast to Pawtucket Falls; there it was to continue west rather than turn northward. Under this generous decision, New Hampshire received seven hundred square miles of territory that it had never before claimed (Jonathan Smith, “The Massachusetts and New Hampshire Boundary Line Controversy, 1693–1740,” MHS, Procs.Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections and Proceedings., 43 [1909–1910] 77–88; and Hutchinson, Massachusetts Bay, ed. MayoThomas Hutchinson, The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts-Bay, ed. Lawrence Shaw Mayo, Cambridge, 1936; 3 vols., 2:290–297).
      Whatever the inequities of these decisions, Massachusetts made no attempt to reopen the question until one section of the lands awarded New Hampshire in 1740 became part of an even more complicated dispute, that of New York and New Hampshire over the “Hampshire Grants.” New York’s claim to lands as far east as the Connecticut River had early brought her into conflict with her three New England neighbors. As a matter of expediency, New York had agreed in 1683 to run a compromise line with Connecticut twenty miles east of the Hudson, but had conceded nothing to New Hampshire and Massachusetts. In 1764 the Privy Council upheld the rights of New York to the lands disputed with New Hampshire—the tract between the Connecticut River and Lake Champlain which comprises the modern state of Vermont. Nevertheless, confusion over land titles in the region, where governors of both provinces had made grants before the boundary settlement, kept dissension in the “Hampshire Grants” alive until the Revolution. (For an able summary of this controversy, see Matt B. Jones, Vermont in the Making, 1750–1777, Cambridge, 1939, chs. I–III.)
      This confusion over titles in “the Grants” brought the boundary question before the General Court in 1774 and gave John Adams the chore of mastering the intricacies of provincial charters and territorial claims, an intellectual feat which served him well in his later career as a diplomat. (For Adams’ discussion of the uses he made of his early research into these matters, see WorksThe Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, ed. Charles Francis Adams, Boston, 1850–1856; 10 vols., 1:666–669.) The history of Adams’ appointment to report on Massachusetts’ boundaries began with a petition submitted to the province Council on 19 February 1774. The petition came from John Powell, Charles Phelps, and others with an interest in that section of the lands annexed from Massachusetts to New Hampshire under the 1740 boundary settlement and, in turn, awarded to New York under the 1764 decree fixing New Hampshire’s western boundary. Powell’s petition set forth the “ancient right” of Massachusetts to lands then under New York jurisdiction and called for their reannexation to Massachusetts (M-Ar: Legislative Council Records, 30 [1773–1774]: 183).
      Although the petition itself, heard in the Council in February 1774, has not survived, it was doubtless a recital of the same demands presented by Powell and others in a petition dated 6 July 1772 heard in July 1772 (M-Ar: 118, p. 643–646; this petition and its effects are discussed at length in Jones, Vermont, p. 186–190). The earlier petition recounted the plight of settlers, like Powell, whose land titles were based on pre-1740 grants from Massachusetts in the southern portion of what is now Vermont. Upon transfer of jurisdiction to New Hampshire, these proprietors had been obliged to purchase new patents from that colony. Then, as New York asserted her claim, they faced the prospect of new fees for patents from New York as well as the payment of substantial quitrents required by that province.
      In 1772 the General Court had ignored the petitioners’ pleas that Massachusetts reassert her claims against the “ridiculous” pretensions of New York, but in 1774 the legislature moved quickly. On 1 March a joint committee of the two houses reported to the Council that “this Province has a just right to the Lands their Petition relates to” and recommended that “a full and clear State of the Provinces Title to those Lands and also to all the Lands bounded Southerly by the present Southern Jurisdiction Line of New Hampshire, and the Continuation of the said Line and Northerly by the proper and true Northern Line of the Old Colony of Massachusetts Bay and by the continuation thereof, should be made as soon as may be.” The report recommended that an appropriate person be appointed to prepare a report on the province title, to be ready “by the first Friday of the next May Session” (M-Ar:Legislative Council Records, 30 [1773–1774]: 215). The Council nominated Adams, and the House concurred and added James Bowdoin as his colleague. Then the Council and the House resolved to notify their agents in England of the action (same, p. 215, 221; 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.), 1773–1774, p. 175, 204, 209, 219).
      The General Court’s decision to reopen the thorny question of Massachusetts’ boundaries with New Hampshire grew less out of sympathy for the proprietors of townships like Marlborough, Fulham, and Wilmington than out of the need for establishing territorial pretensions for use in still another controversy. In the eighteen months after John Powell and his neighbors submitted their first petition, Massachusetts had become embroiled in a new phase of her continuing boundary dispute with New York.

