These phenomena tend to explain the peculiar and original direction

taken by legal thought in Massachusetts, for they throw light upon the

influences under which her first generation of lawyers grew up, whose

destiny it was to impress upon her institutions the form they have ever

since retained.

The traditions inherited from the theocracy were vicious in the extreme.

For ten years after the settlement the clergy and their aristocratic

allies stubbornly refused either to recognize the common law or to enact

a code; and when at length further resistance to the demands of the

freemen was impossible, the Rev. Nathaniel Ward drew up “The Body

of Liberties,” which, though it perhaps sufficiently defined civil

obligations, contained this extraordinary provision concerning crimes:--

“No mans life shall be taken away, no mans honour or good name shall

be stayned, no mans person shall be arested, restrayned, banished,

dismembred, nor any wayes punished, ... unlesse it be by virtue or

equitie of some expresse law of the country waranting the same, ... or

in case of the defect of a law in any parteculer case by the word

of God. And in capitall cases, or in cases concerning dismembring or

banishment according to that word to be judged by the Generall Court.”

[Footnote: _Mass. Hist. Coll._ third series, viii. 216]

The whole of the subtle policy, whereof this legislation forms a part,

well repays attentive study. The relation of the church to the state was

not unlike that of Samuel toward Saul, for no public man could withstand

its attack, as was demonstrated by the fate of Vane. Much of the story

has been told already in describing the process whereby the clergy

acquired a substantial ascendency over the executive and legislature,

through their command of the constituencies which it was the labor of

their lives to fill with loyal retainers. Nothing therefore remains to

be done but to trace the means they employed to invest their order with

judicial attributes.

From the outset lawyers were excluded from practice, so the magistrates

were nothing but common politicians who were nominated by the priests;

thus the bench was not only filled with trusty partisans without

professional training or instincts, but also, as they were elected

annually, they were practically removable at pleasure should they by

any chance rebel. Upon these points there is abundant evidence: “The

government was first by way of charter, which was chiefly managed by the

preachers, who by their power with the people made all the magistrates

& kept them so intirely under obedience, that they durst not act without

them. Soe that whensoever anything strange or unusuall was brought

before them, they would not determine the matter without consulting the

preachers, for should any bee soe sturdy as to presume to act of himself

without takeing advice & directions, he might bee sure of it, his

magistracy ended with the year. He could bee noe magistrate for them,

that was not approved and recommended from the pulpit, & he could expect

little recommendation who was not the preacher’s most humble servant.

Soe they who treated, caressed & presented the preachers most, were the

rulers & magistrates among the people.” [Footnote: An Account of the

Colonies, etc., Lambeth MSS. Perry’s _Historical Collections_, iii. 48.]

From the decisions of such a judiciary the only appeal lay to a popular

assembly, which could always be manipulated. Obviously, ecclesiastical

supervision over the ordinary course of litigation was amply provided

for. The adjudication of the more important controversies was reserved;

for it was expressly enacted that doubtful questions and the higher

crimes should be judged according to the Word of God. This master-stroke

resembled Hilkiah’s when he imposed his book on Josiah; for on no

point of discipline were the ministers so emphatic as on the sacred and

absolute nature of their prerogative to interpret the Scriptures; nor

did they fail to impress upon the people that it was a sin akin to

sacrilege for the laity to dispute their exposition of the Bible.

The deduction to be drawn from these premises is plain. The assembled

elders, acting in their advisory capacity, constituted a supreme

tribunal of last resort, wholly superior to carnal precedent, and

capable of evolving whatsoever decrees they deemed expedient from the

depths of their consciousness. [Footnote: See Gorton’s case, Winthrop,

ii. 146.] The result exemplifies the precision with which a cause

operating upon the human mind is followed by its consequence; and the

action of this resistless force is painfully apparent in every state

prosecution under the Puritan Commonwealth, from Wheelwright’s to

Margaret Brewster’s. The absorption of sacerdotal, political, and

juridical functions by a single class produces an arbitrary despotism;

and before judges greedy of earthly dominion, flushed by the sense of

power, unrestrained by rules of law or evidence, and unopposed by

a resolute and courageous bar, trials must become little more than

conventional forms, precursors of predetermined punishments.

After a period of about half a century these social conditions underwent

radical change, but traditions remained that deeply affected the

subsequent development of the people, and produced a marked bent of

thought in the lawyers who afterward wrote the Constitution.

At the accession of William III. great progress had been made in the

science of colonial government; charters had been granted to Connecticut

and Rhode Island in 1662 and 1663, which, except in the survival of the

ancient and meaningless jargon of incorporation, had a decidedly modern

form. By these regular local representative governments were established

with full power of legislation, save in so far as limited by clauses

requiring conformity with the law of England; and they served their

purpose well, for both were kept in force many years after the

Revolution, Rhode Island’s not having been superseded until 1843.

The stubborn selfishness of the theocracy led to the adoption of a less

liberal policy toward Massachusetts. The nomination of the executive

officers was retained by the crown, and the governor was given very

substantial means of maintaining his authority; he could reject the

councillors elected by the Assembly; he appointed the judges and

sheriffs with the advice of this body, whose composition he could thus

in a measure control; he had a veto, and was commander-in-chief. Appeals

to the king in council were also provided for in personal actions where

the matter in difference exceeded three hundred pounds.

On the other hand, the legislature made all appropriations, including

those for the salaries of the governor and judges, and was only limited

in its capacity to enact statutes by the clause invariably inserted in

these patents.

This, therefore, is the precise moment when the modern theory of

constitutional limitations first appears defined; distinct from the

ancient corporate precedents. By a combination of circumstances also,

a sufficient sanction for the written law happened to be provided, thus

making the conception complete, for the tribunal of last resort was an

English court sustained by ample physical force; nevertheless the

great principle of coordinate departments of government was not yet

understood, and substantial relief against legislative usurpation had

to be sought in a foreign jurisdiction. To lawyers of our own time it

is self-evident that the restrictions of an organic code must be futile

unless they are upheld by a judiciary not only secure in tenure and

pay, but removed as far as may be from partisan passions. This truth,

however, remained to be discovered amid the abuses of the eighteenth

century, for the position of the provincial bench was unsatisfactory

in the last degree. The justices held their commissions at the king’s

pleasure, but their salaries were at the mercy of the deputies; they

were therefore subject to the caprice of antagonistic masters. Nor was

this the worst, for the charter did not isolate the judicial office.

Under the theocracy the policy of the clergy had been to suppress the

study of law in order to concentrate their own power; hence no training

was thought necessary for the magistrate, no politician was considered

incompetent to fill the judgment-seat because of ignorance of his duty,

and the office-hunter, having got his place by influence, was deemed at

liberty to use it as a point of vantage, from whence to prosecute his

chosen career. For example, the first chief justice was Stoughton, who

was appointed by Phips, probably at the instigation of Increase Mather.

As he was bred for the church, he could have had no knowledge to

recommend him, and his peculiar qualifications were doubtless

family connections and a narrow and bigoted mind; he was also

lieutenant-governor, a member of the council, and part of the time

commander-in-chief.

Thomas Danforth was the senior associate, who is described by Sewall

as “a very good husbandman, and a very good Christian, and a good

councillor;” but his reputation as a jurist rested upon a spotless

record, he having been the most uncompromising of the high church

managers.

Wait Winthrop was a soldier, and was not only in the council, but so

active in public life that years afterward, while on the bench, he was

set up as a candidate for governor in opposition to Dudley.

John Richards was a merchant, who had been sent to England as agent in

1681, just when the troubles came to a crisis; but the labors by which

he won the ermine seem plain enough, for he was bail for Increase Mather

when sued by Randolph, and was appointed by Phips. Samuel Sewall was

brought up to preach, took to politics on the conservative side, and was

regularly chosen to the council.

This motley crew, who formed the first superior court, had but one trait

in common: they belonged to the clique who controlled the patronage; and

as it began so it continued to the end, for Hutchinson, the last

chief justice but one, was a merchant; yet he was also probate judge,

lieutenant-governor, councillor, and leader of the Tories. In so

intelligent a community such prostitution of the judicial office would

have been impossible but for the pernicious tradition that the civil

magistrate needed no special training to perform his duty, and was to

take his law from those who expounded the Word of God.

