Title: Instructions of Boston to its Representatives in the General Court, 17 June 1768
From: Adams, John,Boston Town Meeting
To: Otis, James Jr.,Cushing, Thomas,Adams, Samuel,Hancock, John,Massachusetts General Court, Boston Representatives,Boston Gazette (newspaper)

       17 June 1768

      To the Hon.james otis, andthomas cushing, Esq’rs; Mr.samuel adams, andjohn hancock, Esqr.;
      gentlemen,

     After the repeal of the late American Stamp Act, we were happy in the pleasing prospect of a restoration of that tranquility and unanimity among ourselves, and that harmony and affection between our parent country and us, which had generally subsisted before that detestable Act. But with the utmost grief and concern, we find that we flatter’d ourselves too soon, and that the root of bitterness is yet alive.—The principle on which that Act was founded continues in full force, and a revenue is still demanded from America.
     We have the mortification to observe one Act of Parliament after another passed for the express purpose of raising a revenue from us; to see our money continually collecting from us without our consent, by an authority in the constitution of which we have no share, and over which we have no kind of influence or controul; to see the little circulating cash that remained among us for the support of our trade, from time to time transmitted to a distant country, never to return, or what in our estimation is worse, if possible, appropriated to the maintenance of swarms of Officers and Pensioners in idleness and luxury, whose example has a tendency to corrupt our morals, and whose arbitrary dispositions will trample on our rights.
     Under all these misfortunes and afflictions, however, it is our fixed resolution to maintain our loyalty and duty to our most gracious Sovereign, a reverence and due subordination to the British Parliament as the supreme legislative in all cases of necessity, for the preservation of the whole empire, and our cordial and sincere affection for our parent country; and to use our utmost endeavours for the preservation of peace and order among ourselves: Waiting with anxious expectation, for a favorable answer to the petitions and sollicitations of this continent, for relief. At the same time, it is our unalterable resolution, at all times, to assert and vindicate our dear and invaluable rights and liberties, at the utmost hazard of our lives and fortunes; and we have a full and rational confidence that no designs formed against them will ever prosper.
     That such designs have been formed and are still in being, we have reason to apprehend. A multitude of Place men and Pensioners, and an enormous train of Underlings and Dependants, all novel in this country, we have seen already: Their imperious tempers, their rash inconsiderate and weak behaviour, are well known.
     In this situation of affairs, several armed vessels, and among the rest, his Majesty’s ship of war the Romney, have appeared in our harbour; and the last, as we believe, by the express application of the Board of Commissioners, with design to overawe and terrify the inhabitants of this town into base compliances and unlimitted submission, has been anchored within a cable’s length of the wharves.
     But passing over other irregularities, we are assured, that the last alarming act of that ship, viz. the violent, and in our opinion illegal seizure of a vessel lying at a wharf, the cutting of her fasts and removing her with an armed force in hostile manner, under the protection of the King’s ship, without any probable cause of seizure that we know of, or indeed any cause that has yet been made known; no libel or prosecution whatever having yet been instituted against her, was by the express order, or request in writing of the Board of Commissioners to the commander of that ship.
     In addition to all this, we are continually alarmed with rumours and reports of new revenue Acts to be passed, new importations of Officers and Pensioners to suck the life-blood of the body politick, while it is streaming from the veins: fresh arrival of ships of war to be a still severer restraint upon our trade; and the arrival of a military force to dragoon us into passive obedience: orders and requisitions transmitted to New-York, Halifax and to England, for regiments and troops to preserve the public peace.
     Under the distresses arising from this state of things, with the highest confidence in your integrity, abilities and fortitude, you will exert yourselves, Gentlemen, on this occasion, that nothing be left undone that may conduce to our relief; and in particular we recommend it to your consideration and discretion, in the first place, to endeavour that impresses of all kinds may if possible be prevented. There is an act of parliament in being, which has never been repealed, for the encouragement of the trade to America. We mean by the 6th Ann. Chap. xxxvii. Sect. 9. it is enacted, “That no mariner, or other person who shall serve on board, or be retained to serve on board, any privateer, or trading ship or vessel that shall be employed in any part of America, nor any mariner, or other person, being on shore in any part thereof, shall be liable to be impressed, or taken away by any officer or officers of or belonging to any of her Majesty’s ships of war, impowered by the lord high admiral, or any other person whatsoever, unless such mariner shall have before deserted from such ship of war belonging to her Majesty, at any time after the fourteenth day of February 1707, upon pain that any officer or officers so impressing or taken away, or causing to be impressed or taken away, any mariner or other person, contrary to the tenor and true meaning of this act, shall forfeit to the master, or owner or owners of any such ship or vessel, Twenty Pounds for every man he or they shall so impress or take, to be recovered with full costs of suit in any court within any part of her Majesty’s dominions.” So that any impresses of any mariner, from any vessel whatever, appears to be in direct violation of an act of parliament. In the next place, ’tis our desire that you inquire and use your endeavors to promote a parliamentary enquiry for the authors and propagators of such alarming rumours and reports as we have mentioned before; and whether the Commissioners or any other persons whatever have really wrote or solicited for troops to be sent here from New-York, Halifax, England or elsewhere, and for what end; and that you forward, if you think it expedient, in the House of Representatives, resolutions, that every such person who shall solicit or promote the importation of troops at this time, is an enemy to this town and province, and a disturber of the peace and good order of both

      Then the Meeting was dissolved.


Title: Committee of the Boston Sons of Liberty to John Wilkes, 5 October 1768
From: Adams, John,Kent, Benjamin,Young, Thomas,Church, Benjamin,Warren, Joseph,Boston Sons of Liberty
To: Wilkes, John

      Sir
      Boston Octr 5. 1768

     Your very obliging favor we receiv’d by Capt. Bruce the 18th ultimo. The members were immediately assembled and inexpressible was the satisfaction of our regale on the genuine sentiments of a worthy Briton.
     Your health your friends and cause were the toasts of the evening. We congratulated ourselves on our well plac’d confidence, and presumed much on the exertions of such a Martyr to universal Liberty.
     We feel with fraternal concern, that Europe in a ferment, America on the point of bursting into flames, more pressingly require the Patriot-senator, the wise and honest Counsellor, than the desolating conqueror. Your noble disdain of inadequate ministers and contemptible salary hunters has by no means impair’d our sense of the dignity of a Freeman, or the importance of defending his minutest privilege against the determined invasion of the most formidable power on earth. And did not a British affection and hopes of a speedy reform in British councils sooth and restrain a too well founded resentment; no one can divine what long e’er now had been the condition of the creatures of that administration which has fill’d Great Britain and the Colonies with high and universal discontent—Has almost unhinged their commercial and political connections—Has annihilated the constitutional legislature of this Province—Has turn’d our Parliament-house into a main guard—Issued orders to evacuate our Province Factory of its inhabitants to convert it into a Barrack for soldiers, after sufficient provision had been made elsewhere—And endeavour’d by pitiful art, and emissaries to effect what usurped and stretch’d authority dared not to pursue.
     Can Britons wish to see us abandon our lives and properties to such rapine and plunder? To become traitors to that Constitution which for  ages has been the citadel of their own safety. To acknowledge fellow subjects for absolute sovereigns, that by our example they may be the more readily reduced to absolute slaves.
     Is our reluctance to oppose Brother to Brother deemed a prospect of our submission? Or e contra is a mere presumption that indignation and despair must hurry us on to violent measures, ground sufficient to treat us with all the parade of a triumph over vanquish’d Rebels? Humiliating as this may seem, it is Sir, the case of a territory containing near four hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants, which has never hitherto produced a single Jacobite.
     With ardent wishes for your speedy enlargement; elated expectations of sharing in your impartial concern for your Country, the spreading empire of your Sovereign wherever extended: We remain—Unshaken Hero Your steady friends and much obliged humble Servants,

      Benj. Kent
      Tho. Young
      Benja Church Jr.
      John Adams
      Joseph Warren

      Numerous Friends in the Colonies discovering a great desire to see your Letter to us, we presume to prefer their request for your leave to its publication.