      With Massachusetts, as with other New England neighbors, New York had claimed the Connecticut River as her eastern boundary. Controversies between settlers on the Hudson and members of the Bay Colony began when the Dutch held sway in New Netherland and continued unabated for a century and a half. Massachusetts partisans challenged the very validity of Dutch claims in North America. England’s right to New York, they contended, rested on Sebastian Cabot’s explorations, not on any cessions from the Dutch government. Thus, New Netherland was not lawfully possessed by a Christian state in 1629, when Massachusetts received her first charter, nor was it excluded from the earliest grants to the Plymouth Council or Rosewell. New Yorkers just as stoutly defended the force of the ancient Dutch claims which would have made the claims of Massachusetts beyond the Connecticut River completely void. Further, Massachusetts argued that its early seventeenth-century charters and grants could not be, and were not, affected by Charles II’s extraordinary letters patent to the Duke of York. Nor, Massachusetts insisted, were the sea-to-sea terms of these ancient grants invalidated by its charter’s abrogation in 1684 or the ambiguous description of its western boundary in the charter of 1691. New York’s advocates asserted with equal vigor that any sea-to-sea boundary Massachusetts might have enjoyed had ended with the loss of the “old colony’s” charter. (The most lucid summary of these points is found in The Law Practice of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Julius Goebel Jr., N.Y., 1964– , 1:545–558.)
      In the 1750’s and 1760’s several attempts to resolve the question were fruitless. But, just as New York finally showed a willingness to accept some compromise line between the Hudson and Connecticut rivers, Massachusetts introduced a new, potentially disruptive claim: title to land beyond the Hudson. Although in theory such a title had always existed under the sea-to-sea charters, the claim remained quiescent until the Massachusetts General Court passed a series of resolutions in January 1768 (Mass., Province LawsThe Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, Boston, 1869–1922; 21 vols., 18:279). Henceforth, the province coupled any action on the New York boundary with the stipulation that a settlement of that line not compromise the claims of Massachusetts in the west.
      The latest attempt to resolve New York’s eastern boundary with Massachusetts had followed lengthy correspondence between Governor Hutchinson and Governor Sir William Tryon of New York, which led to a proposal for a joint commission to agree on a line. In April 1772 the General Court accepted the proposal, but added the familiar proviso that such a line would be run, “the true and real extent or boundary of this province . . . being in any wise to the contrary notwithstanding,” a way for Massachusetts to call attention to its most extensive boundaries despite possible compromise on one (same, 5:176; for the history of this enabling legislation and of the commission it created, see Law Practice of Hamilton, ed. Goebel, 1:558–560). The New York Assembly enacted similar enabling legislation in March 1773, but, not to be outdone, it also adopted “A State of the Right of the Colony of New York, with respect to its eastern boundary on Connecticut River so far as concerns the late encroachments under the Government of New Hampshire.” This “State” of New York’s case, a report drafted by James Duane, attacked not only New Hampshire’s claims to “the Grants,” but also the pretensions of Massachusetts to a sea-to-sea boundary (Journal of the Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Colony of New York from 1766–1776 Inclusive, Albany, 1820, Jan.–March 1773 sess., p. 90–108). A State of the Right of the Colony of New-York was also published separately as a pamphlet (EvansCharles Evans and others, comps., American Bibliography: A Chronological Dictionary of All Books, Pamphlets and Periodical Publications Printed in the United States of America [1639–1800], Chicago and Worcester, 1903–1959; 14 vols., No. 12888).
      In the ensuing negotiations, Massachusetts agents continued to press the westernmost claims of the province. Their insistence that any agreement on New York’s eastern boundary not “be construed to prejudice that claim” nearly ended the talks at Hartford in 1773 (Law Practice of Hamilton, ed. Goebel, 1:559–560). Agreement was finally reached in May 1773, with the line being run twenty miles east of the Hudson and without any explicit statement of the claims of Massachusetts beyond that river (Journal of the General Assembly of New York from 1766–1776, Jan.–March 1774 sess., p. 5–6).
      Thus, the petition of John Powell and his fellows came at an opportune moment for advocates of the Massachusetts claims. A boundary settlement had been made with no express safeguard of those rights, and the New York Assembly had issued a detailed attack on the cherished sea-to-sea dominion of Massachusetts. To John Adams was entrusted the duty of restating and reaffirming the “true extent” of the “old Colony.”
      Adams gave three accounts of his labors in this regard. The earliest and most accurate is found in a letter to Elbridge Gerry, 17 October 1779, written as Adams prepared to embark for Europe as American peace commissioner (LbC, Adams Papers). Two later accounts are less reliable, although their errors and exaggerations can easily be reconciled with the details offered Gerry only five years after the completion of the report (JA, Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 3:302–304; letter of 8 Aug. 1811 to the Boston Patriot, 23 Oct., 6, 9 Nov. 1811 in JA, WorksThe Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, ed. Charles Francis Adams, Boston, 1850–1856; 10 vols., 1:665–669). In his letter to Gerry, Adams recalled that he bore the brunt of the committee’s labor, for “Mr. Bowdoin left it to me, and I Spent most of the Winter winter and spring in rummaging the Books and Papers in the Balcony of Dr. Sewels Meeting House, in the New England Library of Mr. Prince, in the Library of Dr. Mather which came down to him . . . and in Johnny Moffats Collection of Papers and Records.”
      Besides his reliance on these library sources Adams also acknowledged, in ambiguous terms, his debt to two contemporary students of the boundary dispute. He mentioned casually to Gerry that “Governor Hutchinson, drew a state of the Claim of Mass, much shorter however than mine.” Adams’ marginal notes on this “state,” printed as an appendix to 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.), 1763–1764, reveal that he had studied Hutchinson’s arguments with care. (Adams’ copy of the JourJournals 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.). is in his library at MQA; in the modern MHS edn. of the 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.), Hutchinson’s report on boundaries appears at p. [277]–[306].) And, in one paragraph of a surviving section of his 1774 report, Adams borrowed Hutchinson’s wording almost verbatim (see No. VI, note 15, below).
      But Adams only hinted at an equally important source when he suggested to Gerry that the Massachusetts legislature seek aid from “a Mr. Phelps, an Inhabitant of the Grants, who furnished me with some Minutes, which he would perhaps produce now.” These “minutes” were in the form of a legal brief, the first half reciting the facts in the case by citations from patents, charters, and history, and the second developing the arguments with accompanying legal citations. Adams laboriously copied the brief onto twelve quarto pages (No. I, below). The “State of the Right in Fee” of Massachusetts to the southern portion of “the Grants” and Adams’ close attention to it were a tribute to Charles Phelps (1717–1789), a stone-mason and self-educated lawyer of Marlborough, Vermont. His research provided John Adams in 1774 with a well-thought-out, if crude, outline of the history of these claims. (See James L. Huntington, “The Honorable Charles Phelps,” Col. Soc. Mass., Pubns.Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Publications., 32:441–453 [Feb. 1937].)
      Armed with Phelps’ and Hutchinson’s studies, and eagerly patronizing the Moffatt, Mather, and Prince libraries, Adams labored over the “state” of the boundaries. When finished, it had three parts: “a very lengthy, I cannot say a very accurate State of the Massachusetts Claim to those Lands, a particular Examination, and an Attempt at a Refutation of the Claim of New York, and a similar Discussion of that of New Hampshire” (Adams to Gerry, 17 Oct. 1779). Of the “State of the Massachusetts Claim,” only a chronological outline of pertinent events that simply hints at the line to be taken survives (Nos. IV and V, below). Of the “Claim of New Hampshire,” merely a draft of the opening paragraphs remains (No. II, below). Only “An Examination of the Claim of New York” still exists in anything like its original form (No. VI, below).
      The six documents chosen here for printing, all except the last in Adams’ hand, either suggest or develop the line of argument he would pursue regarding the titles of the several colonies to the disputed lands and the superior claims of Massachusetts. Besides the documents printed, the Huntington Library contains several others, some of them in Adams’ hand, that are generally in the nature of raw materials for the argument—lists of documents needed, copies of committee reports, and the like.
      The fragmentary nature of surviving portions of the report can be easily explained by the history of the document after its completion. All accounts agree that the report was ready for submission when the General Court met in May 1774. In his earliest recollection of the matter, Adams wrote that “Mr. Bowdoin revised it and reported it, a few days before Gen. Gage removed the General Court to Salem” (to Gerry, 17 Oct. 1779). In later versions, he modified this statement. In his Autobiography, for instance, he stated that Bowdoin “approved it, and thought it wanted no Addition or correction”; and in his Boston Patriot letter he again insisted that Bowdoin had made no contribution in style or substance (Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 3:303; JA, WorksThe Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, ed. Charles Francis Adams, Boston, 1850–1856; 10 vols., 1:667). But if Adams became more sure that Bowdoin deserved no credit for their joint report, he became less certain about that report’s fate. The statement in the Autobiography, written in 1804 or 1805, mentions that Bowdoin had given the report “to the Senate where it was read and sent down to the House, where it was read again” (Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 3:303). But in 1811 Adams admitted: “Whether the report was ever read to the House or not, I know not. It was not printed in the Journal, as all other reports of that nature ever had been” (JA, WorksThe Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, ed. Charles Francis Adams, Boston, 1850–1856; 10 vols., 1:667).
      Adams’ confusion over the report’s submission can be explained by the contemporary account of another interested observer. In the first week of June 1774, Charles Phelps wrote his son about the events bearing on the boundary report the week that the General Court met in Boston. On Monday, 23 May, Phelps had arrived in the city. “Waiting upon Councillor Bowdoin, and Mr. Adams, the General Courts Committee,” he found the report “was in manner finished, Mr. Adams Red it to me for my Consideration thereof to have it Prepared and Finished against fryday that week, ready to Present it to the General Court for their Perusal.” On Friday, 27 May, Phelps continued: “I presented it but it was not signed they said then I carried it Back to the Committee for Signing: they had no Commission from the Province attested by the Secretary in form as they ought to have of the appointment wherefore could not attest it regularly before the Commission was made out by the Secretary.” This legal technicality proved fatal to Phelps’ hopes for a statement from the legislature, for it “caused a delay 2 Days then the Governor . . . adjourned the General Court over to Salem” (Phelps to Charles Phelps Jr., 5[i.e., 2] June 1774, Col. Soc. Mass., Pubns.Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Publications., 25:51–52 [April 1922]).
      Although Phelps corroborates Adams’ recollection that the report was submitted before the General Court left Boston for Salem on 28 May, there is no evidence that Bowdoin, urged on by Phelps, resubmitted the petition with proper documentation to House or Council after sessions were resumed on 7 June. Adams claimed in 1779 that, “At Salem, it was read in both Houses, but they soon chose Delegates to Congress and were dissolved. The Report was left with the Clerk of the House, I have enquired of him and he cannot find it” (JA to Gerry, 17 Oct. 1779). But the proceedings of the General Court contain no record of action on the report except its tabling when it came down from the Council Board on 9 June before General Gage dissolved the legislature on 17 June 1774 (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.), May–June 1774; M-Ar:Legislative Council Records, 30 [1773–1774]: 302).
      For several years the report’s whereabouts were a mystery. Adams’ own copy was lost in 1775. As he told Gerry, “the first rough blotted Draught, was left in my Table drawer in my office in Boston, when the Regulars shut up the Town. The Table Papers and all were carried off, when they left the Town.” In 1783 a committee of the General Court which was to set forth the claims of Massachusetts to land west of the Hudson River located a copy of the study prepared nine years earlier (Mass., Acts and LawsActs and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts [1780–1805], Boston, 1890–1898; 13 vols., May 1783, ch. 109). In its report this new committee admitted that it had relied almost entirely on the work of Adams and Bowdoin. It had “found it necessary only to add a few Observations which apply more directly to the present State of the Dispute between this Government and that of New York” (see No. VI, note 15, below). Since James Bowdoin, Adams’ colleague in 1774, served also on the 1783 committee, it is possible that the second group obtained a copy of the 1774 study from him rather than from some obscure corner of the Commonwealth’s archives.
      We have no way of knowing now how much of the material from Adams’ report was incorporated into the 1783 document, “The Examination of the Claim of New York,” but if one judges by extant materials used in preparation by Adams, the writers of the 1783 report omitted a good deal. And the survival of even this small portion of Adams’ work is accidental. The ill-fortune which dogged the 1774 report did not end with its rediscovery in 1783, for the report of 1783 was itself lost from the Massachusetts archives. The version printed below is taken from a contemporary copy donated in 1795 to the Massachusetts Historical Society by the heirs of Gov. Jonathan Trumbull. The interest of Connecticut people in the Massachusetts report no doubt stemmed from the colony’s own effort to justify its sea-to-sea claims through use of many of the same early charters and grants on which its neighbor had relied. Connecticut had suffered defeat in asserting its claims in 1782 before a special court constituted by the Continental Congress, but its leaders had not yet accepted that decision as final in every respect (Julian P. Boyd and Robert J. Taylor, eds., The Susquehannah Company Papers, 11 vols., Ithaca, N.Y., 1930–1971, 7:144–247, 258–260, 292–294, 314–315; 8:123–126, 138–139).
      Adams’ report was known to exist as late as 1786 when Massachusetts and New York commissioners met at Hartford to resolve their dispute over lands in western New York. The report, Adams learned, “was found, and delivered to the Agents for Massachusetts, who attended the Settlement of the dispute with New York. Mr. Rufus King has repeatedly told me, that without that Statement, none of them would have understood any Thing of the Subject, and the Claim would have been lost” (Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 3:303). In his later recollections, Adams added “Governor Sullivan, Chief Justice Parsons, Mr. Dalton” to the list of commissioners who informed him that they had “had” the report “in my handwriting” (WorksThe Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, ed. Charles Francis Adams, Boston, 1850–1856; 10 vols., 1:667; John Lowell, not Tristram Dalton, was the fourth Massachusetts commissioner in 1786). Yet although the report of May 1774 somehow survived the hazards of clerical misfiling and British occupation for at least a dozen years, there is no record of its whereabouts after 1786.
      Those portions of the report still extant only hint at the nature of the complete manuscript. “An Examination of the Claim of New York” (No. VI, below) doubtless followed the organizational method which Adams used in presenting the New Hampshire claim (No. II, below): a presentation of the rival claimant’s position, followed by rejoinders on behalf of Massachusetts, a procedure commonly used in courts of law. In dealing with New York, Adams was able to use recent, official statements of that colony’s case. For New Hampshire, having no such convenient outline of opposing claims, he was forced to prepare arguments to attack. It is a tribute to his conscientious research that the surviving fragment of his “An Examination of the Claim of New Hampshire” includes a reference to that province’s spurious royal charter, whose terms were all but unknown in his own day. It is clear, too, that Adams did not intend to confine himself to a discussion of Massachusetts’ rights in “the Grants,” for his extensive notes as well as his outline of the Massachusetts title show that he planned to investigate Massachusetts’ pretensions on the Maine frontier as well.
      But the heart of Adams’ report, the “State of the Massachusetts Title,” remains lost. It must have furnished the most useful material for the commissioners who traveled to Hartford in 1786, “to obtain from New York the cession of the Genesee country” (JA, WorksThe Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, ed. Charles Francis Adams, Boston, 1850–1856; 10 vols., 1:667), for it is obvious that Adams supplied more than a recital of dates and summaries of charters to prove his province’s case. Marginal notations on Charles Phelps’ “State of the Right in Fee,” which may have been Adams’ own, outline a disquisition on the law of patents and the alienation of property. And it was on this area of law that Massachusetts rested the argument that, whatever the changes in government or political structure in the Bay colony, its territorial claims remained as broad and sacred as on the day James I granted a charter to the Plymouth Company.
      The complete report, which gave John Adams his introduction to the intricacies of North American boundaries, would be an invaluable addition to his papers. Its apparent loss is the more to be lamented because Adams himself felt his labors on behalf of his province and state had amounted to little. In commenting on the settlement agreed to by Massachusetts in 1786, he remarked wryly: “The Decision was much less favourable to Massachusetts than it ought to have been, and the State have very unoeconomically alienated all the Land since that time for a very inadequate sum of Money. I wish they had first given me a Township of the Land. It would have been much more prudently disposed of than any of the rest of it was, and more justly. I never had any thing for my half Years service, not even Credit nor Thanks” (Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 3:303–304).