And there was another inheritance, if possible, more baleful still. The

legislature, under the Puritan Commonwealth, had been the court of last

resort, and it was by no means forward to abandon its prerogative. It

was consequently always ready to listen to the complaints of suitors who

thought themselves aggrieved by the decisions of the regular tribunals,

and it was fond of altering the course of justice to make it conform to

what the members were pleased to call equity. This abuse finally took

such proportions that Hutchinson remonstrated vigorously in a speech to

the houses in 1772.

“Much time is usually spent ... in considering petitions for new trials

at law, for leave to sell the real estates of persons deceased, by their

executors, or administrators, and the real estates of minors, by their

guardians. All such private business is properly cognizable by the

established judicatories.... A legislative body ... is extremely

improper for such decisions. The polity of the English government seldom

admits of the exercise of this executive and judiciary power by the

legislature, and I know of nothing special in the government of this

province, to give countenance to it.” [Footnote: Mass. State Papers,

1765-1775, p. 314.]

The disposition to interfere in what did not concern them was probably

aggravated by the presence of judicial politicians in the popular

assemblies, who seem to have been unable to resist the temptation of

intriguing to procure legislation to affect the litigation before them.

But the simplest way to illustrate the working of the system in all its

bearings will be to give a history of a celebrated case finally taken on

appeal to the Privy Council. The cause arose in Connecticut, it is true,

but the social condition of the two colonies was so similar as to make

this circumstance immaterial.

Wait Winthrop, [Footnote: This report of Winthrop v. Lechmere is taken

from a MS. brief in the possession of Hon. R. C. Winthrop.] grandson of

the first John Winthrop, died intestate in 1717, leaving two children,

John, of New London, and Anne, wife of Thomas Lechmere, of Boston. The

father intended his son should take the land according to the family

tradition, and in pursuance of this purpose he put him in actual

possession of the Connecticut property in 1711; but he neglected to make

a will.

By the common law of England real estate descended to the eldest son of

him who was last seised; but in 1699 the Assembly had passed a statute

of distribution, copied from a Massachusetts act, which directed the

probate court, after payment of debts, to make a “distribution of ...

all the residue ... of the real and personal estate by equal portions to

and among the children ... except the eldest son ... who shall have two

shares.”

Here, then, at the threshold, the constitutional question had to be

met, as to whether the colonial enactment was not in conflict with

the restriction in the charter, and therefore void. Winthrop took out

letters of administration, and Lechmere became one of the sureties on

his bond. There was no disagreement about the personalty, but the son’s

claim to the land was disputed, though suit was not brought against him

till 1723.

The litigation began in Boston, but was soon transferred to New London,

where, in July, 1724, Lechmere petitioned for an account. Winthrop

forthwith exhibited an inventory of the chattels, and moved that it

should be accepted as final; but the judge of probate declined so to

rule. Then Lechmere prayed for leave to sue on the bond in the name of

the judge. His prayer was granted, and he presently began no less than

six actions in different forms.

Much time was consumed in disposing of technicalities, but at length

two test cases were brought before the superior court. One, being in

substance an action on the bond, was tried on the general issue, and

the verdict was for the defendant. The other was a writ of partition,

wherein Anne was described as co-heir with her brother. It was argued on

demurrer to the declaration, and the defendant again prevailed.

Thus, so far as judicial decision could determine private rights to

property, Winthrop had established his title; but he represented the

unpopular side in the controversy, and his troubles were just beginning.

Christopher Christophers was the judge of probate, he was also a justice

of the superior court, and a member of the Assembly, of which body

the plaintiff’s counsel was speaker. In April, 1725, when Lechmere had

finally exhausted his legal remedies, he addressed a petition to the

legislature, where he had this strong support, and which was not to

meet till May, stating the impossibility of obtaining relief by ordinary

means, and asking to have one of the judgments set aside and a new

trial ordered, in such form as to enable him to maintain his writ of

partition, notwithstanding the solemn decision against him by the

court of last resort. The defendant in vain protested that no error was

alleged, no new evidence produced, nor any matter of equity advanced

which might justify interference: the Assembly had determined to sustain

the statute of distributions, and it accordingly resolved that in cases

of this description relief ought to be given in probate by means of a

new grant of administration, to be executed according to the terms of

the act.

Winthrop was much alarmed, and with reason, for he saw at once the

intention of the legislature was to induce the judges to assume an

unprecedented jurisdiction; he therefore again offered his account,

which Christophers rejected, and he appealed from the decision. Lechmere

also applied for administration on behalf of his wife; and upon his

prayer being denied, pending a final disposition of Winthrop’s cause, he

too went up. In March, 1725-6, final judgment was rendered, the judges

holding that both real and personal property should be inventoried.

Winthrop thereupon entered his appeal to the Privy Council, whose

jurisdiction was peremptorily denied.

From what afterward took place, the inference is that Christophers

shrank from assuming alone so great a responsibility as now devolved

upon him, and persuaded his brethren to share it with him; for the

superior court proceeded to issue letters of administration to Lechmere,

and took his bond, drawn to themselves personally, for the faithful

performance of his trust. This was a most high-handed usurpation, for

the function of the higher tribunal in these matters was altogether

appellate, it having nothing to do with such executive business as

taking bonds, which was the province of the judge of probate.

However this may have been, progress was thenceforward rapid. In April

Lechmere produced a schedule of debts, which have at this day a

somewhat suspicious look, and when they were allowed, he petitioned the

legislature for leave to sell land to pay them. Winthrop appeared and

presented a remonstrance, which “the Assembly, observing the common

course of justice, and the law of the colony being by application to the

said Assembly, when the judgments of the superior courts are grievous to

any person... dismissed,” and immediately passed an act authorizing the

sale, and making the administrators’ deed good to convey a title.

Then Winthrop was so incautious as to make a final effort: he filed a

protest and caution against any illegal interference with his property

pending his appeal, declaring the action already taken to be contrary to

the common and statute law of England, and to the tenor of the charter.

The Assembly being of the opinion that this protest “had in it a great

show of contempt,” caused Winthrop to be arrested and brought to the

bar; there he not only defended his representations as reasonable, but

avowed his determination to lay all these proceedings before the king

in council. “This was treated as an insolent contemptuous and disorderly

behaviour” in the prisoner, “as declaring himself _coram non judice_,

and putting himself on a par with them, and impeaching their authoritys

and the charter; and his said protest was declared to be full of

reflections, and to terrifie so far as in him lay all the authorities

established by the charter.” So they imprisoned him three days and fined

him twenty pounds for his contemptuous words.

This leading case was afterward elaborately argued in London, and

judgment was entered for Winthrop, upon the ground that the statute of

distribution was in conflict with the charter and therefore void; but

as Connecticut resolutely refused to abandon its own policy, the utmost

confusion prevailed for seventeen years regarding the settlement of

estates. During all this time the local government made unremitting

efforts to obtain relief, and seems to have used pecuniary as well as

legal arguments to effect its purpose; at all events, it finally secured

a majority in the Privy Council, who reversed Winthrop v. Lechmere, in

Clark v. Tousey. The same question was raised in Massachusetts in 1737,

in Phillips v. Savage, but enough influence was brought to bear to

prevent an adverse decision. [Footnote: _Conn. Coll. Rec._ vii. 191,

note; _Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc._ 1860-62, pp. 64-80, 165-171.] A possible

distinction between the two cases also lay in the fact that the

Massachusetts act had received the royal assent.

The history of this litigation is interesting, not only as illustrating

the defects in provincial justice, but as showing the process by which

the conception of constitutional limitations became rooted in the minds

of the first generation of lawyers; and in point of fact, they were

so thoroughly impregnated with the theory as to incline to carry it to

unwarrantable lengths. For example, so justly eminent a counsel as James

Otis, in his great argument on the Writs of Assistance in 1761, solemnly

maintained the utterly untenable proposition that an act of Parliament

“against the Constitution is void: an act against natural equity is

void: and if an act of Parliament should be made, in the very words

of this petition, it would be void.” [Footnote: Quincy’s _Reports_, p.

474.] While so sound a man, otherwise, as John Adams wrote, in 1776, to

Mr. Justice Cushing: “You have my hearty concurrence in telling the jury

the nullity of acts of Parliament.... I am determined to die of that

opinion, let the _jus gladii_ say what it will.” [Footnote: _Works of J.

Adams_, ix. 390.]