Title: Petition of the Boston Town Meeting to King George III, 4 April 1769
From: Adams, John,Boston Town Meeting
To: George III,Boston Gazette (newspaper)

     Boston, 4 April 1769. MS not found. Printed Boston Gazette, 24 July 1769. At the town meeting of 13 March, the selectmen reported the “steps” they had taken “for vindicating the Character of the Inhabitants” against the charges which had led to Boston’s quasi-occupation by royal forces. The town then appointed a special committee to “consider what may be still necessary to be done for vindication of the Town.” James Otis, Samuel Adams, Thomas Cushing, Richard Dana, Joseph Warren, and JA were assigned this duty. The committee made its report on 4 April, presenting “the Draft of a Petition and Address to his Majesty.” The town accepted the draft unanimously and ordered that a copy be sent to Isaac Barré. (Boston Record Commissioners, 16th ReportCity of Boston, Record Commissioners, Reports, Boston, 1876–1909; 39 vols., p. 272–274; for a discussion of the selectmen’s role in “vindicating” the town in early 1769, see Franklin, PapersThe Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, William B. Willcox (from vol. 15), and others, New Haven, 1959– ., 16:43–45; the letter to Barré enclosing the petition is printed in Samuel Adams, WritingsThe Writings of Samuel Adams, ed. Harry Alonzo Cushing, New York and London, 1904–1908; 4 vols., 1:332–336.)
     The petition reaffirmed Bostonians’ devotion to the Crown and minimized the significance of the demonstrations against the customs commissioners in 1768. After describing their vain attempts to learn the nature of the charges which had persuaded the King to station troops in the town, the petitioners closed with the request that George III would “be graciously pleased to give Orders that the Town may be favor’d with Governor Bernard’s Letters, the Memorials of the Commissioners of the Customs here, and other papers which must so deeply affect their most important Interests: That they may have the Justice of being heard, upon Notice by Council, upon any Matters of Charge that may have been bro’t against them; and of laying before your Majesty, and the whole Nation what they may have to offer in their Vindication.” JA’s contribution to the petition has not been ascertained.
     The town meeting did not order publication of the petition at the time of its adoption. However, on 4 July the town accepted, and ordered to be printed, a resolution which described the petition to the King in great detail. Only after the publication of the 4 July resolve did the petition appear in the local press (Boston Gazette, 10 and 24 July 1769). Isaac Barré presented the petition to George III on 2 June, but no acknowledgment of the appeal has been found (Barré to James Otis, 20 July 1769, Boston Record Commissioners, 16th ReportCity of Boston, Record Commissioners, Reports, Boston, 1876–1909; 39 vols., p. 298–299).


Title: Boston Town Meeting Committee to Benjamin Franklin, 23 October 1769
From: Adams, John,Boston Town Meeting
To: Franklin, Benjamin

     Boston, 23 October 1769
     Printed: Franklin, PapersThe Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, William B. Willcox (from vol. 15), and others, New Haven, 1959– ., 16:222–224. For the circumstances of the committee’s appointment and its correspondence with Franklin, see the preceding document.


Title: Committee of the Boston Sons of Liberty to John Wilkes, 4 November 1769
From: Adams, John,Otis, James Jr.,Adams, Samuel,Hancock, John,Dana, Richard,Warren, Joseph,Church, Benjamin,Kent, Benjamin,Young, Thomas,Quincy, Josiah Jr.,Boston Sons of Liberty
To: Wilkes, John

      Sir
      Boston Novr. 4. 1769

     Many unforeseen engagements, and unavoidable accidents, furnish us with our only apology for not transmitting a seasonable answer to your favour of March last. We flatter ourselves you will be so kind as yet to accept of our most sincere thanks, for all your noble and generous expressions of regard for the Colonies. We yet too sensibly feel the loss of every right, liberty and privilege, that can distinguish a Freeman from a Slave, not to sympathize in the most tender manner with you, in the conflicts you have been so long engaged in, and in the sufferings you now severely labor under, so far as we can judge, only for a firm and intrepid opposition to ministerial despotism. We easily perceive the causes and motives of that relentless and unremitted ardor and fury with which you are persecuted. It is not more for your own sake, than for the invincible resolution with which you have supported the cause of liberty, and of Mankind.
     With us also the laws seem to lie prostrate at the foot of power. Our City is yet a Garrison filled with armed Men, as our harbour is with Cruizers, Cutters and other armed Vessells. A main guard is yet placed at the doors of our State house. The other side of the Exchange is turned into a guarded den of Revenue officers to plunder our trade, and drain the Country of its money, not only without our consent, but against repeated remonstrances. The Military are guilty of all kinds of licentiousness. The public streets are unsafe to walk in for either sex, by night or by day. Prosecutions, Civil and Criminal against the inhabitants, are pushed with great rancor and rigor; while those against the troops, and the revenue officers, and their confederates are frowned upon and embarrassed, by every possible means in the power of those who are inimical to the rights of the subject. Sometimes small fines are imposed that tend to encourage a repetition of enormities. When every thing else fails a Nole Pros. is entered, and that power is claimed here, as an uncontrolable prerogative of the Crown; and by the Attorney General exercised with as little ceremony, or modesty, as in the reigns of any of the Stuarts. Such, without exaggeration, is the present wretched state of the once happy and flourishing City of Boston. Such in a degree, is the state of all our trading towns, and such in effect, is the state of the whole Continent: This would be intolerable had England been really at the expence of settling and defending the ancient Colonies: For even that would not have deprived us of the rights of men, or the freedom of Citizens.
     It may not be disagreeable to you to receive a short sketch, of our humble opinion, of the present situation of North America in some other respects. There has not been since the last War a Naval force stationed in St. Lawrence, nor in the Northern seas of America sufficient to cover a City from an attack of six sail of the Line. The forces are in a manner all drawn down to the coasts of the Ocean, in conjunction with an army of revenue Officers and a Fleet of small cruizers and cutters, to destroy your own commerce: And they are accordingly as greedy after their prey as if cruizing upon a foreign enemy.  The Indian Nations on the great Rivers St. Lawrence and the Missisippi, which are well known to surround all the British Colonies, are left at liberty to intrigue as usual with the French and Spaniards and to cut the throats of our back inhabitants at pleasure. Some in power here and at home ’tis said have hinted this as done by design to enforce obedience to the revenue laws. Something of the kind has been thrown out in the publications on both sides the Atlantic. What foundation there may be for the conjectures that Canada will be given up for partial considerations or interest, or suffered to fall a sacrifice to a few ridiculous Acts for raising an American revenue, which will never defrey the charge of collecting we know not. This however may be depended on, that the French and Spaniards are strong in the West-Indias: four or five thousand regulars from Old Spain have actually repossessed his Spanish Majesty of Orleans in the Mississipi. And we all know that a strong squadron from Brest with Troops have a chance of a passage to Quebec, while a Fleet if ready may be beating out of the English Channell. Forewarn’d, Forearm’d! The French and Spaniards never will forget nor forgive the severe drubbing they received in the last War. And from all appearances, it is much to be apprehended, the parties to the family compact are meditating some great blow, and are as likely to strike in North America as in Corsica. Perhaps that very expedition was the rather formed against that hero Paoli, but to whet their swords, and discipline the French slaves for the further carnage of the Sons of liberty. Where so likely to begin as in North America? And however light some may make of the loss of Canada, there is reason to fear, should the French ever be suffered to repossess themselves of that Country, the event would soon prove fatal to Britain, if not to the whole British empire. We have not thought it best to publish your letters: You are at liberty to dispose of ours as you think fit.
     That you may be soon fully restored to your liberty, your family, your friends, your Country, and to the world; and enjoy all imaginable prosperity, is the ardent wish and fervent prayer of the Friends of Liberty in Boston.

      James Otis
      Saml Adams
      John Hancock
      Rd Dana
      Jos Warren
      Benja Church Junr.
      Benj. Kent

      John Adams
      Tho Young
      Josiah Quincy junr.


Title: Committee Report on the Reasons for not Proceeding to Business, 12 June 1770
From: Adams, John,Hawley, Joseph,Adams, Samuel,Pickering, John Jr.,Leonard, Daniel,Mitchell, Edward,Sumner, Nathaniel,Hobson, Humphrey,Denny, Thomas,Massachusetts House of Representatives
To:

      12 June 1770. MS not found. Printed: 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.), 1770–1771, p. 25–32. Prepared by a committee appointed 8 June composed of Joseph Hawley, Samuel Adams, JA, John Pickering Jr., Daniel Leonard, Edward Mitchell, Nathaniel Sumner, Humphrey Hobson, and Thomas Denny (same, p. 24), and presented to the House by Joseph Hawley.
      Upon receipt of the House Address of 7 June (see preceding calendar entry), Lt. Gov. Hutchinson replied with a message which justified the legality of removing the General Court to Cambridge and urged the need to proceed with the session’s business (Mass., House Jour.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.), 23–24). The committee listed above was named “to state the Reasons of this House for coming into a Resolution, That it is not expedient to proceed to the Business of the Session while the General Assembly is held out of the Town-House in Boston; and also for adhering to the same.”
      On 12 June the House adopted the committee’s report, which recommended publication of the House resolutions of 6 June along with “Reasons for adhering to said Resolutions” which the Committee had prepared. The “Reasons” waived “at present . . . any further Observations on the Legality” of holding legislative sessions out of Boston. Instead, the report conceded the validity of prerogative when used “to the public Good,” but attacked Hutchinson’s policies as a misuse of power, unjustified by public need and contrary to the public welfare. The “Reasons” answered each historical and legal precedent Hutchinson had raised in his defense and closed with the claim that Hutchinson, not the General Court, must bear the blame for any inconveniences suffered as a result of the legislature’s refusal to conduct business while sessions were held in Cambridge. The report was adopted with only three dissenting votes (same, p. 31–32).