Title: II. Draft of An Examination of the Claim of New Hampshire, March – May 1774
From: Adams, John
To:

       March–May 1774

      The Claim of New Hampshire is founded thus.
      The Council of Plymouth, on the 19 day of March 1621, granted to John Mason, their Secretary, a Tract of Land from Neumkeag Naumkeag to Merrimack River. In the Year 1629, they granted him a Tract of Land between Merrimack and Piscataqua River Sixty Miles up each River, to be bounded on the West by a Line across from River to River. Both these Grants were united, and confirmed to Mr. Mason, by a new Grant from the Council of Plymouth, dated the 22d. Day of April 1635, under the following Description “A Portion of Main Land in New England, from the Middle of Merrimack River to proceed East ward along the sea Coast to Cape Anne; and round about the same to Piscataqua Harbour, and so forward up within the River Newichawanock, and to the farthest Head thereof; and thence North West ward till Sixty Miles be finished from the first Entrance of Piscataqua Harbour; and also from Neumkeag through the River thereof, up into the Land, West, Sixty Miles; from which Period to cross over Land to the Sixty Miles End, accounted from Piscataqua thro the Wewichawanack Newichawannock River, to the Land Northwest ward. And also all the South Half of the Isles of Shoals, together with all other Islands and Islets, as well imbayed as adjoining, laying, abutting upon or near the Premisses, within five Leagues Distance, and not otherwise granted by Special Name before the 18 day of April 1635 the said Tract or Portion of Land to be called and distinguished by the Name of New Hampshire.”
      King Charles, by his Letters Patents dated 19. day of August 1635 confirmed this Tract called New Hampshire, to Mr. Mason with Powers of Government and Jurisdiction as in the Palatinate or Bishoprick of Durham.
      Such was the Establishment of this little Colony, comprehending no more than about Twenty Miles upon the Sea Coast, and Sixty Miles Inland or in Length.
      In 1635 Mason died, and devised New Hampshire by his Will To John Tufton (to be called Mason). John dying before he became of full Age it descended to his Brother Robert Tufton Mason, who was not of Age, till 1650: in 1641 during his Minority, the Massachusetts, took the Colony , Supposing to be within their Patent, into their Protection, upon the Petition of the Inhabitants.

      In 1675, upon Masons Petition to King Charles the second, a Report was made by the Crown Officers in favour of his Title, and the King sent a Mandatory Letter on the Subject, to the Massachusetts Governor.
      Mr. Stoughton and Mr. Buckly were sent as Agents to England, to answer Masons Complaint, who, disclaimed all Right to New Hampshire; which being reported was confirmed by the King and Council 10 July 1677.


Title: III. Draft of An Examination of the Claim of New York, March – May 1774
From: Adams, John
To:

       March–May 1774

      In the Journal of the Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province Colony of New York begun the 5th January 1773 and ended by Prorogation the Eighth of March following, page 93 is “A State of the Right of the Colony of New York, with Respect to its Eastern Boundary on Connecticut River, So far as concerns the late Encroachments under the Government of New Hampshire,” which it is necessary to consider particularly, together with whatever has been Advanced upon any other Occasion, in support of the Claim of New York, Either to the Property or Jurisdiction of the Lands in Question.
      This State begins by an Attempt to establish the Pre-occupancy, or Priority of Possession of the Dutch, and prudently waives the Inquiry “whether Captain Hudson the Discoverer, acquired any Right—Whether he transferr’d his Pretensions to the States General—Whether his Conveyance was valid, or finally whether the Crown of England was not already invested with the Country, from the Discoveries of Sebastian Cabot as Questions foreign to the Purpose: Since it is not the Right, but the Priority of Possession of the Dutch, which is material and to be Supported.”
      But the Massachusetts can by no means agree to this—They think it is unquestionable, that the Crown of England acquired the Right to the Country from the Discovery of Cabot, which was made for that Crown and by Virtue under its Authority; that the Crown alienated its Right, to the Plymouth Company in 1620, and the Company theirs to Roswell and others in 1628—and that the Fee of these Lands has never been in the Crown Since 1620. And therefore that the Lands, are still the Right of the Massachusetts, unless N. York can Shew, that they were possessed discovered by Hudson by Authority from the States General, which was never pretended, or at least possessed by the Dutch before 1620, under Some Grant, Patent or Act of the States General as a Government or State—nothing of which appears.

      In order to shew a Priority of Possession, it is Stated that “in the Year 1609, Hudson first discovered the Coast between Marthas Vineyard and the first Virginia Settlement; and it then began to be minutely explored, and the Bays, Rivers, and Islands, ascertained and distinguished.
      “Hudsons River was again visited in 1610, and in the following Years by Dutch Ships, and their Colony Advanced with such Rapidity, that in 1612 they had a Town and Fort on the Island Manhattans, now New York; and in 1615 another Town and Fort, at Aurania, now Albany, 160 Miles up Hudsons River; previous to which the States General in 1614, granted a Patent to some of their Subjects with the Priviledge of an exclusive Trade in this Country, which they denominated New Netherland.”