On looking back at Massachusetts as she was in the year 1700, permeated

with the evil theocratic traditions, without judges, teachers, or books,

the mind can hardly fail to be impressed with the unconquerable energy

which produced great jurists from such a soil; and yet in 1725 Jeremiah

Gridley graduated from Harvard, who may fairly be said to have been the

progenitor of a famous race; for long before the Revolution, men like

Prat, Otis, and John Adams could well have held their own before any

court of Common Law that ever sat. Such powerful counsel naturally felt

a contempt for the ignorant politicians who for the most part presided

over them, which they took little pains to hide. Ruggles one day had

an aged female witness who could find no chair and complained to him of

exhaustion. He told her to go and sit on the bench. His honor, in some

irritation, calling him to account, he replied: “I really thought that

place was made for old women.” Hutchinson says of himself: “It was an

eyesore to some of the bar to have a person at the head of the law who

had not been bred to it.” But he explains with perfect simplicity how

his occupation as chief justice “engaged his attention, and he applied

his intervals to reading the law.” [Footnote: _Diary and Letters of

Thomas Hutchinson_, p. 66.]

The British supremacy closed with the evacuation of Boston, and

the colony then became an independent state; yet in that singularly

homogeneous community, which had always been taught to regard their

royal patents as the bulwark of their liberties, no one seems to have

seriously thought it possible to dispense with a written instrument to

serve as the basis of the social organization. Accordingly, in 1779, the

legislature called a convention to draft a Constitution; and it was the

good fortune of the lawyers, who were chosen as delegates, to have

an opportunity, not only to correct those abuses from which the

administration of justice had so long suffered, but to carry into

practical operation their favorite theory, of the limitation of

legislative power by the intervention of the courts. The course pursued

was precisely what might have been predicted of the representatives of

a progressive yet sagacious people. Taking the old charter as the

foundation whereon to build, they made only such alterations as their

past experience had shown them to be necessary; they adopted no fanciful

schemes, nor did they lightly depart from a system with which they

were acquainted; and their almost servile fidelity to their precedent,

wherever it could be folio wed, is shown by the following extracts

relating to the legislative and executive departments.

CHARTER.

And we doe further for vs our heires and successors give and grant to

the said governor and the Great and Generall Court or Assembly of our

said province or territory for the time being full power and authority

from time to time to make ordaine and establish all manner of wholsome

and reasonable orders laws statutes and ordinances directions and

instructions either with penalties or without (soe as the same be not

repugnant or contrary to the lawes of this our realme of England) as

they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of our said province or

territory and for the gouernment and ordering thereof and of the people

inhabiting or who shall inhabit the same and for the necessary support

and defence of the government thereof.

CONSTITUTION.

And further, full power and authority are hereby given and granted

to the said General Court, from time to time, to make, ordain, and

establish, all manner of wholesome and reasonable orders, laws,

statutes, and ordinances, directions and instructions, either with

penalties or without; so as the same be not repugnant or contrary to

this constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of

this commonwealth, and for the government and ordering thereof, and of

the subjects of the same, and for the necessary support and defence of

the government thereof.

CHARTER.

The governour of our said province for the time being shall have

authority from time to time at his discretion to assemble and call

together the councillors or assistants of our said province for the

time being and that the said governour with the said assistants or

councillors or seaven of them at the least shall and may from time

to time hold and keep a councill for the ordering and directing the

affaires of our said province.

CONSTITUTION.

The governour shall have authority, from time to time at his discretion,

to assemble and call together the councillors of this commonwealth for

the time being; and the governour, with the said councillors, or five

of them at least, shall, and may, from time to time, hold and keep a

council, for the ordering and directing the affairs of the commonwealth,

agreeably to the constitution and the laws of the land.

* * * * *

The clause concerning the council is curious as an instance of the

survival of an antiquated form. In the province the body had a use, for

it was a regular upper chamber; but when, in 1779, a senate was added,

it became an anomalous and meaningless third house; yet it is still

regularly elected, though its inutility is obvious. So long ago as

1814 John Adams had become very tired of it; he then wrote: “This

constitution, which existed in my handwriting, made the governor

annually elective, gave him the executive power, shackled with a

council, that I now wish was annihilated.” [Footnote: _Works of J.

Adams_, vi. 465.]

On the other hand, the changes made are even more interesting, as an

example of the evolution of institutions. The antique document was

simplified by an orderly arrangement and division into sections; the

obsolete jargon of incorporation was eliminated, which had come down

from the mediaeval guilds; in the dispute with England the want of a

bill of rights had been severely felt, so one was prefixed; and then the

convention, probably out of regard to symmetry, blotted their otherwise

admirable work by creating an unnecessary senate. But viewed as a whole,

the grand original conception contained in this instrument, making it

loom up a landmark in history, is the theory of the three coordinate

departments in the administration of a democratic commonwealth,

which has ever since been received as the corner-stone of American

constitutional jurisprudence.

Though this assertion may at first sight seem too sweeping, it is borne

out by the facts. During the first sessions of the Continental Congress

no question was more pressing than the reorganization of the colonies

should they renounce their allegiance to the crown, nor was there one

in regard to which the majority of the delegates were more at sea.

From, their peculiar education the New Englanders were exceptions to the

general rule, and John Adams in particular had thought out the problem

in all its details. His conversation so impressed some of his colleagues

that he was asked to put his views in a popular form. His first attempt

was a short letter to Richard Henry Lee, in November, 1775, in which

he starts with this proposition as fundamental: “A legislative, an

executive, and a judicial power comprehend the whole of what is meant

and understood by government. It is by balancing each of these powers

against the other two, that the efforts in human nature towards tyranny

can alone be checked and restrained, and any degree of freedom preserved

in the constitution.” [Footnote: _Works of J. Adams_, iv. 186.]

His next tract, written in 1776 at the request of Wythe of Virginia, was

printed and widely circulated, and similar communications were sent

in reply to applications from New Jersey, North Carolina, and possibly

other States. The effect of this discussion is apparent in all of the

ten constitutions afterward drawn, with the exception of Pennsylvania’s,

which was a failure; but none of them passed beyond the tentative or

embryonic stage. It therefore remained for Massachusetts to present the

model, which in its main features has not yet been superseded.

A first attempt was deservedly rejected by the people, and the work was

not done until 1779; but the men who then met in convention at Cambridge

knew precisely what they meant to do. Though the executive and the

legislature were a direct inheritance, needing but little change, a

deep line was drawn between the three departments, and the theory of

the coordinate judiciary was first brought to its maturity within the

jurisdiction where it had been born. To attain this cherished object

was the chief labor of the delegates, for to the supreme court was to

be intrusted the dangerous task of grappling with the representative

chambers and enforcing the popular charter. Therefore they made the

tenure of the judges permanent; they secured their pay; to obtain

impartiality they excluded them from political office; while on the

other hand they confined the legislature within its proper sphere, to

the end that the government they created might be one of laws and not of

men.

The experiment has proved one of those memorable triumphs which mark an

era. Not only has the great conception of New England been accepted as

the fundamental principle of the Federal Union, but it has been adopted

by every separate State; and more than this, during the one hundred and

six years since the people of our Commonwealth wrote their Constitution,

they have had as large a measure of liberty and safety under the law

as men have ever known on earth. There is no jurisdiction in the world

where justice has been purer or more impartial; nor, probably, has

there ever been a community, of equal numbers, which has produced more

numerous or more splendid specimens of juridical and forensic talent.

When freed from the incubus of the ecclesiastical oligarchy the range of

intellectual activity expanded, and in 1780 Massachusetts may be said,

without exaggeration, to have led the liberal movement of the world;

for not only had she won almost in perfection the three chief prizes of

modern civilization, liberty of speech, toleration, and equality before

the law; but she had succeeded in formulating those constitutional

doctrines by which, during the nineteenth century, popular

self-government has reached the highest efficiency it has ever yet

attained.

A single example, however, must suffice to show what the rise of the

class of lawyers had done for individual security and liberty in that

comparatively short interval of ninety years.