Title: Address to Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson Seeking a Recess, 15 June 1770
From: Adams, John,Cushing, Thomas,Hawley, Joseph,Adams, Samuel,Sheaffe, Edward,Massachusetts House of Representatives
To: Hutchinson, Thomas,Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony

      15 June 1770. MS not found. Printed: 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.), 1770–1771, p. 38. Prepared by a committee appointed and reporting the same day, composed of Thomas Cushing, Joseph Hawley, Samuel Adams, Edward Sheaffe, and JA.

      On 13 June the Representatives heard the Council’s address to Hutchinson which reiterated the determination of the House to conduct no business in Cambridge (same, p. 32–36). Hutchinson’s reply to the Council reaffirmed his position and was presented to the House on 15 June. The committee described above was then named to prepare a message to the Lieutenant Governor restating the lower chamber’s decision “not to enter upon Business out of the Town of Boston” and adding the prayer that if Hutchinson was “determined not to remove the Assembly there, he would be pleased to give Leave to the Members to retire to their respective Homes” (same, p. 37). Upon the adoption of the report, JA was named to the committee which delivered the message to Hutchinson. It was not until 25 June, however, that Hutchinson recessed the intransigent legislators (same, p. 38, 47).


Title: Reply to a Speech of Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson, 31 July 1770
From: Adams, John,Cushing, Thomas,Hancock, John,Leonard, Daniel,Adams, Samuel,Denny, Thomas,Gallison, John,Massachusetts House of Representatives
To: Hutchinson, Thomas,Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony

      31 July 1770. MS, fair copy, in the hand of Samuel Adams (MB). Printed: 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.), 1770–1771, p. 63–71. Prepared by a committee appointed 26 July, composed of Thomas Cushing, John Hancock, Daniel Leonard, Samuel Adams, JA, Thomas Denny, and John Gallison (same, p. 62).
      The second session of the General Court began 25 July with a speech from Hutchinson to both houses. He pressed his arguments for maintaining the legislature in Cambridge and urged House and Council to reconsider their decision not to proceed to business until back in Boston (same, p. 58–61). The following day the House voted to adhere to the resolution of 6 June (see calendar entry for 7 June, above) and to refuse to conduct business in Cambridge. The committee described above was named to draft an answer to Hutchinson’s speech and to notify him of the representatives’ decision to stand by their earlier policy. Before acceptance, the report was recommitted, and when resubmitted it was debated paragraph by paragraph (Mass., House Jour.Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts [1715–], Boston, reprinted by the Massachusetts Historical Society, 1919–. (For the years for which reprints are not yet available, the original printings are cited, by year and session.), p. 62–63). On 3 August, despairing of any cooperation from the General Court, Hutchinson prorogued the legislature to 5 September (same, p. 78).


Title: Committee Report on Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson’s Speech, 28 September 1770
From: Adams, John,Cushing, Thomas,Adams, Samuel,Foster, Jedediah,Denny, Thomas,Hancock, John,Godfrey, George,Warren, James,Hobson, Humphrey,Massachusetts House of Representatives
To:

      28 September 1770. MS not found. Prepared by a committee appointed 27 September, composed of Thomas Cushing, Samuel Adams, Jedediah Foster, Thomas Denny, JA, John Hancock, George Godfrey, James Warren, and Humphrey Hobson Mass., House Jour.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.), 1770–1771, p. 82.
      The third session of the 1770–1771 General Court, continued by prorogations, met in Cambridge on 26 September. The following day Hutchinson delivered a speech to the Council and House meeting jointly in which he catalogued matters requiring the legislature’s attention and urged proceeding “with all Diligence” (same, p. 80–82). On 28 September, Cushing “reported as their unanimous Opinion, That it is for the Interest of the Province, that this House still adhere to their former Resolution, viz. That it is by no Means expedient to proceed to the public Business” (same, p. 82). For House action on the report, see calendar entries for 4 and 5 October, below.


Title: Message to Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson on his Speech to the General Court, 4 October 1770
From: Adams, John,Hancock, John,Ingersoll, David Jr.,Adams, Samuel,Fuller, Samuel,Massachusetts House of Representatives
To: Hutchinson, Thomas,Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony

      4 October 1770. MS not found. Printed: 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.), 1770–1771, p. 86–87. Prepared by a committee appointed and reporting the same day composed of John Hancock, JA, David Ingersoll Jr., Samuel Adams, and Abraham Fuller.
      On 4 October, the House first considered the committee report of 28 September (see preceding calendar entry) which called for a reaffirmation of the assembly’s refusal to conduct business out of Boston. Instead of taking direct action on this recommendation, the House named the committee listed above to prepare a message to Hutchinson doing two things: seeking clarification of a section of his speech of 27 September, and demanding information concerning any recent instructions Hutchinson had received concerning the site of General Court sessions. Clarification was sought for Hutchinson’s mention of “Affairs depending of a very interesting Nature, which had not then during the June and July sessions of the General Court come to our Knowledge, and which may be determined before we can have another Opportunity of acting upon them” if the legislature continued to refuse to conduct business. The committee’s report was approved by the House and answered by Hutchinson the same day (Mass., House Jour.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.), 1770–1771, p. 80, 86–87; see following calendar entry).


Title: Committee Report on Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson’s Message, 5 October 1770
From: Adams, John,Murray, John,Gerrish, Joseph,Prebble, Jedediah,Adams, Samuel,Massachusetts House of Representatives
To:

      5 October 1770. MS not found. Prepared by a committee appointed and reporting 5 October, composed of John Murray, Joseph Gerrish, JA, Jedediah Prebble, and Samuel Adams. Murray reported the same day.
      In his reply to the House Message of 4 October (see preceding calendar entry), Hutchinson claimed he was “not at Liberty” to communicate the order in council of 6 July to which he had referred obliquely in his speech at the opening of the session. He referred to the “entire Approbation” the Crown had given to his transfer of the legislature to Cambridge and asserted that he was now “restrained from removing it to Boston” (Mass., House Jour.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.), 1770–1771, p. 87). After Hutchinson’s message was read to the House on 5 October, Murray reported the committee’s “unanimous Opinion, That his Honor’s said Message does not afford that Light which the House requested in their Message to him; and that it appears to them from his Honor’s Message, that he was restrained by Instruction, from communicating the same to the House in a Parliamentary Manner” (same, p. 88).
      JA was then named to a committee “to prepare an Address and Remonstrance accordingly,” but the Journal records no presentation of any such “Address” in that session; indeed, the need for such a protest was superseded by House action on 9 October (see Editorial Note, above).


Title: Committee Report on Naming a Day of Prayer and Humiliation, 17 October 1770
From: Adams, John,Danielson, Timothy,Warren, James,Massachusetts House of Representatives
To:

      17 October 1770. MS not found. Draft prepared by a committee appointed 16 October composed of JA, Timothy Danielson, and James Warren. The committee’s report, submitted the following day, was recommitted and, at the same time, JA was excused from the committee with Samuel Holten appointed in his place (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.), 1770–1771, p. 101–102).
      The original committee was instructed to prepare an Address to Lt. Gov. Hutchinson, “praying that he would be pleas’d to appoint a Day of solemn Prayer and Humiliation to be observ’d throughout this Province” (same, p. 98). There is no way of knowing how similar the committee’s draft was to the address on this subject adopted by the House on 23 October (same, p. 110). For Hutchinson’s discussion of the political implications of the House request, see Massachusetts Bay, ed. MayoThomas Hutchinson, The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts-Bay, ed. Lawrence Shaw Mayo, Cambridge, 1936; 3 vols., 3:244.