Title: V. Additions to A State of the Title of Massachusetts-Bay, March – May 1774
From: Adams, John
To:

       March—May 1774

      Additions to be made to the Title of the Massachusetts.
      1631. The Merchants Map of Commerce. By Lewis Roberts 3d. Edition, printed in London 1677. first Ed. in 1637. page 55. “There is Dutch Plantation in the Latitude of 41 degrees, in a River called by the English Hudsons River, by the Indians called Monahaton; and by the Dutch (who have intruded into that Place, being within the New England Patent) called New Netherland; they have in this Place diverse Towns, New Amsterdam, their chief Town, Grave Saint, Flushing, and Middleborrough; also Fort-Orania, situate 40 miles up Hudsons River. Their Religion is like the Religion in Old Amsterdam, in Holland. Their Government Subjected to the Holland West India Company. They have usurped there a great Trade of Bever from the English Nation, notwithstanding the late King Charles in the Year 1631, did declare to the States of Holland his Discontents for such Intrusion; whereupon the States of Holland did disclaim the owning or countenancing of that Plantation, imputing it to the particular Acts of some private Merchants, and so left them to their own Protection, and to be ejected at the Kings Pleasure.”
      “The chief Commodity by which the Dutch engross and draw the said Trade from the Neighbouring Plantation, is Guns, Powder, shot and Rapier Blades, which Instruments of War have twice been fatal to themselves by two Massacres committed by the Indians upon them with the help of those Weapons, to the destruction of Half their People at each Time. And hath been also dangerous to the Adjoining Plantations of Maryland, Virginia and New England.”
      Purchas, his Pilgrimage. Book 8. Chap. 3. ss. 2. This is by Samuel Purchas, Parson of St. Martin’s by Ludgate London 3. Edition printed at London 1617. Sebastian Cabot reported to Ramusio that in the Year 1497 at the Charge of King Henry the Seventh, he discovered to the Sixty Seventh degree and a halfe of Northerly Latitude. Cabot discovered all along the Coast to that which since is called Florida.
      Purchas Part 1. B. 8. C. 3. ss. 6. p 924. Henry Hudson 1607. discovered further North, towards the Pole, than perhaps any before him. He found himself in 80 deg. 23 Minutes.
      Another Voyage he made 1609. and coasted Newfoundland, and thence along to Cape Cod.
      His last and fatal Voyage was 1610.
      1497The general History of Virginia, New England, and the Summer Isles &c. by Captn. John Smith Sometyme Governor in those Countrys and Admiral of New England. London 1627. Page 1st. But we find by Records: “Cullumbus offered his Service in the year 1488. to King Henry the Seventh; and by Accident undertook it for the Spaniards. In the Interim King Henry gave a Commission to John Cabot and his three Sons, Sebastian, Lewis and Sautius. John and Sebastian well provided, setting sayle, ranged a great Part of this unknown World in the Year 1497. for though Cullumbus, had found certain Iles, it was 1498 e’er he saw the Continent, which was a Year after Cabot. Now Americus came a long time after, though the whole Continent to this day is called America after his Name, Yet Sebastian Cabot discovered much more than them all, for he sayled to about 40 deg. Southward of the Lyne, and to Sixty seven towards the North,” for which King H. 8. knighted him and made him grand Pilot of England. Being very aged K. Ed. 6. gave him a Pension of 166:13:4 Yearly.
      A Description of New England, written by Sir Ferdinando Gorges Knight and Governor of the Fort and Island of Plymouth in Devonshire. printed in 1658. Page 30. But as Captaine Dormer, [(1620 Purch) a Note of Mr. Prince,] who, as I said, was coasting that Country, met with some Hollanders that were settled in a Place we call Hudsons River, in Trade with the Natives, whom the right of our Patent forbad them the Place as being by his Majesty appointed to us; their Answer was, they understood no such Thing, nor found any of our Nation there, so that they hoped they had not offended; However, this their Communication removed them not, but upon our complaining of their Intrusion to his Majesty, order was given to his Embassadours to deale with the States, to know by what warrant any of their Subjects took upon them to settle, within those Limits by him granted to his Subjects who were royally seized of a Part thereof; to which was answered that they knew of no such Thing, if there were any, it was without their Authority, and that they only had enacted the Company for the Affairs of the West Indies; this Answer being returned, made Us to prosecute our Business and to resolve of the removing of those Interlopers to force them to submit to the Government of those to whom that Place belonged.”
      1633 Hutch. Hist. Mass. Bay. p. 43. “A Letter from Mr. Winslow of New Plymouth Sept. 26. 1633. mentions their having been up the River (i.e. Connecticutt). They forbad the Dutch making any Settlements there and set up a trading House themselves. The Governor of the Massachusetts also this Year 1635 sent a Bark round the Cape to the Dutch Governor, to acquaint him that the King had granted the River and Country of Connecticutt to his own Subjects, and desired him to forbear building any where thereabout.”

      “The Commissioners of the united Colonies in a Declaration against the Dutch in 1653 say that ’Mr. Winslow, one of the Commissioners for Plymouth, discovered the Fresh River when the Dutch had neither Trading House, nor any Pretence to a foot of Land there.’”
      1635 Page 48. The Dutch also sent home to Holland for Instructions intending to maintain their Claim to the River, or the Place where they had Possession, but upon a Treaty afterwards with the Commissioners of the united Colonies, they quitted all Claims to all Parts of the River resigning it up to the English.
      1639 Hutch. Hist. Mass. Bay. 108. 9. 10. In 1639 the Massachusetts People were enquiring into the Bounds of their Patent, and sent Persons to find out the Northernmost Part of Merrimack River. A Line to run East from 3 Miles north of the Head of the River will take in the whole of New Hampshire. They determined therefore that it came within their Jurisdiction, and from that Time they allowed Plantations to be settled, particularly at Hampton, as readily, as in any Part of the Colony.
      1641 page 110. “The Massachusetts by extending its Wing over the Inhabitants of N. Hampshire nourished and cherished them for near 40 years and to this must be attributed the Growth and present flourishing state of that Colony. The Principal Inhabitants in 1680, when the Benefit was recent made a public and gratefull Acknowledgment of it.”
      British Empire in America Vol. 1. page 117. This Country was at first called Nova Belgia; and the Dutch, who pretended to the Propriety of it, included Martha’s Vineyard and Elizabeth Island: The former they called Henry Christians Island; and the latter Adrian Blocks, from the Name of two Masters of Ships, who, they say, discovered them: But it does not appear they had any Right to those Isles, or indeed to the Continent on Hudsons River, till they bought it of Captn. Hudson, who discovered it, and sold it to them about the Year 1608. which Sale being without the Kings Licence, was excepted against by the English; but there were no attempts made by them to settle here themselves, or hinder the Hollanders. The English, who sailed from Holland to the West Indies, and settled Plymouth Colony intended to take Possession of the Territories, lying on the Coast of the Bay formed by New Haven Colony, and Long Island; but the Master of the Ship being a Dutchman was bribed by some of his Countrymen to betray them, and land them further Eastward; which he did accordingly, and prevented their settling in Nova Belgia; where the Hollanders had begun to plant, but had been driven thence by Sir Samuel Argal, Governor of Virginia. They then applied themselves to King James 1st. who gave them Leave to build some Cottages, for the Convenience of their Ships touching there for fresh Water and Provisions in their Voyage to Brazil, under this Pretence, they encroached by little and little.”
      A Purchas Part. 1. B. 8. C. 1. America is a more common than fitting Name, seeing Americus Vespucius the Florentine, from whom this Name is derived, was not the first Finder, nor Author of that Discovery: Columbus will challenge that, and more justly, with whom, and under whom Americus made his first Voyage, howsoever after that he coasted a great Part of the Continent which Columbus had not Seen, at the Charges of the Castilian and Portugal Kings. But so it might more rightly be termed Cabotia, or Sebastiana, of Sebastian Cabot a Venetian, which discovered more of the Continent than they both, about the same Time first employed by King Henry the seventh of England, and after by the Catholic King.


Title: VI. An Examination of the Claim of New York, May 1774
From: Adams, John
To:

       May 1774

      1753. In the year 1753 a Committee of the Council of N York in a Report upon the Petition of Mr. Levingston and others Stated the Facts and arguments in support of the Claim of that Province relative to its Eastern Boundary.
      1763. In the year 1763 The General Court of the Massachusetts Bay ordered a very particular State of the Controversy between this Government and the Government of New York respecting the boundary lines between them to be preserved and printed in the Journal of the House in this State most of the facts and Arguments of moment on either side are fairly and fully recorded.
      1767. In 1767 a Conference was held between the Commissaries of the Massachusetts Bay and the Commissaries of New York at New Haven in the Colony of Connecticut where many of the Facts and Arguments preserved in the aforesaid States were again urged and have been since published.
      1773. In the Journal of the votes and proceedings of the General Assembly of the Colony of New York begun the 5th January 1773 untill by prorogation the eighth of March following page 93, is
      “A State of the right of the Colony of New York with respect to its Eastern boundary on Connecticut River so far as concerns the late encroachments under the Government of New Hampshire.”
      This State is now to be considered together with whatever has been advanced upon other occasions in support of the Claims to New York either as the property or jurisdiction of the Lands in question.
      N York
      It begins thus “In considering the objections which have been raised against the Eastern extent of this Colony to the Banks of Connecticut River the preoccupancy of that River by the Dutch will be of moment. But wether Captain Hudson, who was the discoverer, acquired any Right, Wether he transfered his pretentions to the States General, wether his conveyance was valid, or finally wether the Crown of England was not already invested with the Country, from the discovery which had been made for the English by Sebasten Cabat in the reign of King Henery the seventh” are questions foreign to our purpose; “since it is not the right but the priority of possession by the Dutch which is at present material and to be supported.”