Theocratic justice has been described; the trials of Wheelwright, and

of Anne Hutchinson, of Childe, of Holmes, and of Christison have been

related; and also the horrors perpetrated before that ghastly tribunal

of untrained bigots, which condemned the miserable witches undefended

and unheard. [Footnote: In England, throughout the eighteenth century,

counsel were allowed to speak in criminal trials, in cases of treason

and misdemeanor only. Nor is the conduct of Massachusetts in regard to

witches peculiar. Parallel atrocities might probably be adduced from

the history of every European nation, even though the procedure of the

courts were more regular than was that of the Commission of Phips. The

relation of the priest to the sorcerer is a most interesting phenomenon

of social development; but it would require a treatise by itself.]

For the honor of our Common wealth let the tale be told of a state

prosecution after her bar was formed.

In 1768 the British Ministry saw fit to occupy Boston with a couple of

regiments, a force large enough to irritate, but too small to overawe,

the town. From the outset bad feeling prevailed between the citizens and

the soldiers, but as the time went on the exasperation increased, and

early in 1770 that intense passion began to glow which precedes the

outbreak of civil war. Yet though there were daily brawls, no blood was

shed until the night of the 5th of March, when a rabble gathered about

the sentry at the custom-house in State Street. He became frightened and

called for help, Captain Preston turned out the guard, the mob pelted

them, and they fired on the people without warning. A terrific outbreak

was averted by a species of miracle, but the troops had to be withdrawn,

and Preston and his men were surrendered and indicted for murder.

John Adams, who was a liberal, heart and soul, had just come into

leading practice. His young friend Josiah Quincy was even more deeply

pledged to the popular cause. On the morning after the massacre,

Preston, doubtless at Hutchinson’s suggestion, sent Adams a guinea as a

retaining fee, which, though it seemed his utter ruin to accept, he did

not dream of refusing. What Quincy went through may be guessed from his

correspondence with his father.

* * * * *

BRAINTREE, March 22, 1770.

MY DEAR SON, I am under great affliction at hearing the bitterest

reproaches uttered against you, for having become an advocate for those

criminals who are charged with the murder of their fellow-citizens. Good

God! Is it possible? I will not believe it.

Just before I returned home from Boston, I knew, indeed, that on the day

those criminals were committed to prison, a sergeant had inquired for

you at your brother’s house; but I had no apprehension that it was

possible an application would be made to you to undertake their defence.

Since then I have been told that you have actually engaged for Captain

Preston; and I have heard the severest reflections made upon the

occasion, by men who had just before manifested the highest esteem for

you, as one destined to be a saviour of your country. I must own to you,

it has filled the bosom of your aged and infirm parent with anxiety and

distress, lest it should not only prove true, but destructive of your

reputation and interest; and I repeat, I will not believe it, unless it

be confirmed by your own mouth, or under your own hand.

Your anxious and distressed parent,

JOSIAH QUINCY.

* * * * *

BOSTON, March 26, 1770.

HONOURED SIR, I have little leisure, and less inclination, either to

know or to take notice of those ignorant slanderers who have dared to

utter their “bitter reproaches” in your hearing against me, for having

become an advocate for criminals charged with murder.... Before pouring

their reproaches into the ear of the aged and infirm, if they had been

friends, they would have surely spared a little reflection on the nature

of an attorney’s oath and duty....

Let such be told, sir, that these criminals, charged with murder, are

not yet legally proved guilty, and therefore, however criminal, are

entitled, by the laws of God and man, to all legal counsel and aid;

that my duty as a man obliged me to undertake; that my duty as a lawyer

strengthened the obligation.... This and much more might be told with

great truth; and I dare affirm that you and this whole people will one

day rejoice that I became an advocate for the aforesaid “criminals,”

charged with the murder of our fellow-citizens.

I never harboured the expectation, nor any great desire, that all men

should speak well of me. To enquire my duty, and to do it, is my aim....

When a plan of conduct is formed with an honest deliberation, neither

murmuring, slander, nor reproaches move.... There are honest men in

all sects,--I wish their approbation;--there are wicked bigots in all

parties,--I abhor them.

I am, truly and affectionately, your son,

JOSIAH QUINCY, Jr. [Footnote: _Memoir of Josiah Quincy, Jr._ pp. 26,

27.]

* * * * *

Many of the most respected citizens asserted and believed that the

soldiers had fired with premeditated malice, for the purpose of revenge;

and popular indignation was so deep and strong that even the judges were

inclined to shrink. As Hutchinson was acting governor at the time, the

chief responsibility fell on Benjamin Lynde, the senior associate, who

was by good fortune tolerably competent. He was the son of the elder

Lynde, who, with the exception of Paul Dudley, was the only provincial

chief justice worthy to be called a lawyer.

The juries were of course drawn from among those men who afterward

fought at Lexington and Bunker Hill, and, like the presiding judge and

the counsel, they sympathized with the Revolutionary cause. Yet the

prisoners were patiently tried according to the law and the evidence;

all that skill, learning, and courage could do for them was done, the

court charged impartially, and the verdicts were, Not guilty.

CHAPTER XI.

THE REVOLUTION.

Status appears to be that stage of civilisation whence advancing

communities emerge into the era of individual liberty. In its most

perfect development it takes the form of caste, and the presumption is

the movement toward caste begins upon the abandonment of a wandering

life, and varies in intensity with the environment and temperament of

each race, the feebler sinking into a state of equilibrium, when change

by spontaneous growth ceases to be perceptible. So long as the brain

remains too feeble for sustained original thought, and man therefore

lacks the energy to rebel against routine, this condition of existence

must continue, and its inevitable tendency is toward rigid distinctions

of rank, and as a necessary consequence toward the limitation of the

range of ambition, by the conventional lines dividing the occupations of

the classes. Such at least in a general way was the progression of the

Jews, and in a less marked degree of the barbarians who overran the

Roman Empire. Yet even these, when they acquired permanent abodes,

gravitated strongly enough toward caste to produce a social system based

on monopoly and privilege which lasted through many centuries. On the

other hand, the democratic formula of “equality before the law” best

defines the modern conception of human relations, and this maxim

indicates a tone of thought directly the converse of that which begot

status; for whereas the one strove to raise impassable barriers against

free competition in the struggle for existence, the ideal of the other

is to offer the fullest scope for the expansion of the faculties.

As in Western Europe church and state alike rested upon the customs

of the Middle Ages, a change so fundamental must have wrought the

overthrow, not only of the vastest vested interests, but of the

profoundest religious prejudices, consequently, it could not have been

accomplished peaceably; and in point of fact the conservatives were

routed in two terrific outbreaks, whereof the second was the sequence of

the first, though following it after a considerable interval of time.

By the wars of the Reformation freedom of thought was gained; by the

revolutions of the eighteenth century, which swept away the incubus

of feudalism, liberty of action was won; and as Massachusetts had

been colonized by the radicals of the first insurrection, it was not

unnatural that their children should have led the second. So much may be

readily conceded, and yet the inherited tendency toward liberalism alone

would have been insufficient to have inspired the peculiar unanimity

of sentiment which animated her people in their resistance to Great

Britain, and which perhaps was stronger among her clergy, whose

instincts regarding domestic affairs were intensely conservative,

than among any other portion of her population. The reasons for

this phenomenon are worthy of investigation, for they are not only

interesting in themselves, but they furnish an admirable illustration of

the irresistible action of antecedent and external causes on the human

mind.

Under the Puritan Commonwealth the church gave distinction and power,

and therefore monopolized the ability which sought professional life;

but under the provincial government new careers were opened, and

intellectual activity began to flow in broader channels. John Adams

illustrates the effect produced by the changed environment; when only

twenty he made this suggestive entry in his Diary: “The following

questions may be answered some time or other, namely,--Where do we find

a precept in the Gospel requiring Ecclesiastical Synods? Convocations?

Councils? Decrees? Creeds? Confessions? Oaths? Subscriptions? and whole

cart-loads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in

these days?” [Footnote: _Works of J. Adams_, ii. 5.]

Such men became lawyers, doctors, or merchants; theology ceased to

occupy their minds; and gradually the secular thought of New England

grew to be coincident with that of the other colonies.

Throughout America the institutions favored individuality. No privileged

class existed among the whites. Under the careless rule of Great Britain

habits of personal liberty had taken root, which showed themselves

in the tenacity wherewith the people clung to their customs of

self-government; and so long as these usages were respected, under which

they had always lived, and which they believed to be as well established

as Magna Charta, there were not in all the king’s broad dominions more

loyal subjects than men like Washington, Jefferson, and Jay.