Title: Message to Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson on the Command of Castle William, 23 October 1770
From: Adams, John,Adams, Samuel,Warren, James,Hancock, John,Prescott, James,Massachusetts House of Representatives
To: Hutchinson, Thomas,Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony

      23 October 1770. MS not found. Printed: 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.), 1770–1771, p. 111. Prepared by a committee appointed 17 October composed of Samuel Adams, JA, James Warren, John Hancock, and James Prescott (same, p. 101).
      In his speech at the opening of the General Court’s third session (27 Sept.), Hutchinson announced that provincial troops had been withdrawn from Castle William and, by order of the Crown, replaced by British regulars (same, p. 81). The House expressed indignation at the “very false Representations” that presumably had persuaded the King to take this step and demanded to know whether Hutchinson still commanded the post or whether Castle William had been transferred from civilian to military jurisdiction (same, p. 94–95).
      When Hutchinson’s reply to the House (17 Oct.) did not satisfy the representatives, they named the committee described above. The committee’s report proposed a message demanding that Hutchinson “in an explicit Manner assure us, Whether you still hold the Command of his Majesty’s Castle-William.” Hutchinson’s reply is printed at p. 112–113.


Title: Message to Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson on the Style of Enacting Laws, 6 November 1770
From: Adams, John,Leonard, Daniel,Ingersoll, David Jr.,Adams, Samuel,Hawley, Joseph,Massachusetts House of Representatives
To: Hutchinson, Thomas,Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony

      6 November 1770. MS not found. Printed: 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.), 1770–1771, p. 134–135. Prepared by a committee appointed 2 November composed of Daniel Leonard, Samuel Adams, JA, Joseph Hawley, and David Ingersoll Jr. (same, p. 128).
      After voting to conduct business despite their removal to Cambridge, members of the House added the phrase “in general court assembled” to the usual form for the authority under which provincial statutes were enacted. The committee described above was appointed immediately after the House received Hutchinson’s protest that the “Stile of enacting” new laws would force him to violate instructions of thirty years’ standing which required the governor to allow only the form “by the Governor, Council and House of Representatives” (same, p. 128). The committee’s report of 6 November declared that the additional phrase was “of Substance, and necessary,” but the House did not press the matter. As Hutchinson pointed out, the representatives “sent for their bills from the council, took out the exceptionable words, and omitted them in all the other bills passed in the session” (Massachusetts Bay, ed. MayoThomas Hutchinson, The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts-Bay, ed. Lawrence Shaw Mayo, Cambridge, 1936; 3 vols., 3:226).

      JA himself referred to the matter as a “laboured controversy,” which he mentioned in passing in his Autobiography only as the inspiration for Governor Shirley’s remark on “this brace of Adams’s” who served in the House in 1770 (Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 2:54–56, 3:295). For a discussion of the usage of the controversial phrase in earlier provincial statutes, see Mass., Province LawsThe Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, Boston, 1869–1922; 21 vols., 5:139–140.


Title: Committee Report on the State of the Province, 16 November 1770
From: Adams, John,Cushing, Thomas,Hawley, Joseph,Adams, Samuel,Hancock, John,Worthington, John,Pickering, John Jr.,Warren, James,Whitcomb, John,Massachusetts House of Representatives
To:

      16 November 1770. MS not found. Printed: 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.), 1770–1771, p. 164. Prepared by a committee appointed 16 October composed of Thomas Cushing, Samuel Adams, Joseph Hawley, JA, John Hancock, John Worthington, John Pickering Jr., James Warren, and John Whitcomb (same, p. 97).
      In its report the committee dealt with the colony’s economic problems, recently aggravated by the Boston merchants’ vote to end the nonimportation of most British goods (for this vote of 12 Oct., see Massachusetts GazetteMassachusetts Gazette: and the Boston Weekly News-Letter., 15 Oct.). The House adopted the committee’s resolutions calling on members of that chamber to “use their utmost Endeavors, and enforce them their fellow citizens by their Example, to discourage Prodigality and Extravagance” and “to discourage the Use of Foreign Superfluities, and to promote our own Manufactures in the several Towns we represent.”
      Pursuant to these resolutions, Thomas Cushing, John Hancock, William Heath, Samuel Adams, JA, Ebenezer Thayer, Samuel Bacheller, Samuel Howe, and Benjamin White were appointed “to prepare a Plan for the Encouragement of Arts, Agriculture, Manufactures and Commerce, and report at the next Session” (Mass., House Jour.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.), 1770–1771, p. 164). No plan for the encouragement of manufactures was introduced at the fourth session of the General Court (April 1771), but see JA, Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 2:2, for an account of a meeting on 7 or 8 February 1771 of the committee charged with drawing up this plan.


Title: An Act for the Limitation of Personal Actions, 20 November 1770
From: Adams, John,Hawley, Joseph,Worthington, John,Hutchinson, Thomas,Massachusetts, Lieutenant Governor of,Massachusetts House of Representatives
To:

      20 November 1770. MS, engrossed copy, signed by Hutchinson (M-Ar). Printed: Mass., Province LawsThe Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, Boston, 1869–1922; 21 vols., 5:109–111. Prepared by a committee appointed 16 October composed of JA, John Worthington, and Joseph Hawley (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.), 1770–1771, p. 98).
      The need to regularize limitations on suits at law was one of the “important Matters” cited by Hutchinson in his plea to the House to resume business in June (same, p. 23). Legislation limiting such actions had been passed in earlier years, but had been “repeatedly suspended before it could have any operation” (Hutchinson to Board of Trade, 21 Dec. 1770, Mass., Province LawsThe Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, Boston, 1869–1922; 21 vols., 5:143; a list of earlier statutes on limitations of actions is printed at p. 109). The committee was ordered to consider “all the Laws relating to the Limitation of Actions, reduce them to one Bill, and report.” In the absence of earlier draft versions it is impossible to assess the contributions made by the House committee.


Title: Message to Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson on the Command of Castle William, 20 November 1770
From: Adams, John,Cushing, Thomas,Hawley, Joseph,Adams, Samuel,Hancock, John,Worthington, John,Pickering, John Jr.,Warren, James,Whitcomb, John,Massachusetts House of Representatives
To: Hutchinson, Thomas,Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony

      MS not found. Printed: 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.), 1770–1771, p. 171–172. Prepared by the committee on the state of the province, appointed 16 October (see calendar entry for 16 Nov., above).
      After its exchange of messages with Hutchinson on the Castle William controversy in mid-October (see calendar entry for 23 Oct., above), the House ordered the committee on the state of the province to take affidavits from Capt. John Phillips, former commander of the fort, and from Stephen Hall, former chaplain of the post (Mass., House Jour.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.), 1770–1771, p. 145). Hutchinson recalled that the House “gave him notice by a committee, that they should proceed to examine witnesses present at the transfer of Castle William, and that he might be present at the examination, if he thought fit. This he did not think in character, but did not think proper to interrupt them” (Massachusetts Bay, ed. MayoThomas Hutchinson, The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts-Bay, ed. Lawrence Shaw Mayo, Cambridge, 1936; 3 vols., 3:224).
      The committee report based on these investigations was presented in the form of a message to Hutchinson. As adopted by the House on 20 November, the message remonstrated against the Lieutenant Governor’s having, “merely in Obedience to Instructions,” surrendered command of Castle William, “a Power . . . which by the Charter is vested in him for the Safety of the People” and prayed that Hutchinson would “take effectual Measures, that the Power of garrisoning his Majesty’s Castle-William, may be restored to the Governor of the Province to whom it by Charter it belongs.”


Title: Committee of Correspondence to Benjamin Franklin, 17 December 1770
From: Adams, John,Cushing, Thomas,Hall, Stephen,Adams, Samuel,Hancock, John,Massachusetts House of Representatives
To:

      Boston, 17 December 1770. RC (MeHi). Printed: Franklin, PapersThe Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, William B. Willcox (from vol. 15), and others, New Haven, 1959– ., 17:301–304. Prepared by a “Committee of Correspondence” appointed 7 November composed of Thomas Cushing, John Hancock, Stephen Hall, Samuel Adams, and JA. Although “Boston” was used in the date line, the House was still meeting in Cambridge.
      This committee was “to communicate such Intelligence as may be necessary, to the Agent and others in Great-Britain; and also to the Speakers of the several Assemblies thro’ the Continent, or to such Committee of Correspondence as they have, or may appoint” (Mass., House Jour.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.), 1770–1771, p. 139). The first letter sent to Franklin, the newly appointed agent in London for the House, is the only one of the committee’s letters known to survive.