      Massachusetts
      But the Massachusetts can by no means agree to this. They think it unquestionable that the Crown of England acquired the right to the Country from the discovery of Sebasten Cabet which was made, at the expence, and under the authority and by a Commission from that Crown, that the Crown alinated its right in 1620 and conveyed the Fee to the Plymouth Company: which Fee the Plymouth Company conveyed to Rosewell and others in 1628 and has never been in the Crown since 1620.—and therefore that the Lands belong still in Fee to the Massachusetts, or to the Heirs at Law of Rosewell and his Associates many of whom are now living in the Province.
      This Right in Fee would be clear, even if it was in the power of New York, to prove that the Lands were discovered by Hudson, under Commission from the States General, which was never pretended; or at least possessed by the Dutch before 1620 under some Grant, Patent, Diploma or Act of the States General as a Goverment or State, nothing of which appears.
      It is indeed said, in a Book intituled the British Empire in America page 117 “that the Dutch bought the Continent on Hudsons River of Capt. Hudson who discovered it and sold it to them in the year 1608” and by Mr. Neal that “this part of the Country was first discovered by Capt. Hudson an Englishman who sold it to the Dutch about the year 1608.” But the first of these authors observes “that Hudsons sale being without the Kings Licence was excepted against by the English” and the last says “that doing it (in selling the Country to the Dutch) without the Kings Licence it was reckoned invalid” and very justly for the Crown by the discovery of Cabat was undoubtedly so vested with the right to the whole Continent, that a discovery of a part of it a century afterwards by an English subject could give him no title. He could not therefore convey any to the Dutch and his deed if he made any was void.
      As to the priority of possession of the Dutch, this is not material unless it can be proved that the Dutch, as a State, were in possession of the Country—for the possession of a few private Dutchmen without any Grant Commission or other authority from their sovereign, merely as trespassers or intruders can by no rules hitherto adopted acquire any right or title, or be considered as within the meaning of Massachusetts Charter, where it excepts Lands actualy possessed by any Christian Prince or State.
      If the discovery without an actual and continued Possession of a Country vests a right in the discoverer or in the Sovereign then the discovery of this part of the Continent by Cabat vested that right in him or the Crown of England and Hudsons after discovery could be of no use. If the minute investigation of the Harbours and Rivers is necessary to give this right, then Hudson who never penetrated into the Country could have no more right to the Land lying back in the Country than Cabat by his prior discovery of the Coast. If the possession of a part gives a right to the possession of the whole claimed under the same title, then the Plymouth Company Rosewell and the Massachusetts have a right to all contained in the Charter not possessed by the subjects of other States claiming under authority of such States. If such possession is not so extensively operative the Dutch could claim no right beyond their actual possession which was only of 2 or 3 detached places and being without Grant Charter or Claim of particular limits can by no construction extend their right of possession beyond those detached places.
      New York
      1609. In order to shew a priority of Possession it is stated “that in the year 1609 Hudson first discovered the Coast between Marthas Vineyard and the first Virginia Settlement: and then began to be minutely explored, and the Bays, Rivers and Islands, ascertained and distinguished.
      1610. Hudson River was again visited in 1610 and in the following years by Dutch Ships, and their Colony advanced with such rapidity that in 1612 they had a Town and Fort on the Island of Manhattas now New York, and in 1615 another Town and Fort at Auranid Aurania now Albany 160 miles up Hudsons River previous to which the States General in 1614 granted a Patent to some of their subjects with the previledge of an exclusive trade in this Country which they denominated New Netherland.
      In 1623 they made a Grant of the Soil to their West India Company, who in the same year erected Fort Nassau, on the east side of Delaware Bay: and Fort Good Hope on Connecticut River, and upwards of 35 miles from its mouth, near to this ancient Fortress, the remains of which are still to be seen, the Town of Hartford hath since been built under Connecticut.”
      Massachusetts
      1613. † Sir Samuel Argal maintained the right of the English to the Sea Coast of the Whole Continent by clearing by force of Arms all Arcadia of the French; and by proceeding to Hudsons River, to remove the Dutch, but these submitted to his Authority acknowledged themselves to be Subjects to the Crown of England, and to the Governor of Virginia, and upon those Conditions only were suffered to remain. Their continuance there afterwards therefore, is evidence of the possession of the English Crown not of the Dutch State.
      There is very little Evidence of any Grant or Patent made by the States General in 1614 to any of their Subjects, with the previledge of an exclusive trade in this Country such a Patent has been often mentioned, but never produced, as it easily might and probably would have been or some extract from it, if it had not been known to be of no weight. It is true that Governor Stuyvesant in 2 Sept. 1664 in one of his Letters disallows the right of the English Crown to all the Lands in North America “by virtue” as he says “of a Grant and Commission given by my said Lords, the high and mighty States General to the West India Company in the year 1621” and afterwards he says “moreover it is without dispute and acknowledged by the World that our Predecessors by virtue of the Commission and Patent of the said Lands, the States General have without controul and peacably (the contrary never coming to our knowledge) enjoyed Fort Orange about 48 or 50 years the Manhattans about 41 or 42 the South River 40 years and the fresh Water River about 36 years.” The Dutch came not into these Provinces by any violence, but by virtue of Commissions from my Lords the States General, first of all in the year 1614, 1615 and 1616 up the North River near Fort Orange where they bult a little Fort, and after in 1622 and even to this present time by virtue of Commission and Grant to the Governors of the West India Company, and moreover in the year 1656 a Grant to the Honorable the Burgomasters of Amsterdam of south River.
      Massachusetts
      It is also true that De Laet, in his discription of the West Indias printed in 1633 and dedicated to King Charles 1st of England says, “anno 1610 Mercatores quidam Amstelloderneusis, eo (i.e. Manhattes) navem cum variis mercibus destinarunt; et, diplomate ab. illust. D. ordinibus confederatia Belgii imperato, quo, ipsis solis hoc flumen at vicinas regiones commerciorum gratia adire permittebatur, sequentibus annis hic cum barbaris commercia exercita fuerunt.”
      That a Diploma was granted by the States General, to some of their Subjects about this time was probably true. Their West India Company of which De Laet was Governor was probably erected about that time, and there might possibly be a Clause in it, by which this Company, or their servants might be permitted to go to that River (Hudsons) and the neighbouring regions for the sake of Commerce with the Savages, and all other Dutch Subjects might be thereby prohibited to go there for that end. But this is no grant of the Soil, and could make no title, to the W India Company if the States General had then enjoyed a good one to that Country instead of none at all—No “actual possession” therefore “was taken by any Christian Prince or State” by this Diploma of 1614.
      That the States General made a Grant of the Soil to the W India Company in 1623 is utterly denied. There is no evidence of it, except the random talk of Stuyversant in his Letter of 2 Sept. 1664 which is a contradiction to what he himself had written in a former Letter to the W India Company dated 25 June 1660 “that they our more powerfull Neighbours lay their Claims under a Royal Patent, which we are unable hitherto to do in your Name.”
      But if it was true that in 1614 the States gave a priviledge of trade to the W India Company, at Hudsons River and the neighbouring territory, and in 1623, a Grant of the Soil, yet it is plain, it must have been obtained unfairly, by false suggestions or misinformation to the States; and that the Inhabitants themselves had no confidence in their Grant, for in 1620 as Capt. Dermur Dormer was coasting at Hudsons River he forbad the Dutch the place as being by his Majesty Granted to the Massachusetts Colony, and they instead of claiming the Country appologized for their trading there, not finding any English there. author’s marginal note—1620 Sir Fred Gorg And in 1631 the English Embassidors by Order of King Charles remonstrated to the States General, against this Settlement being within the Grant he had made to his Subjects—to which the States answered they knew of no such thing—if there were any, it was without their authority, and that they only had erected a Company for the affairs of the W Indias, and disclaimed that Plantation imputing it to private Merchants, and left them to be yielded to his Majesty’s pleasure, author’s marginal note— 1631 Gorge and Roberts
      As to the Erection of Fort Good Hope on Connecticut River upwards of 35 miles from its mouth in 1623, Is it not improbable that the Dutch Factory, for it was nothing more at Manhattans might trade with the Indians upon Connecticut River and they might have a Flankart to their trading House or Stockadors or Palisadoes round it: But if they had they were English Subjects, and had expressly acknowledged themselves to be so, or they would have been removed, and their possession, was tortious and of short duration. After all neither the permission to trade at Hudsons River pretended to be granted by said Stuyversant in 1614 to the W India Company nor the pretended Grant of the Soil in 1623 can give a colour to the N York claims upon Connecticut River.*
      *If the antiquity of the supposed Grant to the Dutch W India Company should be urged against the necessity of producing the Grant as far as respects the Massachusetts in the present Controversy it is enough to answer that some evidence should be given of the extent of that grant which may be defined by lines which will exclude the Land in controversy, and probably do as they lie far wide of Hudsons River and the course of it.
      New York
      When the first War between England and Holland became inevitable King Charles the second by Letters Patent dated 12th day of March 1663, 4 granted to his Brother, the Duke of York, the tracts of Country which comprehended New York. To render this gift effectual, before the War was proclaimed a fleet and land force were sent out to remove the Dutch and put the Duke in possession.
      The Dutch Governor Stuyversant in his Letter dated the 2d day of September 1664 N.S. in answer to a Letter from Governor Nichols, in Augt. preceeding demanding a surrender of the Forts and Countries possessed by the Dutch under his command, denied the Title of the King of Great Britain to this part of America; insisted upon the right of the States General as founded not only on the first discovery, but on purchases from the Native proprietors, and a long peaceable and uninterupted Possession; and protested against every Act of Hostility as an infraction of the Alliance and Treaty of Peace then subsisting between his Britanic Majesty and the States General.
      But however clear his opinion of the right of the Dutch, in no condition to defend it, he found himself Obliged to submit to a superior power; accordingly on the 27th day of August 1664 he surrendered all the Country which the Dutch then possessed to King Charles the second.
      A Capitulation was previously agreed upon and granted for the security of the Inhabitants: By the 8th article it is declared, that all the People shall continue free Denizens, and shall enjoy their Lands, Houses, Goods wheresoever they are within this Country and dispose of them as they please.
      Afterwards the States General by the Treaty of Breda in 1667 made a Cession of this Country to the Crown of England.