The generation now living can read the history of the Revolution

dispassionately, and to them it is growing clear that our ancestors

were technically in the wrong. For centuries Parliament has been

theoretically absolute; therefore it might constitutionally tax the

colonies, or do whatsoever else with them it pleased. Practically,

however, it is self-evident that the most perfect despotism must be

limited by the extent to which subjects will obey, and this is a matter

of habit; rebellions, therefore, are usually caused by the conservative

instinct, represented by the will of the sovereign, attempting to

enforce obedience to customs which a people have outgrown.

In 1776, though the Middle Ages had passed, their traditions still

prevailed in Europe, and probably the antagonism between this survival

of a dead civilization and the modern democracy of America was too deep

for any arbitrament save trial by battle. Identically the same dispute

had arisen in England the century before, when the commons rebelled

against the prerogatives of the crown, and Cromwell fought like

Washington, in the cause of individual emancipation; but the movement

in Great Britain was too radical for the age, and was followed by a

reaction whose force was not spent when George III. came to the throne.

Precedent is only inflexible among stationary races, and advancing

nations glory in their capacity for change; hence it is precisely those

who have led revolt successfully who have won the brightest fame. If,

therefore, it be admitted that they should rank among mankind’s noblest

benefactors, who have risked their lives to win the freedom we enjoy,

and which seems destined to endure, there are few to whom posterity owes

a deeper debt than to our early statesmen; nor, judging their handiwork

by the test of time, have many lived who in genius have surpassed them.

In the fourth article of their Declaration of Rights, the Continental

Congress resolved that the colonists “are entitled to a free and

exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures,

... in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the

negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used

and accustomed. But, ... we cheerfully consent to the operation of such

acts of Parliament as are, _bona fide_, restrained to the regulation of

our external commerce.”

In 1778 a statute was passed, of which an English jurist wrote in 1885:

“One act, indeed, of the British Parliament might, looked at in

the light of history, claim a peculiar sanctity. It is certainly an

enactment of which the terms, we may safely predict, will never

be repealed and the spirit never be violated.... It provides that

Parliament’ will not impose any duty, tax or assessment whatever,

payable in any of his majesty’s colonies ... except only such duties

as it may be expedient to impose for the regulation of commerce.’”

[Footnote: _The Law of the Constitution_, Dicey, p. 62.]

Thus is the memory of their grievance held sacred by the descendants

of their adversaries after the lapse of a century, and the local

self-government for which they pleaded has become the immutable policy

of the empire. The principles they laid down have been equally enduring,

for they proclaimed the equality of men before the law, the corner-stone

of modern civilization, and the Constitution they wrote still remains

the fundamental charter of the liberties of the republic of the United

States.

Nevertheless it remains true that secular liberalism alone could never

have produced the peculiarly acrimonious hostility to Great Britain

wherein Massachusetts stood preeminent, whose causes, if traced, will be

found imbedded at the very foundation of her social organization, and to

have been steadily in action ever since the settlement. Too little study

is given to ecclesiastical history, for probably nothing throws so much

light on certain phases of development; and particularly in the case

of this Commonwealth the impulses which moulded her destiny cannot be

understood unless the events that stimulated the passions of her clergy

are steadily kept in view.

The early aggrandizement of her priests has been described; the

inevitable conflict with the law into which their ambition plunged them,

and the overthrow of the theocracy which resulted therefrom, have

been related; but the causes that kept alive the old exasperation with

England throughout the eighteenth century have not yet been told.

The influence of men like Leverett and Colman tended to broaden the

church, but necessarily the process was slow; and there is no lack of

evidence that the majority of the ministers had little relish for the

toleration forced upon them by the second charter. It is not surprising,

therefore, to find the sectaries soon again driven to invoke the

protection of the king.

Though doubtless some monastic orders have been vowed to poverty, it

will probably be generally conceded that a life of privation has not

found favor with divines as a class; and one of the earliest acts of

the provincial legislature bid each town choose an able and orthodox

minister to dispense the Word of God, who should be “suitably

encouraged” by an assessment on all inhabitants without distinction.

This was for many years a bitter grievance to the dissenting minority;

but there was worse to come; for sometimes the majority were heterodox,

when pastors were elected who gave great scandal to their evangelical

brethren. Therefore, for the prevention of “atheism, irreligion and

prophaness,” [Footnote: _Province Laws_, 1715, c. 17.] it was enacted in

1775 that the justices of the county should report any town without

an orthodox minister, and thereupon the General Court should settle a

candidate recommended to them by the ordained elders, and levy a special

tax for his support. Nor could men animated by the fervent piety which

raised the Mathers to eminence in their profession be expected to sit

by tamely while blasphemers not only worshipped openly, but refused to

contribute to their incomes.

“We expect no other but Satan will show his rage against us for

our endeavors to lessen his kingdom of darkness. He hath grievously

afflicted me (by God’s permission) by infatuating or bewitching three

or four who live in a corner of my parish with Quaker notions, [who]

now hold a separate meeting by themselves.” [Footnote: Rev. S. Danforth,

1720. _Mass. Hist. Coll._ fourth series, i.]

The heretics, on their side, were filled with the same stubborn spirit

which had caused them “obstinately and proudly” to “persecute” Norton

and Endicott in earlier days. In 1722 godly preachers were settled at

Dartmouth and Tiverton, under the act, the majority of whose people were

Quakers and Baptists; and the Friends tell their own story in a petition

they presented to the crown in 1724: “That the said Joseph Anthony and

John Siffon were appointed assessors of the taxes for the said town of

Tiverton, and the said John Akin and said Philip Tabor for the town of

Dartmouth, but some of the said assessors being of the people called

Quakers, and others of them also dissenting from the Presbyterians and

Independents, and greatest part of the inhabitants of the said towns

being also Quakers or Anabaptists ... the said assessors duly assessed

the other taxes ... relating to the support of government ... yet they

could not in conscience assess any of the inhabitants of the said towns

anything for or towards the maintenance of any ministers.

“That the said Joseph Anthony, John Siffon, John Akin and Philip Tabor,

(on pretence of their non-compliance with the said law) were on the 25th

of the month called May, 1723, committed to the jail aforesaid, where

they still continue prisoners under great sufferings and hardships both

to themselves and families, and where they must remain and die, if not

relieved by the king’s royal clemancy and favour.” [Footnote: Gough’s

_Quakers_, iv. 222, 223.]

A hearing was had upon this petition before the Privy Council, and in

June, 1724, an order was made directing the remission of the special

taxes and the release of the prisoners, who were accordingly liberated

in obedience thereto, after they had been incarcerated for thirteen

months.

The blow was felt to be so severe that the convention of ministers the

next May decided to convene a synod, and Dr. Cotton Mather was appointed

to draw up a petition to the legislature.

“Considering the great and visible decay of piety in the country, and

the growth of many miscarriages, which we fear may have provoked the

glorious Lord in a series of various judgments wonderfully to distress

us.... It is humbly desired that ... the ... churches ... meet by their

pastors ... in a synod, and from thence offer their advice upon.... What

are the miscarriages whereof we have reason to think the judgments of

heaven, upon us, call us to be more generally sensible, and what may be

the most evangelical and effectual expedients to put a stop unto those

or the like miscarriages.” [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist._ 3d ed. ii. 292,

note.]

The “evangelical expedient” was of course to revive the Cambridge

Platform; nor was such a scheme manifestly impossible, for the council

voted “that the synod ... will be agreeable to this board, and the

reverend ministers are desired to take their own time, for the said

assembly; and it is earnestly wished the issue thereof may be a happy

reformation.” [Footnote: Chalmers’s _Opinions_, i. 8.] In the house

of representatives this resolution was read and referred to the next

session.

Meanwhile the Episcopalian clergymen of Boston, in much alarm, presented

a memorial to the General Court, remonstrating against the proposed

measure; but the council resolved “it contained an indecent reflection

on the proceedings of that board,” [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 9.] and

dismissed it. Nothing discouraged, the remonstrants applied for

protection to the Bishop of London, who brought the matter to the

attention of the law officers of the crown. In their opinion to call

a synod would be “a contempt of his majesty’s prerogative,” and if

“notwithstanding, ... they shall continue to hold their assembly,

... the principal actors therein [should] be prosecuted ... for a

misdemeanour.” [Footnote: Chalmers’s _Opinions_, p. 13.]