Title: Committee Report on the Petition of Gyles Merrill, 10 April 1771
From: Adams, John,Batcheller, Samuel,Noyes, John,Massachusetts House of Representatives
To:

      10 April 1771. MS not found. Prepared by a committee appointed and reporting the same day, composed of JA, Samuel Batcheller, and John Noyes.
      Gyles Merrill, pastor of the First Church of Plaistow, N.H. (formerly the Second Church of Haverhill, Mass.), sought the legislature’s consent to an offer from the Haverhill parish to grant him his parsonage in fee simple. The committee’s report, described as recommending “That a Bill be bro’t in to enable the North Precinct in Haverhill, to grant the Premises described in the Petition . . . notwithstanding any former Vote or Votes of the Town or Proprietors of Haverhill,” was approved. Batcheller was ordered to prepare the bill (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.), 1770–1771, p. 201). For the bill adopted in response to the committee’s recommendations, see Mass., Province LawsThe Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, Boston, 1869–1922; 21 vols., 5:121, with Merrill’s petition at p. 145–146.


Title: From John Adams to Catharine Macaulay, 9 August 1770
From: Adams, John
To: Macaulay, Catharine Sawbridge

     Boston9 August 1770. Printed: JA, Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 1:360–361. For Mrs. Macaulay’s reply, see 19 July 1771, below.


Title: Boston Town Committee Report on a Society to Promote the Arts, Agriculture, Manufactures, and Commerce, 29 September 1770
From: Adams, John,Cushing, Thomas,Hancock, John,Boylston, Thomas,Adams, Samuel,Warren, Joseph,Dennie, William,Boston Town Meeting
To:

     Boston, 29 September 1770. MS not found. At the Boston Town Meeting of 20 Sept., JA was named to a committee including John Hancock, Thomas Cushing, Samuel Adams, Thomas Boylston, Joseph Warren, and William Dennie to consider the “Proposal of a number of Inhabitants for forming a Society in order to promote Arts, Agriculture, Manufactures and Commerce in this Province.” The town meeting records for 29 Sept. show that “the Committee . . . not being present their Report which had been lodged with the Town Clerk, was not read, but the consideration thereof referred to the Adjournment” (Boston Record Commissioners, 18th ReportCity of Boston, Record Commissioners, Reports, Boston, 1876–1909; 39 vols., p. 37–38). No evidence of further consideration of the report has been found.


Title: From John Adams to John Lowell?, 15 December 1770
From: Adams, John
To: Lowell, John

      Dr sir

       Decr. 15. 1770

     Being generally Speaking a son of Liberty, notwithstanding the Cloud of Toryism that has lately, you know, passed over me, a Number of Gentlemen have retaind me, with you, in Defence of that great and inestimable Right, Liberty and Priviledge by Charter of digging Clams upon the Ipswich Clam Banks. The Proprietors of Ipswich have sued Varrill before a Justice &c.—Varrill will shew you the Copies. Will it not be best (if the Ptfs should enter) for unknown amount of text missingthe Proprietors will bring the next Action before the Superiour Court and have this great constitutional Question decided at last by the Kings Bench.—I wish you a pleasant and profitable Court and am with great Esteem your Brother

      John Adams


Title: Announcement of Changes of Address of John Adams’ Law Office, 22 April 1771
From: Adams, John
To:

       Boston, 22 April 1771

     John Adams,
     Notifies the Removal of his Office to a Room in Queen-Street, in the House of Mr. John Gill, within a few Steps of the New Court-House, but on the opposite Side of the Street.


Title: To John Adams from Catharine Macaulay, 19 July 1771
From: Macaulay, Catharine
To: Adams, John

      Sr
      London July 19. 1771

     A very laborious attention to the finishing the fifth vol of my history of England with a severe fever of five months duration the consequence of that attention has hitherto deprived me of the opportunity of answering your very polite letter of August 9. 1770.
     Your observations of the history of England are highly favorable and flattering to the Author but you must give me leave to say that on the principle of having a right to treat your own performances with freedom you have not done common justice to the work entitled a Dissertation on the Common and the feudal laws.
     I am really very much concerned to hear that you labor under the heavy misfortune of a weak and infirm state of health. I simpathise with you in body and mind having rarely any alternative from either labor or pain.
     A correspondence with so worthy and ingenious a person as your self Sr will ever be prised by me as part of the happiness of my life.
     I wish to your numerous family continued health and prosperity and to you every other blessing which can ballance the unavoidable evils attending our human existence.

      I am Sr with esteem regard and gratitude Your most Obed And most obliged humble Servt
      Catharine Macaulay


Title: Draft of a Newspaper Communication, 9 February 1772
From: Adams, John
To:

     9 February 1772. Printed: JA, Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 2:53–54


Title: The Brace of Adamses, 9 February 1772
From: Adams, John
To:

     9 February 1772. Printed: JA, Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 2:54–56.


Title: To John Adams from William Whipple, 13 February 1772
From: Whipple, William
To: Adams, John

     Portsmouth, 13 February 1772. RC (Adams Papers); addressed: “To John Adams Esqr. at Boston favoured P Mr. Cutts”; endorsed. Whipple gives directions for litigation in the admiralty cases involving himself and Cutt. See entry for 27 Jan., above.


Title: Notes for an Oration at Braintree Concerning Government, 2 March – 18 May 1772
From: Adams, John
To:

     Braintree, 2 March – 18 May 1772.. Printed: JA, Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 2:56–61.


Title: To John Adams from Nathaniel Freeman, 4 October 1772
From: Freeman, Nathaniel
To: Adams, John

     Sandwich, 4 October 1772. RC (MiU-C); addressed to John Adams in Boston; endorsed. Freeman notifies Adams that he is appealing a case to the Superior Court and urges Adams, who has been his attorney, not to “take up against me.” Adams’ one-sentence reply that he is “ready to engage for him” is on the verso.


Title: From John Adams to Catharine Macaulay, 31 December 1772
From: Adams, John
To: Macaulay, Catharine Sawbridge

     Boston31 December 1772. Printed: JA, Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 2:75–76.


Title: Editorial Note
From:
To:

      The issue addressed by John Adams and William Brattle in this exchange in the pages of the Boston Gazette was a narrow one: the degree to which English judges had historically been dependent upon the Crown and its ministers. But this question arose as part of a broader debate in contemporary Massachusetts politics: the provision for Bay Colony judges in the royal civil list. The General Court had registered strong protests in 1771 when it became known that the governor was to receive his salary from the Crown rather than from the provincial legislature (see Adams’ Service in the House, 7 June 1770–16 April 1771, 2d calendar entry for 10 April 1771, above). Opposition to this extension of the civil list, however, was comparatively mild, for, as one historian has remarked, “it was at least logical that the King’s servant be paid by the King” (Brown, Revolutionary PoliticsRichard D. Brown, Revolutionary Politics in Massachusetts: The Boston Committee of Correspondence and the Towns, 1772–1774, Cambridge, 1970., p. 52). That moderation ended when Boston received reports in the fall of 1772 that superior court judges were to get crown salaries as well.
      The Boston town meeting took the lead in investigating these reports and exploiting them as a political issue. After vain attempts to obtain clarification of the rumors from Governor Hutchinson, the town met on 2 November and named a committee of correspondence “to communicate their Sentiment to other towns” (Boston Record Commissioners, 18th ReportCity of Boston, Record Commissioners, Reports, Boston, 1876–1909; 39 vols., p. 93; for an able summary of the exchanges between the town meeting and Hutchinson, Oct.–Nov. 1772, see Brown, Revolutionary PoliticsRichard D. Brown, Revolutionary Politics in Massachusetts: The Boston Committee of Correspondence and the Towns, 1772–1774, Cambridge, 1970., p. 48–57; see also Editorial Note, The Constitutional Debate between Thomas Hutchinson and the Massachusetts House, 26 Jan. – 2 March 1773, below). The committee’s work bore fruit in Boston’s adoption of two reports on rights and an accompanying letter for other Massachusetts towns, all bound together as The Votes and Proceedings of the Town of Boston. This pamphlet soon brought action in Cambridge.
      A number of freeholders petitioned the Cambridge selectmen for a town meeting at which the issue of crown salaries for the judges might be discussed. The warrant for the meeting on 14 December included an article responding to the petition. When the town met, Maj. Gen. William Brattle, widely regarded as a staunch defender of colonial liberties, was elected moderator.
      At the meeting Brattle displayed a startling political about-face. A wealthy landowner who had dabbled in medicine, theology, and the law before winning recognition as a military administrator, Brattle emerged that day as a defender of crown measures. (For a sketch of Brattle, see Sibley-Shipton, Harvard GraduatesJohn Langdon Sibley and Clifford K. Shipton, Biographical Sketches of Graduates of Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Cambridge and Boston, 1873– ., 7:10–23.) More than forty years later, Adams described him as one who, before the Cambridge meeting of December 1772, “had acquired great popularity by his zeal, and I must say, by his indiscreet and indecorous ostentation of it, against the measures of the British government.” He ascribed Brattle’s conversion to Hutchinson, and especially to Jonathan Sewall (to Jedediah Morse, 22 Dec. 1815, JA, 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., 10:194).
      Although Adams’ explanation of the General’s behavior may well be oversimplified, there is no doubt that a conversion had taken place. Brattle used all his considerable authority and influence to discourage discussion of the judges’ salaries at the Cambridge meeting. When the letter from the Boston town meeting was read, he objected to taking any action on the communication, for the article in the warrant had not specifically mentioned the letter from Boston.
      Brattle’s objections were not limited to technicalities. He argued that the town would be “too premature in acting upon this matter at present” and that the next packet from England would probably “give us more light in the affair.” As it was, he continued, “no man in the province could say whether the salaries granted to the judges were durante bene placito, or quamdiu bene se gesserint, as the judges of England have their salaries granted them.” Brattle told the meeting that he “supposed” the salaries were to be granted in the latter fashion, that is, during good behavior, and argued that this would make the judges “independent both upon the king and the people.” He was “very far from thinking there was any necessity of having quamdiu bene se gesserint in their commissions; for they have their commissions now by that tenure as truly as if said words were in,” He closed his arguments for accepting the new method which he supposed would govern the judges’ salaries by remarking “that by the charter and common law of England, there is no necessity of their having any commission at all; a nomination and appointment recorded is enough; nomination and appointment are the words of the charter, a commission for them not so much as mentioned in it” (Brattle to the Massachusetts GazetteMassachusetts Gazette: and the Boston Weekly News-Letter., 16 Dec.; 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., 3:516–517).
      Brattle’s harangue had little effect. The town appointed a committee of correspondence and adopted instructions to the Cambridge representative, Thomas Gardner, which described the judges’ salaries as “so great a Grievance, especially when added to the many other Grievances we have been so long groaning under, as to be almost insupportable” (Boston Gazette, 21 Dec.).
      Here the matter might have ended had not Brattle decided to live up to his promise to protest the illegality of any action on the Boston letter. Within days of the Cambridge meeting he carried the dispute to the press, summarizing his town meeting oration in a letter dated 26 December and published in the Massachusetts GazetteMassachusetts Gazette: and the Boston Weekly News-Letter. of 31 December. When his position was questioned in the Boston Gazette, Brattle replied in the Massachusetts GazetteMassachusetts Gazette: and the Boston Weekly News-Letter. on 7 January, offering to answer those who had leisure to dispute the line of argument he had laid down.
      In his autobiographical writings, Adams offers two slightly different versions of why he decided to enter the dispute. In his Diary, he mentions Brattle’s publication of 31 December as one of the topics of conversation for Adams’ friends the next evening. Adams neglected his Diary for the next nine weeks, and on resuming on 4 March, he explained: “The two last Months have slided away. I have written a tedious Examination of Brattle’s absurdities.” Adams described Brattle’s pieces in the newspapers of 31 December and 7 January as “vain and frothy Harrangues and Scribblings,” which “would have had no Effect upon me, if I had not seen that his Ignorant Doctrines were taking Root in the Minds of the People” (Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 2:77–78). This explanation, which implies that Adams did not begin drafting his reply to Brattle until he had seen the Massachusetts GazetteMassachusetts Gazette: and the Boston Weekly News-Letter. of 7 January, seems unlikely since Adams’ first essay appeared in the Boston Gazette on 11 January.
      Adams had more personal reasons for accepting Brattle’s challenge. During the Cambridge meeting, Adams recalled, Brattle had said the complete independence of the judges “I averr to be Law, and I will maintain it, against any Body, I will dispute it, with Mr. Otis, Mr. Adams, Mr. John Adams I mean, and Mr. Josiah Quincy. I would dispute with them, here in Town Meeting, nay, I will dispute it with them in the Newspapers” (sameDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 2:78).
      In his Autobiography, Adams recalled that perhaps he would have said nothing publicly about Brattle’s argument had Brattle not “the Week before . . . challenged me by name, to dispute the point with him” (sameDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 3:297). This version, which suggests that Adams accepted the challenge as soon as he saw Brattle’s essay in the Massachusetts GazetteMassachusetts Gazette: and the Boston Weekly News-Letter. of 31 December, is more credible. Of course, Adams could have completed two or more of his essays before the first was printed in the Gazette; any more precise dating is impossible considering the complete lack of manuscript versions of Adams’ essays and of any dates appended to the published letters. All of Adams’ contributions printed below are taken from the Gazette and are given the dates on which they appeared in that paper.
      Before he had answered Brattle to his own satisfaction, Adams produced seven learned essays. These appeared in weekly installments along with Brattle’s only contribution to the debate he had courted so eagerly. Probably the General despaired of defending himself against Adams’ “torrents of law, records and history.” Adams himself did not know whether Brattle’s failure to write more rose “from Conviction, or from Policy, or Contempt” (same, 2:78). And although Adams dismissed his own effort as a “tedious Examination,” one suspects that he relished the “delightful work of quotation,” at times losing sight of his opponent in his enthusiasm for exhausting every legal consideration.
      These essays, published without title in 1773, appear in Charles Francis Adams’ edition of his grandfather’s works under the title “On the Independence of the Judiciary” (JA, 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., 3:519–574). John Adams himself, however, referred to them consistently as being “On the Independence of the Judges” (to Cotton Tufts, 3 May 1789, MH:Schaffner Collection; Diary and AutobiographyDiary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L. H. Butterfield and others, Cambridge, 1961; 4 vols., 3:298). The present editors have chosen to revive Adams’ title.
      More accurately, Adams should have called his essays “On the Dependence of the Judges,” for he employed English history and legal treatises to demonstrate that the celebrated “independence” of the judiciary was a comparatively recent innovation, resting on limited statute law rather than on common law or time-honored tradition, as Brattle had claimed. Adams left his readers to draw their own conclusions about the dangers of such a system.
      These lessons were all the more obvious to his audience since Adams’ newspaper series coincided with a full-scale debate between the Governor and the House on constitutional issues involving the judiciary. In the weeks in which he penned the concluding numbers of his series, he was engaged as well, but not publicly, in drafting the central portions of the replies of the House to Governor Hutchinson on the broader issues raised by the prospect of crown salaries for the judges (see 26 Jan. – 2 March 1773, below). These newspaper pieces, to which Adams signed his name, are the first public papers since “Sui Juris” (23 May 1768, above) which he is known to have composed as an individual, rather than as a member of a public committee.
      The moral of these essays, the need for a judiciary whose independence was guarded from changing public opinion and legislative whim, proved clearer to Adams than to his countrymen. Shortly after taking office as vice president, Adams suggested that his letters to Brattle be republished. Sixteen years after accepting the General’s challenge, Adams reflected ruefully, the essays “contain Information that is much wanted. The Constitutional learning on that head is very little known, excepting to those few who read those Letters in their Season. Younger Gentlemen and the rising Generation, know nothing of it, and nothing is of more Importance and Necessity, in order to establish the New Government. . . . Many of the States have their Judges elective, annually, an awful defect in any Constitution” (to Cotton Tufts, 3 May 1789, MH:Schaffner Collection).


Title: I. To the Boston Gazette, 11 January 1773
From: Adams, John
To: Boston Gazette (newspaper)

        Monday, January 11, 1773

       To the PRINTERS.