      During the succeeding War between the two Nations, the Dutch in 1673 recompensed a part of it but by the Definitive Treaty of London in 1674 they again surrendered and finally yielded all their claims to the Crown of England.
      Massachusetts
      By the Grant to the Council of Plymouth all the Land between Connecticut and Hudsons River with other Lands was conveyed to that Company. By their Deed to Rosewell and the Charter granted by the Crown, the whole of that Land which lies between the Massachusetts North and south boundaries was conveyed to the Inhabitants of that Colony, and were never afterwards in the Crown or in anything of England.
      23d Apl 1762. King Charles 2d on the 23d day of April AD 1662 granted to the “Governor and Company of the English Colony of Connecticut in new England in America” and their successors “all that part of his Dominions in New England in America bounded on the East by Naragansett River commonly called Naragansett Bay where the said River falleth into the Sea: and on the North by the Line of the Massachusetts Plantation and on the south by the Sea: and in longitude as the line of the Massachusetts Colony, runing from East to West, that is to say from the said Naragansett Bay on the East, to the south Sea on the West part.”
      By these Grants, the whole of the Land, between the Rivers Connecticut and Hudson, to the Southward of the Massachusetts North Line were conveyed to private Persons, and Bodies politick before the extraordinary Grant to the Duke of York in 1663, 4, So that this Grant to the Duke was absolutly void: it not being in the power of the King or the Crown to vareate vacate its Grants formerly made any more than it is in the power of a private person to annihilate his own Deed duly made and upon good consideration. “Indeed such a dispensing power seems to have been, at that time claimed by Charles, and it seems to have been well known and understood that the Grant to the Duke interfered with the former Grants to the Massachusetts and Connecticut; and a Clause was accordingly inserted in the Dukes Patent in these words “Our Will and pleasure is and we do hereby declare and Grant that these our Letters Patents or the Inrollment thereof shall be good and effectual in the Law to all intents and purposes whatsoever notwithstanding the not reciting or mentioning of the Premises or any part thereof or the meets or bounds thereof or of any former or other Letters Patents or Grants heretofore made or Granted of the premisses, or of any part thereof by us or of any of our Progenitors unto any other Person or Persons whatsoever, Bodies Politick or Corporate, or any Act, Law or other restraint, Uncertainty or Imperfection whatsoever to the Contrary in any wise notwithstanding altho express mention of the true yearly value or certainty of the Premisses or any of them, or of any other Gift or Grant by us or by any of our Progenetors or Predecessors heretofore made to the said James Duke of York in those presents is not, or any Statute, Act, Ordinance, Provision, Proclamation, or Restitution heretofore had, made, enacted, ordained or provided, or any other matter Cause or Thing whatever to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.”
      This Clause it must be confesed if it had any force at all, is omnipotent however New York has hitherto been too modest and candid to contend that it has any validity at all. It is one among many proofs of a design in Charles which his professed advocates agree he entertained of subverting the English Constitution and rendering the Crown absolute.
      Governor Stuyversants Letter has been fully considered and answered before.
      By the Cession or more properly the Restitution of the Country to the Crown the request of it, and the final surrender in 1674 the Crown or King of England was only restored to the sovereignty or Goverment or Jurisdiction of the Country—no Tittle was acquired by this to the Fee simple of the Land. But the former Proprietors the Massachusetts and Connecticut Corperations were restored to their rights in fee simple Jure post liminii.
      New York
      It was the intention of the Crown that the Grant to the Council of Plymouth should not interfere with the Claims, and possessions of the Dutch in this Country, which were undoubtedly well known in England—is evident from a recital, to the following purpose.
      “Now forasmuch as the King has been certainly given to understand by diverse good subjects that have for these many years frequented the Coasts and Teritories between the Degrees of forty and forty eight that there are no other subjects of any Christian King or State or by any authority from their Sovereign Lord or Princes actually in the possession of any the said Lands or Precints” and also from a proviso in these words “Provided always, that the said Lands, Islands or any of the Premisses by the said Letters Patent intended or meant to be granted were not then actually possessed or inhabited by any other Christian Power or State.”
      Most of the Dutch Colony of New Netherland was, however included within the bounds of this Grant; it was therefore void for the false suggestion, and if it had been valid, the possessions of the Dutch were at least excepted and excluded by the saving Clause.
      The Council of Plymouth by their Deed dated 19 day of March in the 3d year of the reign of King Charles the first granted to Sir Henry Roswell and others all Lands from 3 Miles Northward of any and every part of Merrimack River to 3 miles Southward of any and every part of Charles River and of Massachusetts Bay (East and West from Sea to Sea) with all Islands on the East and West Coasts. Within this description also, part of the New Netherlands is comprehended.
      Sir Henery and his associates having found the design of planting a Colony thus became vested with the right of the Soil; but they still wanted the Powers of Jurisdiction or Government, which the Council of Plymouth never pretended to transfer.
      To remedy this inconveniancy a Royal Charter was Obtained dated the fourth day of March 1628, 9 incorporating them by the Name of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay with ample Jurisdiction and Powers of Goverment.
      But these Grants are liable to both the above objections. They are null as founded upon a void Patent, or at the best they cannot convey what was expressly excepted out of the Plymouth Patent by the proviso.
      If it should be pretended that the Charter from the liberal terms of the granting Clause invested a new Right in aid of what was conveyed by the Deed from the Council of Plymouth, it must be a satisfactory answer, that it also included an express proviso that if the Lands thereby intended to be granted were, at the time of the Patent to the Council of Plymouth, possessed or Inhabited by any Christian Prince or State the Grant, as to such part should be utterly void.
      Massachusetts
      Nothing can be more improbable than that the Crown had the least regard to the Claims and possessions of the Dutch, when the grant to the Council of Plymouth was made. The expedition of Sir Samuel Argall and the renunciation of all right to the Country made to him by the Duke Dutch—their request and his permission, that they might remain there, as English Subjects and under the Jurisdiction of the Virginia Company, as also the Voyage of Capt. Dormer in 1620 to Hudsons River who met some Hollanders and forbad them the place in the right of the Patent to the Council of Plymouth and their submission and apology to him were probably well known in England at that time as was K James’s Patent in 1606 when no Dutchmen had ever been in this Country. There is not the least probability therefore that the Crown had the Dutch in contemplation: But the Proviso is well known to have been inserted from a mistaken apprehension of the distance across the Continent to the south Seas, an apprehension that the Western Extent of the Patent to the Council of Plymouth to the South Seas might interfere with some of the Spanish Plantations on the Western side of the Continent—and at that time the English Court had no disposition to quarell with the Spainiards.
      Altho, all that has been ever called New Neitherland was within the bounds of this Grant, yet the suggestion was not false—The suggestion was “that there are no other Subjects of any Christian King or State, or by any authority from their Sovereign Lord or Princes actually in possession of any of the said Lands or Precints.” The meaning of which is plainly this “There are no subjects of any Christian Power at least none by any authority from their Sovereigns in possession.”
      This was strictly true for the Straggling Dutchmen at Hudsons River had no authority, from the States General, to take possession there, the form of expressions seems to intimate that they had the Dutch in contemplation as if it had been said “altho’ a few Dutchmen are settled at Hudsons River within said Patent yet they have acknowledged, subjection to us and our Virginia Company: and pretend no authority from the States General” to the Country, but only desire a liberty under the Dutch West India Company to trade with the Natives &c.
      That the foregoing is the only just construction of the Charter will appear manifest if we recolect the well known and settled Rules for the construction of Charters.*
      * And even if the supposed Proviso could be intended to secure the Possession of the few Dutch settlers who might be found within the limits of the Grant or Charter the present Lands in controversy would not be saved out of the Grant being neither settled or claimed at that time by any Dutchmen or others.
      New York
      We have great reason to Complain of the unwarrantable encroachments under the Authority of the Goverment of the Massachusetts Bay by which a valuable tract extending from Connecticut River, within 20 miles of Hudsons River, has been wrested from us.
      Their conduct seems the more inexcusable as they must have known the N York encroachments were not only disrespectfull to his Majesty’s Authority, and big with great mischiefs and disorders but were highly injurious to private property, great part of these Lands having anciently been granted to his Majesty’s subjects under the Great Seal of this Colony.
      So long ago as the year 1685 King James the second by Letters Patents under that Seal granted to the Ranselear Rensselaer Family the manor of Ranselaerwick extending from Hudsons River both on the East and west side 24 miles.
      Westernhook was Granted under the Great Seal of this Province on the sixth day of March 1705 and its eastern Bounds are about 30 miles from Hudsons River.
      Hosick was Granted on the second day of June 1688 and extends above 30 miles from the River.