Steadily and surely the coil was tightening which was destined to

strangle the established church of Massachusetts; but the resistance of

the ministers was desperate, and lent a tinge of theological hate to

the outbreak of the Revolution. They believed it would be impossible for

them to remain a dominant priesthood if Episcopalianism, supported by

the patronage of the crown, should be allowed to take root in the land;

yet the Episcopalians represented conservatism, therefore they were

forced to become radicals, and the liberalism they taught was fated to

destroy their power.

Meanwhile their sacred vineyard lay open to attack upon every side. At

Boston the royal governors went to King’s Chapel and encouraged the use

of the liturgy, while an inroad was made into Connecticut from New York.

Early in the century a certain Colonel Heathcote organized a regular

system of invasion. He was a man eminently fitted for the task, being

filled with zeal for the conversion of dissenters. “I have the charity

to believe that, after having heard one of our ministers preach,

they will not look upon our church to be such a monster as she is

represented; and being convinced of some of the cheats, many of them

may duly consider of the sin of schism.” [Footnote: Conn. _Church

Documents_, i. 12.]

“They have abundance of odd kind of laws, to prevent any dissenting

... and endeavour to keep the people in as much blindness and

unacquaintedness with any other religion as possible, but in a more

particular manner the church, looking upon her as the most dangerous

enemy they have to grapple withal, and abundance of pains is taken to

make the ignorant think as bad as possible of her; and I really believe

that more than half the people in that government think our church to be

little better than the Papist, and they fail not to improve every little

thing against us.” [Footnote: Conn. _Church Documents_, i. 9.]

He had little liking for the elders, whom he described as being “as

absolute in their respective parishes as the Pope of Rome;” but he felt

kindly toward “the passive, obedient people, who dare not do otherwise

than obey.” [Footnote: _Idem_, i. 10.] He explained the details of his

plan in his letters, and though he was aware of the difficulties, he did

not despair, his chief anxiety being to get a suitable missionary.

He finally chose the Rev. Mr. Muirson, and in 1706 began a series

of proselytizing tours. Nevertheless, the clergyman was wroth at the

treatment he received.

* * * * *

HONOR’D SIR, I entreat your acceptance of my most humble and hearty

thanks for the kind and Christian advice you were pleased to tender me

in relation to Connecticut.... I know that meekness and moderation is

most agreeable to the mind of our blessed Saviour, Christ, who himself

was meek and lowly, and would have all his followers to learn that

lesson of him.... I have duly considered all these things, and have

carried myself civilly and kindly to the Independent party, but they

have ungratefully resented my love; yet I will further consider the

obligations that my holy religion lays upon me, to forgive injuries and

wrongs, and to return good for their evil.... I desired only a liberty

of conscience might be allowed to the members of the National Church

of England; which, notwithstanding, they seemed unwilling to grant, and

left no means untried, both foul and fair, to prevent the settling the

church among them; for one of their justices came to my lodging and

forewarned me, at my peril, from preaching, telling me that I did

an illegal thing in bringing in new ways among them; the people were

likewise threatened with prison, and a forfeiture of £5 for coming to

hear me. It will require more time than you will willingly bestow on

these lines to express how rigidly and severely they treat our people,

by taking their estates by distress, when they do not willingly pay

to support their ministers.... They tell our people that they will

not suffer the house of God to be defiled with idolatrous worship and

superstitious ceremonies.... They say the sign of the cross is the mark

of the beast and the sign of the devil, and that those who receive it

are given to the devil....

Honored sir, your most assured friend, ...

GEO. MUIRSON. RYE, _9th January_, 1707-8. [Footnote: _Conn. Church

Documents_, i. 29.]

* * * * *

However, in spite of his difficulties, he was able to boast that “I have

... in one town, ... baptized about 32, young and old, and administered

the Holy Sacrament to 18, who never received it before. Each time I had

a numerous congregation.” [Footnote: _Conn. Church Documents_, i. 23.]

The foregoing correspondence was with the secretary of the Society for

the Propagation of the Gospel, which had been incorporated in 1701, and

had presently afterward appointed Colonel Heathcote as their agent.

They could have chosen no more energetic representative, nor was it long

before his exertions began to bear fruit. In 1707 nineteen inhabitants

of Stratford sent a memorial to the Bishop of London, the forerunner

of many to come. “Because by reason of the said laws we are not able to

support a minister, we further pray your lordship may be pleased to send

one over with a missionary allowance from the honourable corporation,

invested with full power, so as that he may preach and we hear the

blessed Gospel of Jesus Christ, without molestation and terror.”

[Footnote: _Idem_, i. 34.]

The Anglican prelates conceived it to be their duty to meddle with

the religious concerns of New England; therefore, by means of the

organization of the venerable society, they proceeded to plant a number

of missions throughout the country, whose missionaries were paid from

the corporate funds. Whatever opinion may be formed of the wisdom of

a policy certain to exasperate deeply so powerful and so revengeful

a class as the Congregational elders, there can be no doubt the

Episcopalians achieved a measure of success, in the last degree

alarming, not only among the laity, but among the clergy themselves. Mr.

Reed, pastor of Stratford, was the first to go over, and was of course

deprived of his parish; his defection was followed in 1722 by that of

the rector of Yale and six other ministers; and the Rev. Joseph Webb,

who thought the end was near, wrote in deep affliction to break the news

to his friends in Boston.

* * * * *

FAIRFIELD, _Oct._ 2, 1722.

REVEREND AND HONOURED SIR, The occasion of my now giving you the trouble

of these few lines is to me, and I presume to many others, melancholy

enough. You have perhaps heard before now, or will hear before these

come to hand, (I suppose) of the revolt of several persons of figure

among us unto the Church of England. There’s the Rev. Mr. Cutler, rector

of our college, and Mr. Daniel Brown, the tutor thereof. There are also

of ordained ministers, pastors of several churches among us, the Rev.

Messieurs following, viz. John Hart of East Guilford, Samuel Whittlesey

of Wallingford, Jared Eliot of Kennelworth, ... Samuel Johnson of

West-Haven, and James Wetmore of North-Haven. They are the most of them

reputed men of considerable learning, and all of them of a virtuous and

blameless conversation. I apprehend the axe is hereby laid to the root

of our civil and sacred enjoyments; and a doleful gap opened for trouble

and confusion in our churches.... It is a very dark day with us; and we

need pity, prayers and counsel. [Footnote: Rev. Joseph Webb to Dr. C.

Mather. _Mass. Hist. Coll._ second series, ii. 131.]

* * * * *

From the tone in which these tidings were received it is plain that the

charity and humility of the golden age of Massachusetts were not yet

altogether extinct among her ecclesiastics. The ministers published

their “sentiments” in a document beginning as follows:--

“These new Episcopalians have declared their desire to introduce an

usurpation and a superstition into the church of God, clearly condemned

in the sacred Scriptures, which our loyalty and chastity to our Saviour,

obliges us to keep close unto; and a tyranny, from which the whole

church, which desires to be reformed, has groaned that it may be

delivered.... The scandalous conjunction of these unhappy men with

the Papists is, perhaps, more than what they have themselves duly

considered.” [Footnote: The Sentiments of the Several Ministers in

Boston. _Mass. Hist. Coll._ second series, ii. 133.] In “A Faithful

Relation” of what had happened it was observed: “It has caused some

indignation in them,” (the people) “to see the vile indignity cast

by these cudweeds upon those excellent servants of God, who were the

leaders of the flock that followed our Saviour into this wilderness:

and upon the ministry of them, and their successours, in which there has

been seen for more than forescore years together, the power and

blessing of God for the salvation of many thousands in the successive

generations; with a success beyond what any of them which set such an

high value on the Episcopal ordination could ever boast of!... It is a

sensible addition, unto their horrour, to see the horrid character of

more than one or two, who have got themselves qualified with Episcopal

ordination, ... and come over as missionaries, perhaps to serve scarce

twenty families of such people, in a town of several hundred families of

Christians, better instructed than the very missionaries: to think, that

they must have no other ministers, but such as are ordained, and ordered

by them, who have sent over such tippling sots unto them: instead of

those pious and painful and faithful instructors which they are now

blessed withal!” [Footnote: “A Faithful Relation of a Late Occurrence.”