      GENERAL BRATTLE, by his rank, station and character, is intituled to politeness and respect, even when he condescends to harrangue in town-meeting, or to write in a news-paper: But the same causes require that his sentiments when erroneous and of dangerous tendency, should be considered, with entire freedom, and the examination be made as public, as the error. He cannot therefore take offence at any gentleman for offering his thoughts to the public, with decency and candor, tho’ they may differ from his own.
      In this confidence, I have presum’d to publish a few observations, which have occured to me, upon reading his narration of the proceedings of the late town meeting at Cambridge. It is not my intention to remark upon all things in that publication, which I think exceptionable, but only on a few which I think the most so.
      The General is pleased to say, “That no man in the province could say whether the salaries granted to the Judges were durante bene placito, or quam diu bene se gesserint, as the Judges of England have their salaries granted them.” “I supposed the latter, tho’ these words were not expressed, but necessarily implied.” This is said upon the supposition, that salaries are granted by the crown to the judges.
      Now, it is not easy to conceive, how the General or any man in the province could be at a loss to say, upon supposition that salaries are granted, whether they are granted in the one way or the other. If salaries are granted by the crown, they must be granted, in such a manner as the crown has power to grant them. Now it is utterly deny’d, that the crown has power to grant them, in any other manner than durante bene placito.
      The power of the crown to grant salaries to any judges in America is derived solely from the late act of parliament, and that gives no  power to grant salaries for life, or during good behaviour. But not to enlarge upon this at present.
      The General proceeds. “I was very far from thinking there was any necessity of having quam diu bene se gesserint in their commissions: For they have their commissions now by that tenure, as truly as if said words were in:”
      It is the wish of almost all good men, that this was good law. This country would be forever obliged to any gentleman who would prove this point from good authorities, to the conviction of all concerned in the administration of government, here and at home. But I must confess that, my veneration for General Brattle’s authority, by no means prevails with me, to give credit to this doctrine. Nor do his reasons in support of it, weigh with me, even so much as his authority. He says, “What right, what estate vests in them, (i.e. the Judges,) in consequence of their nomination and appointment, the common law of England, the Birth-right of every man here, as well as at home, determines, and that is an estate for life, provided they behave well:” I must confess I read these words with surprize and grief. And the more I have reflected upon them the more these sentiments have increased in my mind.
      The common law of England is so far from determining, that the Judges have an estate for life in their offices, that it has determined the direct contrary. The proofs of this are innumerable and irresistable. My Ld. Coke in his 4th institute, 74, says, “Before the reign of E. 1. the chief justice of this court, was created by letters patents, and the form thereof (taking one for all) was in these words.
      “Rex, &c. Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibus, Prioribus, Comitibus, Baronibus, Vice-comitibus, Forestariis, et omnibus aliis fidelibus Regni Angliae, salutem, cum pro Conservatione nostra, et tranquilitatis Regni nostri, et ad Justitiam universis et singulis de Regno nostro exhibendum constituerimus dilectum et fidelem nostrum Philippum Basset Justiciarium Angliae quam diu nobis placuerit capitalem.—&c.”
      And my Lord Coke says, afterwards in the same page, “King E. I. being a wise and prudent prince, knowing that cui plus licet quam par est plus vult quam licet (as most of the summi justiciarii did) made three alterations, 1. By limitation of his authority. 2. By changing summus justiciarius to capitalis justiciarius. 3. By a new kind of creation, viz. by writ, lest if he had continued his former manner of creation, he might have had a desire of his former authority, which three do expressly appear by the writ, yet in use, viz. Rex, &c. E.C. militi salutem, sciatis quod constitumus vos justiciarium nostrum capitalem, ad placita coram nobis tenenda, durante beneplacito nostro teste, &c.” Afterwards in the same page Ld. Coke observes, “it is a rule in law, that ancient offices must be granted in such forms and in such manner, as they have been used to be unless the alteration were by authority of parliament. And continual experience approveth, that for many successions of ages without intermission, they have been, and yet are called by the said writ.” His Lordship informs us, also in the same page, that “the rest of the Judges of the King’s bench have their offices by letters patent in these words. Rex omnibus ad quos presentes literae pervenient, salutem, sciatis quod constituimus dilectum et fidelem Johannem Doderidge militem unum justiciariorum ad placita coram nobis tenenda durante beneplacito, nostro, teste, &c.”
      His Lordship says indeed, from Bracton, that “these Judges are called Perpetui by Bracton, because they ought not to be removed without just cause.” But the question is not what the Crown ought to do, but what it had legal power to do.
      The next reason given by the General in support of his opinion, is that these points of law have been settled and determined by the greatest sages of the law formerly and more lately. This is so entirely without foundation, that the General might both with safety and decency be challenged, to produce the name of any one sage of the law ancient or modern, by whom it has been so settled and determined, and the book in which such determination appears. The General adds, “It is so notorious that it becomes the common learning of the law.” I believe he may decently and safely be challenged again; to produce one Lawyer in this country, who ever before entertained such an opinion, or, heard such a doctrine. I would not be misunderstood; there are respectable Lawyers, who maintain that the Judges here hold their offices during good behaviour; but it is upon other principles, not upon the common law of England. “My Lord chief justice Holt settled it so, not long before the statute of William and Mary, that enacts that the words quam diu bene se gesserint, shall be in the Judges Commissions.” And afterwards he says, that “the commissions as he apprehends, were without these words inserted in them, during the reigns of King William, Queen Mary and Queen Ann.”
      This I presume must have been conjectured from a few words of Lord Holt in the case of Harcourt against Fox, which I think are these. I repeat them from memory, having not the book before me at present. “Our places as judges are so settled, determinable only upon misbehaviour.”
      Now, from these words I should draw an opposite conclusion from the General, and should think that the influence of that interest in the nation which brought King William to the throne, prevailed upon him to grant the commissions to the Judges, expressly during good behavior. I say, this is the most natural construction, because it is certain, their places were not at that time, viz. 5 Wm. and Mary, determined by an act of parliament to be determinable only upon Misbehavior, and it is as certain, from Lord Coke, and from all history, that they were not so settled by the common law of England.
      However, we need not rest upon this reasoning, because we happen to be furnished with the most explicit and decisive evidence, that my conclusion is just, from my Lord Raymond. In the beginning of his second volume of reports, his lordship has given us a list of the chief officers in the law at the time of the death of King William the third 8 March 1701, 2. And he says in these words, that “Sir John Holt, knight, chief justice of the King’s bench, holding his office by writ, though it was quam diu se bene gesserint, held it to be determined by the demise of the King, notwithstanding the act of 12 & 13 Will. 3d. And therefore the Queen in council gave orders, that he should have a new writ, which he received accordingly, and was sworn before the lord keeper of the great seal the Saturday following, viz. the 14th of March, Chief Justice of Kings Bench.” —From this several things appear,
      1. That General Brattle is mistaken in apprehending that the Judges commissions were without the clause quam diu bene se gesserint, in the reign of King William and Queen Mary, and most probably also in the reign of Queen Ann, because, it is not likely that Lord Holt would have accepted a commission from the Queen during pleasure, when he had before had one from King William during good behaviour. And because if Queen Ann had made such an alteration in the commission, it is most likely Lord Raymond would have taken notice of it. 2. That Lord Holt’s opinion was, that by common law he had not an estate for life in his office, for if he had, it could not expire on the demise of the King. 3. That Lord Holt did not think the clause in the statute of 12 & 13 Wm. 3. to be a declaration of what was common law before, nor in affirmance of what was law before, but a new law and a total alteration of the tenure of the Judges commissions, established by parliament, and not to take place till after the death of the Princess Ann. 4. That in Lord Holt’s opinion it was not in the power of the Crown, to alter the tenure of the Judges commissions, and make them a tenure for life determinable only upon misbehaviour, even by inserting, that express clause in them, quam diu se bene gesserint.
      I have many more things to say upon this subject, which may possibly appear some other time.

       Mean while I am, Messi’rs Printers, Your humble Servant,
       JOHN ADAMS


Title: III. William Brattle to the Boston Gazette, 18 January 1773
From: Brattle, William
To: Boston Gazette (newspaper)