      These several Grants cover the Country the whole breadth of the Massachusetts claim and not only offer the highest evidence of the ancient right and Jurisdiction of this Colony as far as the Controversy respect the Massachusetts Bay but authorize a Remark of no small moment, Viz. that with respect to the Lands included within such of those Patents, as are prior in point of time to the Massachusetts Charter in 1691 the Crown had clearly parted with its right under the Seal of New York; and so far had no Estate left to be disposed of, or upon which that Charter could have operated had its boundaries been ever so unquestionable and comprehensive.
      Massachusetts
      The Massachusetts have infinitly grater reason to complain of unwarrantable encroachments under the authority of the Government of New York by which not only a valuable tract of Land twenty miles on the east side of Hudsons River and in the part now in question, another Tract reaching quite to Connecticut River, but the whole Province of New York which lies between the North and South lines of Massachusetts to the southward of the Massachusetts North line which is all clearly within the boundaries of their Charter; and none of it, within the exception of Lands actually possessed and inhabited by any other Christian Prince or State, has been wrested from them.
      The Massachusetts however, mean not to complain or to dispute concerning Lands which have been legally relinquished by them, by their voluntary agreement for the sake of Peace. But they think that much more has been already ceded to New York than they had reason to expect on the East side of Hudsons River: the boundary between the Massachusetts and New York on the west side of that River yet remains to be disputed and settled.
      The charge of disrespect to his Majesty’s Authority is still more extraordinary. By this way of reasoning if the Governors and Pattentees at New York had been still more craving than they have been, and had patented out the whole Province of the Massachusetts Bay, the Inhabitants must have acquiesed in the Usurpation least they should be disrespectfull to his Majesty’s authority. The Massachusetts have been so far from being so disrespectfull to his Majesty’s Authority as to grant by pretence of their Royal Charter enormous tracts of Land belonging to other Persons or Bodies Politick that they have never granted extensive tracts within the indisputable boundaries of their Goverment to private Persons and particular Families to lye for ages uncultivated and useless to the Public. They have never granted Lands but in consideration of important services done or to be done by the Grantees, and upon condition of a speady settlement. Who has been the faulty cause of the Mischiefs and Disorders which have been committed. Who has been guilty of that rapaciousness and oppression which have occasioned Mischiefs and Disorders, the World must Judge and it is hoped his Majesty in Council will very soon be graciously pleased to hear and determine.
      The right to the Land in question must be determined before it can be known whose conduct has been injurious to private property.
      The Grant of Westenhook (otherwise Houssatonock or Skeffield) was made at a time when the Massachusetts were engaged in the settlement of it and in order to defeat that settlement.
      The Grant to the Ranslear Family and the Grant of Hoosick unfinished
      New York
      It is equally clear that the Dutch considered and claimed all the Country to the Westwards of Connecticut River, and as far Northward as the River St. Lawrence as part of their Colony of New Neitherland; and we find it so laid down in all the ancient Maps.*
      * See Ogilbys America published in 1671 and his Map at page 168 section new neitherland where the Country to the southard of the River St. Lawrence is called Nova Belgeia, five new Netherlands and the River itself is called Rio St. Lawrence, alias de groote Rivier van niew Nederlandt—see also Blaues Blaeu’s America published at Amsterdam in 1662 Vol. XI and his Map inscribed Nova Belgeia, et anglia Nova, see allso Johannes Van Kulens Keulen’s Atlas.
      Massachusetts
      To all this assemblage of Belgic Erudition the Massachusetts have nothing more to say, than that it seems to be levelled against the Province of Canada, rather then the Massachusetts, and that in several maps more ancient than any of these the whole Continent of North America from Virginia to St. Lawrence River is inscribed with Sebastian Cabots Country—see Churchills collection of Voyages. It is a Common thing for Map publishers to afix to their own Nation a larger tract of Country then belongs to it; this is observable in French Maps particularly such as represent No. America, in some of which the whole Country between St. Lawrence River and Long Island is called New France including New York &c. If maps were to determine it the French would have a better Tittle to New York than the Dutch ever had.
      Such misrepresentations in Maps are often made through Ignorance and often through fraud. There is an Edition of Dr. Douglass summary printed in London in 1759 to which is perfixed a new and accurate map of North America wherein the errors of all preceeding British, Frence and Dutch Maps respecting the rights of Great Britain, France and Spain, and the limits of each of his Majesty’s Provinces are corected, in this Map the several Provinces are tinged with different colours, New York is blue, and in their plenitude of Power, they have stained one third of the whole Continent with that colour. Almost the whole Country from forty to fifty degrees of Lat. and from Sea to Sea is coloured for New York, leaving only a few specks for New England, Nova Scotia and Canada. Against such practices as these there is no remedy, but New York might as well claim the whole discovery of Columbus.
      New York
      The descriptive part in both Grants to the Duke of York is the same—and comprehends among other Lands “all that Island or Islands commonly called Matawacks or long Island, together with Hudsons River and all the Land from the west side of Connecticut River, to the east side of Delaware Bay.”
      Connecticut River extends into the Country upon a northerly direction beyond the 45th degree of North Latitude, where we find its Head, Hudsons River in its general course is nearly parellell to Connecticut River, and takes its rise a little to the southward of that Latitude.
      The Duke continued Proprietor and chief Governor of this Province till he ascended the Throne, where his right was merged in the Royal authority: on his abdication it passed to King William, his successor, as Lord Proprietor and Royal Sovereign.
      Massachusetts
      The discriptive words in the Patent dated March 12th. 1664 are these “all that part of the main Land of New England begining at a certain place called or known by the name of St. Croix next adjoining to New Scotland in America; and from thence extending along the Sea Coast unto a certain place called Pemaquine or Pemaquid and so up the River thereof to the farthest Head of the same as it tendeth Northward; and extending from thence to the River of Kenebeque and so upwards by the straitest course to the River of Canada Northward; and also all that Island or Islands commonly called by the several name or names of Matowacks or long Island, situate lying and being towards the West of Cape Codd, and the Narrow—Higanseth, abutting upon the main Land between the two Rivers there, called or known by the several names of Connecticut or Hudsons River, together also with the said River called Hudsons River, and all the Lands from the west side of Connecticut* to the East side of Delaware Bay; and also all those several Islands called or known by the names of Martins Vineyard and Nantukes or otherwise Nantuckett &c.
      The Duke of York was so far from continuing Proprietor and Governor of that part of the Lands between the two Rivers of Connecticut and Hudson which lies between the Massachusetts North and South boundaries that he never was Proprietor or Governor of it at all, both the property and jurisdiction of it having been granted away before to the Massachusetts, and the Crown having no Estate left to convey. When James the second ascended the Throne the feudal Sovereignty of it devolved upon him, and upon his abdication it passed to King William but the Estate in the Land continued in the Massachusetts Corperation, and never passed to either of those Kings.
      * The Land here granted is from the west side of the Colony of Connecticut according to the line that had been, just before Viz. Decemr. 4th. 1664 settled between King Charles’s Commissioners and the Connecticut Commissioners. This Line would soon intersect Hudson River and would not include any part of Massachusetts to the East of Hudsons River.
      New York
      In the Duke of York’s Commissions to his several Lieutenant Governors, Majr. Edmund Andross on the first day of July 1674 and Collo. Thomas Dougan Dongan on the 30 of Sept. 1682 among other discriptions of the boundaries of this Province, are expressly comprehended all the Land from the West side of Connecticut River to the East side of Delaware Bay.
      King William and Queen Mary by their Commission dated the fourth day of January in the first year of their Reign, appointed Henery Slaughter Sloughter to be Governor of the Province of New York and the teritories depending thereon, the boundaries whereof to Connecticut River on the East by the above and many other Grants, Commissions and Public acts were, notorious.
      In all subsequent Acts and Commissions this Colony is discribed by the same General words “the Province of New York and the Teritories depending thereon” and its boundaries have never been altered by the Goverment here or at home.
      Massachusetts
      Commissions from the Duke to his Lieutenant Governors could not divest the Massachusetts of an Estate which they held and enjoyed by an antecedent Charter from the Crown and Indenture to Roswell.
      And it ought to be remembered that Andross himself thought the Massachusetts Title both to the Soil and Jurisdiction was good, and his Commission for New York extending to Connecticut River invalid; because being Governor of both Provinces at the same time, yet as Governor of New England, he maintained his Jurisdiction over the Lands on the West side of Connecticut River a great part of the Town of Springfield, and all Westfield and Suffield lying west of that River and having been under this Province a great number of years—Besides what reason can be assigned for the variance between the Commission to Governor Slaughter and those to Andross and Dougan? The Massachusetts new Charter was then in contemplation and preparing to pass the Seals. And it was seen that if the Commission to Slaughter should be in the words of those of Andross and Dougan, the Commission and the Charter would interfere. It behoves New York to shew a better reason for the variance if they have it in their power.