_Mass. Hist. Coll._ second series, ii. 138, 139.]

Only three of the converts had the fortitude to withstand the pressure

to which they were exposed: Cutler, Johnson, and Brown went to England

for ordination; there Brown died of small-pox, but Cutler returned to

Boston as a missionary, and as he, too, possessed a certain clerical

aptitude for forcible expression, it is fitting he should relate his own

experiences:--

“I find that, in spite of malice and the basest arts our godly

enemies can easily stoop to, that the interest of the church grows

and penetrates into the very heart of this country.... This great town

swarms with them “(churchmen),” and we are so confident of our power and

interest that, out of four Parliament-men which this town sends to our

General Assembly, the church intends to put up for two, though I am not

very sanguine about our success in it.... My church grows faster than I

expected, and, while it doth so, I will not be mortified by all the

lies and affronts they pelt me with. My greatest difficulty ariseth from

another quarter, and is owing to the covetous and malicious spirit of

a clergyman in this town, who, in lying and villany, is a perfect

overmatch for any dissenter that I know; and, after all the odium that

he contracted heretofore among them, is fully reconciled and endeared to

them by his falsehood to the church.” [Footnote: Dr. Timothy Cutler to

Dr. Zachary Grey, April 2, 1725, Perry’s _Collection_, iii. 663.]

Time did not tend to pacify the feud. There was no bishop in America,

and candidates had to be sent to England for ordination; nor without

such an official was it found possible to enforce due discipline; hence

the anxiety of Dr. Johnson, and, indeed, of all the Episcopalian

clergy, to have one appointed for the colonies was not unreasonable.

Nevertheless, the opposition they met with was acrimonious in the

extreme, so much so as to make them hostile to the charters themselves,

which they thought sheltered their adversaries.

“The king, by his instructions to our governor, demands a salary; and if

he punishes our obstinacy by vacating our charter, I shall think it an

eminent blessing of his illustrious reign.” [Footnote: Dr. Cutler to Dr.

Grey, April 20, 1731. Perry’s _Coll._ iii.]

Whitefield came in 1740, and the tumult of the great revival roused

fresh animosities.

“When Mr. Whitefield first arrived here the whole town was alarmed....

The conventicles were crowded; but he chose rather our Common, where

multitudes might see him in all his awful postures; besides that, in one

crowded conventicle, before he came in, six were killed in a fright.

The fellow treated the most venerable with an air of superiority. But

he forever lashed and anathematized the Church of England; and that was

enough.

“After him came one Tennent, a monster! impudent and noisy, and told

them all they were damn’d, damn’d, damn’d! This charmed them, and in the

most dreadful winter that i ever saw, people wallowed in the snow night

and day for the benefit of his beastly brayings; and many ended their

days under these fatigues. Both of them carried more money out of these

parts than the poor could be thankful for.” [Footnote: Dr. Cutler to Dr.

Grey, Sept. 24, 1743. Perry’s _Coll._ iii. 676.]

The excitement was followed by its natural reaction conversions became

numerous, and the unevangelical temper this bred between the rival

clergymen is painfully apparent in a correspondence wherein Dr. Johnson

became involved. Mr. Gold, the Congregationalist minister of Stratford,

whom he called a dissenter, had said of him “that he was a thief, and

robber of churches, and had no business in the place; that his church

doors stood open to all mischief and wickedness, and other words of

like import.” He therefore wrote to defend himself: “As to my having no

business here, I will only say that to me it appears most evident that

I have as much business here at least as you have,--being appointed by

a society in England incorporated by royal charter to provide ministers

for the church people in America; nor does his majesty allow of any

establishment here, exclusive of the church, much less of anything

that should preclude the society he has incorporated from providing and

sending ministers to the church people in these countries.” [Footnote:

_Life of Dr. Samuel Johnson_, p. 108.] To which Mr. Gold replied:--

* * * * *

As for the pleas which you make for Col. Lewis, and others that have

broke away disorderly from our church, I think there’s neither weight

nor truth in them; nor do I believe such poor shifts will stand them

nor you in any stead in the awful day of account; and as for your saying

that as bad as you are yet you lie open to conviction,--for my part

I find no reason to think you do, seeing you are so free and full in

denying plain matters of fact.... I don’t think it worth my while to say

anything further in the affair, and as you began the controversy against

rule or justice, so I hope modesty will induce you to desist; and do

assure you that if you see cause to make any more replies, my purpose

is, without reading of them, to put them under the pot among my other

thorns and there let one flame quench the matter.... HEZ. GOLD.

STRATFORD, _July_ 21, 1741. [Footnote: _Life of Dr. Samuel Johnson,_ p.

111.]

* * * * *

And so by an obvious sequence of cause and effect it came to pass

that the clergy were early ripe for rebellion, and only awaited their

opportunity. Nor could it have been otherwise. An autocratic priesthood

had seen their order stripped of its privileges one by one, until

nothing remained but their moral empire over their parishioners, and

then at last not only did an association of rival ecclesiastics send

over emissaries to steal away their people, but they proposed to

establish a bishop in the land. The thought was wormwood. He would be

rich, he would live in a palace, he would be supported by the patronage

and pomp of the royal governors; the imposing ceremonial would become

fashionable; and in imagination they already saw themselves reduced to

the humble position of dissenters in their own kingdom. Jonathan Mayhew

was called a heretic by his more conservative brethren, but he was one

of the ablest and the most acrid of the Boston ministers. He took little

pains to disguise his feelings, and so early as 1750 he preached a

sermon, which was once famous, wherein he told his hearers that it

was their duty to oppose the encroachment of the British prelates, if

necessary, by force.

“Suppose, then, it was allowed, in general, that the clergy were a

useful order of men; that they ought to be esteemed very highly in love

for their work’s sake, and to be decently supported by those they serve,

‘the laborer being worthy of his reward.’ Suppose, further, that a

number of reverend and right reverend drones, who worked not; who

preached, perhaps, but once a year, and then not the gospel of Jesus

Christ, but the divine right of tithes, the dignity of their office as

ambassadors of Christ, ... suppose such men as these, spending their

lives in effeminacy, luxury, and idleness; ... suppose this should

be the case, ... would not everybody be astonished at such insolence,

injustice, and impiety?” [Footnote: “Discourse concerning Unlimited

Submission,” Jonathan Mayhew. Thornton’s _American Pulpit_, pp. 71, 72.]

“Civil tyranny is usually small in its beginning, like ‘the drop of

a bucket,’ till at length, like a mighty torrent... it bears down all

before it.... Thus it is as to ecclesiastical tyranny also--the most

cruel, intolerable, and impious of any. From small beginnings, ‘it

exalts itself above all that is called God and that is worshipped.’

People have no security against being unmercifully priest-ridden but by

keeping all imperious bishops, and other clergymen who love to ‘lord

it over God’s heritage,’ from getting their foot into the stirrup at

all.... For which reason it becomes every friend to truth and human

kind, every lover of God and the Christian religion, to bear a part

in opposing this hateful monster.” [Footnote: Preface to “A Discourse

concerning Unlimited Submission,” Jonathan Mayhew. Thornton’s _Amer.

Pulpit_, pp. 50, 51.]

Between these envenomed priests peace was impossible; each year brought

with it some new aggression which added fuel to the flame. In 1763, Mr.

Apthorp, missionary at Cambridge, published a pamphlet, in answer, as

he explained, to “some anonymous libels which appeared in our newspapers

... grossly reflecting on the society & their missionaries, & in

particular on the mission at Cambridge.” [Footnote: East Apthorp to the

Secretary, June 25, 1763. Perry’s _Coll._ iii. 500.]

By this time the passions of the Congregationalist divines had reached

a point when words seemed hardly adequate to give them expression. The

Rev. Ezra Stiles wrote to Dr. Mayhew in these terms:--

“Shall we be hushed into silence, by those whose tender mercies are

cruelty; and who, notwithstanding their pretence of moderation, wish

the subversion of our churches, and are combined, in united, steady

and vigorous effort, by all the arts of subtlety and intreague, for our

ruin?” [Footnote: Dr. Ezra Stiles to Dr. Mayhew, 1763. _Life of Mayhew_,

p. 246.]