       Cambridge, January 18, 1773
       To the PRINTERS,

      As the lines of mens minds are as various as the features of their faces, they can no more upon every subject think alike than they can look alike, and yet both be equally honest; consequently they ought respectively to be treated with good manners, let their stations in life be what they may, by all excepting those who think they have infallibility on their side. For the publick peace and good order, I should be willing to be mistaken in my law as John Adams, Esq; in his letter of last week supposes I am, if the writers upon political controversy would follow his example in his decent polite writing. As to his knowledge and learning in the law, I can’t expect their imitation, till they have his genius and accomplishments, which I sincerely believe are rare. It appears to me that Mr. Adams’s sentiments upon the estate that the justices of the superior court here by virtue of their nomination and appointment have, namely, that they may be legally displaced, meerly by the arbitrary will and pleasure of the Governor and Council, are Tory principles. But as I am convinced to draw the consequence therefrom, that he is one, would be injurious and false, I hope his sentiments (tho’ however mistaken) will not be improved to his prejudice. I on the other hand have said, and now declare as my opinion, that the Governor and Council can no more constitutionally and legally remove any one justice of the superior court, as the commissions now are, unless there is a fair hearing and trial, and then a judgment that he hath behaved ill, than they can hang me for writing this my opinion, and the latter (if it went no further) would not be of one half the publick mischief and damage as the former, notwithstanding I am very sensible that this hath been the case in one or two arbitrary administrations. I recollect but two since the charter; but these were arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional measures, and do not determine what the law is, any more then the arbitrary illegal measures of the Steward Kings determine that their measures were legal, and ought to be the rule of his present Majesty’s conduct. Arbitrary measures never did, after people had come to their senses, and I hope never will, determine what the law is.
      Further I observe, that supposing a corrupt governor and a corrupt council, whether the words in the commission, are so long as the governor and council please, or during good behaviour, will just come to the same thing, the security as to the public will be just the same, but this is not our unhappy case. I am convinced that nothing would induce his Excellency Governor Hutchinson to nominate, or one member of the council to consent to a nomination in the room of any one justice of the Superiour Court (however disagreeable he might be) till he had after a impartial trial been first adjudged to have behaved ill, and so forfeited his estate by a breach of trust. The first thing Mr. Adams expresses his great surprize at is, that I should be at any loss, or any man in the province should be at a loss for what time the grant is made to the Judges; he says the King can’t grant salaries in any other manner than durante bene placito, and that the King’s power to grant salaries to any Judges in America, is derived solely from the late act of Parliament, and that gives no power to grant salaries for life or good behaviour, the above assertions without the least color of proof, but Mr. Adams’s word for it, I deny. The parliament grants no salaries to the Judges of England, the King settles the salaries and pays his Judges out of the civil list; and I challenge Mr. Adams to show one instance of any Judge who was continued in office, tho’ at the same time most disagreeable to the king that his salary was taken from him; to suppose this is frustrating the act of parliament that enacts that their commissions should be during good behaviour; for what if they are during good behaviour, what good will it do them, or what safety will it be to the community if it is in the power of the King to take away their salaries and starve them? Will they not in this case be as dependent upon the Crown as if their commissions were to determine by the will of the King? Again, this act of parliament with respect to the Judges salaries, was made for no other reason than this, that the King might not pay them out of the civil list, but out of another fund, namely, out of the revenue; here the abovementioned act says nothing about durante beneplacito, and therefore if there is a grant made to the Judges, that grant stands upon the same footing with the salaries granted by the King to the Judges in England. Mr. Adams challenges me to produce one lawyer that ever was, or now is, in the country, that entertained such an opinion as I have advanced, namely, that by the common law of England, the Judges commissions are so long as they behave well: He acknowledges there may be respectable lawyers in this country, that hold that the Judges commissions are during good behaviour, though not expressly mentioned in their commission, but it is on other principles. I answer, if they are of that opinion, it must be upon my principles, for there is no statute law about it which extends to the plantations, the canon law nor civil law says nothing about it; and therefore if they are in sentiments with me, they can found their opinion on the common law only; and this I do solemnly declare, the honorable Mr. Read did, who was to every lawyer as highly esteemed for reforming, and correcting the law and the pleadings as Justinian was at Rome. He was my friend, my father, under whose direction I studied the law. I have heard him often and often declare it, as his opinion, and I have living witnesses to prove it; the late Judge Auchmuty was of the same mind. I have asked no gentleman at the bar now on the stage their opinion, and do not know it. But this I know, that it is the opinion of the greatest lawyers who are not at the Bar in the province, that I am right in what I have advanced. Mr. Adams makes a further challenge, and denies that I can produce the name of one of the sages of the law, by whom it hath been settled as I contend for, or in other words, that I am alone in my sentiments. This surprizes me much, that a gentleman of Mr. Adams’s learning should be so extreamly mistaken and forgetful: Sir Thomas Powis one of the sages of the law gives his opinion in the words following, “I take it by the common laws and the ancient constitution of the kingdom all officers of courts of justice, and immediately relating to the execution of justice, were in for their lives, only removeable for misbehaviour in their offices: Not only my lords the judges of the courts of Westminster-Hall were anciently as they now are, since the revolution, quam diu se bene gesserint, but all the offices officers of note in the several courts under them were so, and most of them continue so to this day; as the clerks of the crown in this court and in the chancery, the chief clerk on the civil side in this court, the prothonotaries in the common pleas, the master of the office of pleas in the exchequer, and many others. I think speaking generally they were all in for their lives by the common law, and are so to this day.—I shall not enlarge upon this matter, I need not, it being so well known,” says Sir Thomas. Sergent Levenz expressly says, that in the time of King Charles the second, S. John Archer was made a judge of the common pleas quam diu bene se gesserit. If it never was the common law of England that the judges commissions run during their good behaviour, as Mr. Adams affirms, and there was an act of parliament formerly that they should be during the king’s pleasure (which let it be observed Lord Coke never said there was a statute relating to it) unless that statute was repealed, and I challenge Mr. Adams, and so I would my Lord Coke if he was alive, to shew that it was, or even that there ever was such a statute. I quere how it come about that King Charles the second did not conform to said statute, how in the face of an act of parliament or the common law, or both, to give commissions to the judges to continue during good behaviour, and thereby lessen their dependence on him; this can’t well be reconciled with the history of his reign. And how come it about that ever since the revolution to George the first time, the commissions were during good behaviour. This I agree with Mr. Adams was the case, and am quite obliged to him for correcting my mistake when in my harrangue I said otherwise. According to Mr. Adams’s doctrine, and according to the law, they were ipso facto null and void, because they were directly against law; provided Mr. Adams is right that both common law and statute law formerly obliged the King to give the judges their commission during good pleasure only. But I conceive that King William and Queen Mary that came over to save an almost ruined and undone people, by the tyranny of their predecessors, and their acting directly contrary to the laws of the land, that they should begin their reign by going directly against the law, and thereby violate their coronation oath, this is not credible. What the law was before their reign, was better known, and the law which was often fluctuating by the arbitrary power of some former princes, was put upon a more solid basis since the revolution than it was before. And we are to inquire what the law was formerly by the resolutions, the judgments of court, and the practice since the revolution, and the tenure of the judges commission since the revolution being during good behaviour, to the reign of George the first, and when the act of King William was to take place, and not before, namely, that during good behaviour should be in their commissions, plainly proves what I have advanced to be law, is law, or else great dishonor is reflected upon King William, Queen Mary, and Queen Ann. I am obliged to Mr. Adams for quoting the following passage out of my Lord Coke, which fully justifies my reasoning upon the Judges commissions. The words are these. “It is a rule in law that ancient offices must be granted in such forms and in such manner as they have used to be, unless the alteration was by authority of parliament.”
      It is manifest to every one that doth not depend upon their memory, that lord chief justice Holt, one of the sages of the law, apprehended that for the Judges commissions being during good behaviour, was upon the rule of the common law. He says after a cause had been argued upon a special verdict; after Sir J. Powes and serjeant Levenz had most positively affirmed, that this was the rule of the common law, not denied by the council on the other side, but rather conceded to: that in giving his opinion upon the whole matter, we all know it, says that great lawyer, and our places as judges are so settled, only determinable by misbehaviour, settled by whom? not by an act that was not to take place till the accession of George the first, not by any statute then existing; where is it? Whoever heard of it? Let it be produced; if not by statute, certainly then by common law. And can any man think that Lord Chief Justice Holt would have taken a commission from King William and Queen Mary, if they had offered him one, supposing it had been contrary to law, or rather if it had not been consonant to law: Or can we suppose that all the judges of the King’s bench would have heard the before mentioned gentlemen with respect to the tenure of the judges commissions, without a reproof, or at least without telling them it was not law, if all the judges had not thought it was law; I leave the world to determine.
      Mr. Adams says, and says truly, that Sir John Holt, kt. chief justice of the King’s bench, holding his office by writ, tho’ it was quam diu bene se gesserit; held it to be determined by the demise of the King, and therefore Queen Ann ordered a new writ. And what then? Every civil officers commission holden quam diu bene gesserint, died with the demise of the King, till the act made in the present King’s reign. Wherefore there was an act of parliament that all officers should be continued a certain time after the demise of the King, to prevent the total stagnation of justice.

      Mr. Adams supposes a material difference between an estate that the judges have as such for life, or so long as they behave well: the following judges his equals at least differ from him. Serjeant Levenz “I take it clear law, that if an office be granted to hold so long as he behaves himself well in the office, that is an estate for life, unless he lose it for misbehaviour; for it hath an annexed condition to be forfeited upon misdemeanor, and this by law is annexed to all offices, they being trusts; and misdemeanors in an office is a breach of trust”; and with his opinion agree the judges of the Kings bench in the case of Harcourt against Fox. J Eyre says, I do not think there is plainly given an estate for life in his office determinable upon his good behaviour: J Gregory says the same: J Dolben says that if any man is to enjoy an office so long as he behaves well in it, no one will doubt but the grantee hath an estate for life in it. My Lord Chief Justice Holt says, I do agree with my brothers in opinion. Upon the whole, using Mr. Adams’s own words, My haranguing in the town meeting in Cambridge hath not received any sufficient legal answer; and not-withstanding my veneration for Mr. Adams’s authority, it by no means prevails with me to give credit to his doctrine: Nor do his reasons in support of it weigh with me even so much as his authority.

       W. Brattle