Title: From John Adams to Robert Treat Paine, 9 April 1774
From: Adams, John
To: Paine, Robert Treat

      Well Brother Paine!
      Boston April 9. 1774

     How does the Impeachment set upon the stomachs at Middle borough? Cant you steal a Moment in an Evening or Morning to write me a Line, by Kent?
     I asked Putnam, at Charlestown this Week, whether the Chief Justice would sit at Worcester. He says he would not advise him to attempt it, and that he has given that Answer, to all who have asked him about it, since he came down, of all Parties.
     The grand Jury at Charlestown, had it sometime under Consideration, whether they should do any Thing as they were, Summoned by a Writ, tested by Peter Oliver Esqr. They determined to proceed but to tack to their Indictments, a Remonstrance expressing their full approbation of the Impeachment of the grand Inquest of the Province, and their full Reliance that, the said P. O. would not set upon the Tryal of them. This was subscribed by all but four. The grand Jury had a few Things said to them by the Court, with much Moderation but they answered with great Firmness, that they looked upon their Honours then present, in the same Light they always did—but they did not think him a constitutional Judge, and if he had been present they should not have taken the oaths.
     Had a Letter, last Week from Cohass, from Collonell Judge, Clerk, Captain Fenton. He says that the spirit runs like wild Fire, to the very Extremities of N. Hampshire and that their Government is as determined, as ours.
     News, is the scarcest Commodity at Markett. Expectations are high. I want to hear how Things, are in your Quarter. Pray write me.

      I am, your Freind and sert,
      John Adams


Title: From John Adams to Ebenezer Thayer Jr., 25 April 1774
From: Adams, John
To: Thayer, Col. Ebenezer

      Sir
      Boston. April 25. 1774

     I have been so much absent upon the Circuits, since the melancholy news of your sons death that I have had no opportunity to take any notice of it till this minute. This must be a most afflicting dispensation to you and to your family. I sincerely condole with you and them under this unhappy loss. Your son was a young gentleman of a most amiable character, wherever he was known. His modesty and ingenuity, his prudence and discretion, his friendly temper and obliging Manners and his industry and careful attention to business, as well as his capacity for it had greatly endeared him to me and had made me conceive hopes of his becoming an eminently worthy and useful man. But alas! he is lost to his family and friends, as well as to his country and the world.
     It is our duty however to acquiesce under every event of this kind, as it is incident to the State in which we are placed and is directed by an invisible and inscrutable order, which we have the utmost reason to believe to be infinitely wise, just and good. This is not only our indispensable duty, but the consideration of it is an inexpressible privilege and consolation. That you and your family may be supported by it, under all your grief and affliction upon this occasion is the real wish and hope of your friend and humble servant

      (Signed) John Adams


Title: From John Adams to Alexander Wedderburn, 25 April 1774
From: Adams, John
To: Wedderburn, Alexander

      post 25 April 1774

      To Mr. Alexander Wedderburne.
      Sir

     Your Defence of Messrs. Hutchinson and Oliver before the Lords Committee of his Majestys privy Council for Plantation affairs, against the Address of the House of Representatives of the Massachusetts Bay, has arrived in Boston,: and as it is very curious, interesting and extraordinary, you will excuse a fair Discussion of its Merits, before the Trybunal of the Public.
     Whatever may be your real Character, in private or in public Life, (which however is better known in America than you imagine) you shall be treated, with all that Respect, which is due, to his Majestys Solicitor General.
     “The Question is, you say of no less Magnitude, than whether the Crown shall ever have it in its Power to employ a faithfull and Steady Servant in the Administration of a Colony”: But this is, begging the Question Mr. Wedderburn. The Question is whether Mr. Hutchinson is a faithfull and Steady Servant of the Crown. If he is let him be Supported, but if he is not the Petition of the Massachusetts Assembly ought to have been granted.
     “In the Appointment of Mr. Hutchinson,” you say his Majestys Choice followed the Wishes of his People! Do you mean, the good People in England Mr. Wedderburn? These for want of true Intelligence, are not competent Judges. Can you mean the People of the Province? If you do, I Sincerely pity you! You must have been deceived by false Informations; you must have been ignorant, to an unpardonable Degree of a Country and of Characters, about which you, dogmatise with so much Confidence.
     At the Time, when Mr. Hutchinson was appointed to this Government, he was the Object of the political Hatred of the Body of this People. For this I appeal to every Thing, which can be an Indication of their Sentiments. If We look into the Pamphlets which have been written, in this Province, for these last Ten Years, We shall find him to be the principal Object of Jealousy and Aversion. If We look into the Boston Gazette, which even Mr. Oliver allows to be the oracle of the People and a sure Indication of their Temper, We find that Mr. Hutchinson has been, more remarkably the Object of their Aversion, and Jealousy than any other Man.

     If We turn over the Records of the general Assembly, We find the House of Representatives, the most infallible Proof of the sense of this People, engaged for this whole Period, in an uninterrupted Opposition to him, his Views, Designs and Measures. In 1764 his Friends, exerted their Utmost Address and Influence and in Repeated Attempts to get him, appointed Agent for the Province, at the Court of Great Britain. But every attempt of this Kind was defeated, by the Popular Members of the House, though they had a most formidable Combination of that Gentlemans Family Connections, and all the Influence of the Prerogative, and the then Governor Bernards Friends to contend with. In 1766, his Character ran so low, with the People, that he was disgracefully discarded from the Council, together with the wholly united Phalanx of his Friends—and neither he nor they have been able to procure an Election Since that Time, tho repeated Attempts have been made in their favour. In the same Year or the next, upon his assuming a seat at the Board as Lt Governor, tho without claiming a Voice, Such was the Jealousy of his Ambition, and such the opinion of his Guile and Artifice, his Dissimulation and Hypocrisy, his falshood and fraud, that the People universally and their Representatives took the Alarm, and by a determined and Spirited opposition to him, defeated him in that attempt ascribing it to a “Lust of Power,” which those who know best Supposed to be his predominant Passion.
     After, the Departure of Sir Francis Bernard, Mr. Hutchinson assumed the Chair as Lt Governor, And every session of the general Court, nay almost every day of every session exhibited Proofs, of the aversion of the People and their Representatives to him, he not being able with all his Advantages, his Extensive Connections, his numerous personal Votaries who were attached to him because they had been promoted by him, and all his Prerogatives, to carry a Single Point of Consequence in the assembly.
     Let your Informers blush then, for their Disregard to Truth, who have led you to expose your Character, to the World and to Posterity, by saying, that the Choice of Mr. Hutchinson followed the Wishes of the People. If you, should take the Pains, to learn the true History of this Province you will certainly retract an Assertion, so entirely repugnant to Truth.
     I will not descend into more Particulars to shew aversion of this People to Mr. Hutchinson, which has been growing for Ten years past, unless I should be further called upon to do it. If I am I will, and I will undertake to prove, more of this Kind, than Mr Wedderburn can do, relative to a Strafford and a Laud, who fell Bloody Victims, to the Hatred of the People.
     I propose to do my self the Honour to accompany the solicitor General through his whole Argument, and to examine the Choicest flowers of his Rhetoric. But I shall take, my own Time, and follow my own Humour in it.

      A Disciple of Dr. Franklin


Title: From John Adams to William Woodfall, 14 May 1774
From: Adams, John
To: Woodfall, William

      Sir
      Boston May 14. 1774

     I had the Pleasure of receiving your Favour of the twelfth March, Yesterday, for which I thank you. Your Plan of a News Paper to pro  fess itself a general Channell of American Intelligence, is happily calculated I think, to Serve the Interest both of the British and of the American Public.
     If it should be in my Power at any Time to communicate to you, any material Intelligence, I shall be glad of the opportunity; but I have very little Connection with public affairs, and I hope to have less.
     Indeed the Treatment we receive from our Mother Country as we have always fondly called her, begins to discourage Persons here from making any Applications to her, upon any Occasion or for any Purpose. Intelligence, Evidence, Petitions are sent continually, and have been sent for ten years to no Purpose. We begin almost to wish, that Europe could forget, that America was ever discovered, and America could forget that Europe ever existed.
     The unexampled Blockade of Boston, is received here with a Spirit of Martyrdom. It will produce Effects Such as were not foreseen, by the Minister of State, who projected it, or by the abandoned Men in America who suggested the Project to him.
     Nero wished that the Inhabitants of Rome had but one Neck, that he might have the Pleasure of cutting it off, with his own Hand, at one Blow. This, as it would have Speedily terminated their Misery was Humanity, in Comparison of the Ministers Project of turning Famine into a populous City to devour the devoted Inhabitants by Slow Torments and lingering Degrees.

      I am, sir, your most obedient servant,
      John Adams

      P.S. The Commerce of this Town of itself, has been an essential Link, in a vast Chain, which has made new England what it is, the southern Provinces what they are, the West India Islands what they are, and, Affrican Trade what that is, to say no more. The World will very soon See, with Horror, that this Chain is broken by one blow.