Mr. Stiles need have felt no anxiety, for, according to Mr. Apthorp,

“this occasion was greedily seized, ... by a dissenting minister of

Boston, a man of a singular character, of good abilities, but of a

turbulent & contentious disposition, at variance, not only with the

Church of England, but in the essential doctrines of religion, with most

of his own party.” [Footnote: East Apthorp to the Secretary. Perry’s

_Coll._ iii. 500.] He alluded to a tract written by Dr. Mayhew in answer

to his pamphlet, in which he reproduced the charge made by Mr. Stiles:

“The society have long had a formal design to dissolve and root out all

our New-England churches; or, in other words, to reduce them all to the

Episcopal form.” [Footnote: _Observations on the Charter, etc. of the

Society_, p. 107.] And withal he clothed his thoughts in language which

angered Mr. Caner:--

“A few days after, Mr. Apthorpe published the enclosed pamphlet,

in vindication of the institution and conduct of the society, which

occasioned the ungenteel reflections which your grace will find in Dr.

Mayhew’s pamphlet, in which, not content with the personal abuse of

Mr. Apthorpe, he has insulted the missions in general, the society, the

Church of England, in short, the whole rational establishment, in so

dirty a manner, that it seems to be below the character of a gentleman

to enter into controversy with him. In most of his sermons, of which

he published a great number, he introduces some malicious invectives

against the society or the Church of England, and if at any time the

most candid and gentle remarks are made upon such abuse, he breaks forth

into such bitter and scurrilous personal reflections, that in truth no

one cares to have anything to do with him. His doctrinal principles,

which seem chiefly copied from Lord Shaftsbury, Bolingbroke, &c., are so

offensive to the generalty of the dissenting ministers, that they

refuse to admit him a member of their association, yet they appear to

be pleased with his abusing the Church of England.” [Footnote: Rev. Mr.

Caner to the Archbishop of Canterbury, June 8, 1763. Perry’s _Coll._

iii. 497, 498.]

The Archbishop of Canterbury himself now interfered, and tried to calm

the tumult by a candid and dignified reply to Dr. Mayhew, in which he

labored to show the harmlessness of the proposed bishopric.

“Therefore it is desired, that two or more bishops may be appointed for

them, to reside where his majesty shall think most convenient [not in

New England, but in one of the Episcopalian colonies]; that they

may have no concern in the least with any person who do not profess

themselves to be of the Church of England, but may ordain ministers for

such as do; ... and take such oversight of the Episcopal clergy, as the

Bishop of London’s commissaries in those parts have been empowered to

take, and have taken, without offence. But it is not desired in the

least that they should hold courts ... or be vested with any authority,

now exercised either by provincial governors or subordinate magistrates,

or infringe or diminish any privileges and liberties enjoyed by any

of the laity, even of our own communion.” [Footnote: _An Answer to Dr.

Mayhew’s Observations_, etc. Dr. Secker, p. 51.]

But the archbishop should have known that the passions of rival

ecclesiastics are not to be allayed. The Episcopalians had become

so exasperated as to want nothing less than the overthrow of popular

government. Dr. Johnson wrote in 1763: “Is there then nothing more that

can be done either for obtaining bishops or demolishing these pernicious

charter governments, and reducing them all to one form in immediate

dependence on the king? I cannot help calling them pernicious, for they

are indeed so as well for the best good of the people themselves as for

the interests of true religion.” [Footnote: _Life of Samuel Johnson_, p.

279.]

The Congregationalists, on the other hand, inflamed with jealousy, were

ripe for rebellion. On March 22, 1765, the Stamp Act became law, and the

clergy threw themselves into the combat with characteristic violence.

Oliver had been appointed distributor, but his house was attacked and

he was forced to resign. The next evening but one the rabble visited

Hutchinson, who was lieutenant-governor, and broke his windows; and

there was general fear of further rioting. In the midst of this

crisis., on the 25th of August, Dr. Mayhew preached a sermon in the

West Meeting-house from the text, “I would they were even cut off which

trouble you.” [Footnote: _Galatians_ v. 12.] I That this discourse was

in fact an incendiary harangue is demonstrated by what followed. At

nightfall on the 26th a fierce mob forced the cellars of the comptroller

of the customs, and got drunk on the spirits stored within; then they

went on to Hutchinson’s dwelling: “The doors were immediately split to

pieces with broad axes, and a way made there, and at the windows, for

the entry of the mob; which poured in, and filled, in an instant, every

room.... They continued their possession until daylight; destroyed ...

everything ... except the walls, ... and had begun to break away the

brick-work.” [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist._ iii. 124.] His irreplaceable

collection of original papers was thrown into the street; and when a

bystander interfered in the hope of saving some of them, “answer was

made, that it had been resolved to destroy everything in the house; and

such resolve should be carried to effect.” [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 125,

note.] Malice so bitter bears the peculiar ecclesiastical tinge, and

is explained by the confession of one of the ring-leaders, who, when

subsequently arrested, said he had been excited by the sermon, “and that

he thought he was doing God service.” [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 123.]

The outbreak met with general condemnation, and Dr. Mayhew, who saw he

had gone too far, tried to excuse himself:--

“SIR,--I take the freedom to write you a few lines, by way of

condolence, on account of the almost unparalleled outrages committed

at your house last evening; and the great damage which I understand you

have suffered thereby. God is my witness, that, from the bottom of my

heart, I detest these proceedings; that I am most sincerely grieved at

them, and have a deep sympathy with you and your distressed family on

this occasion.” [Footnote: Mayhew to Hutchinson. _Life of Mayhew_, p.

420.]

Nevertheless, the repeal of the Stamp Act, which pacified the laity,

left the clergy as hot as ever; and so early as 1768, when no one

outside of the inmost ecclesiastical circle yet dreamed of independence,

but when the Rev. Andrew Eliot thought the erection of the bishopric was

near, he frankly told Hollis he anticipated war.

“You will see by this pamphlet, how we are cajoled. A colony bishop is

to be a more innocent creature than ever a bishop was, since diocesan

bishops were introduced to lord it over God’s heritage. ... Can the

A-b-p, and his tools, think to impose on the colonists by these artful

representations.... The people of New England are greatly alarmed; the

arrival of a bishop would raise them as much as any one thing.... Our

General Court is now sitting. I have hinted to some of the members, that

it will be proper for them to express their fears of the setting up

an hierarchy here. I am well assured a motion will be made to this

purpose.... I may be mistaken, but I am persuaded the dispute between

Great Britain and her colonies will never be _amicably_ settled.... I

sent you a few hasty remarks on the A-b-p’s sermon. ... I am more and

more convinced of the meanness, art--if he was not in so high a station,

I should say, falsehood--of that Arch-Pr-l-te.” [Footnote: Thomas

Seeker. Andrew Eliot to Thomas Hollis, Jan. 5, 1768. _Mass. Hist. Coll._

fourth series, iv. 422.] An established priesthood is naturally the

firmest support of despotism; but the course of events made that of

Massachusetts revolutionary. This was a social factor whose importance

it is hard to overestimate; for though the influence of the elders had

much declined during the eighteenth century, their political power was

still immense; and it is impossible to measure the degree in which the

drift of feeling toward independence would have been arrested had they

been thoroughly loyal. At all events, the evidence tends to show that it

is most improbable the first blood would have been shed in the streets

of Boston had it been the policy of Great Britain to conciliate the

Congregational Church; if, for example, the liberals had been forced to

meet the issue of taxation upon a statute designed to raise a revenue

for the maintenance of the evangelical clergy. How potent an ally King

George lost by incurring their hatred may be judged by the devotion of

the Episcopalian pastors, many of whom were of the same blood as their

Calvinistic brethren, often, like Cutler and Johnson, converts. They all

showed the same intensity of feeling; all were Tories, not one wavered;

and they boasted that they were long able to hold their parishioners in

check.

In September, 1765, those of Connecticut wrote to the secretary,

“although the commotions and disaffection in this country are very great

at present, relative to what they call the imposition of stamp duties,

yet ... the people of the Church of England, in general, in this colony,

as we hear, ... and those, in particular, under our respective charges,

are of a contrary temper and conduct; esteeming it nothing short of

rebellion to speak evil of dignities, and to avow opposition to this

last act of Parliament....

“We think it our incumbent duty to warn our hearers, in particular, of

the unreasonableness and wickedness of their taking the least part in

any tumult or opposition to his majesty’s acts, and we have obvious

reasons for the fullest persuasion, that they will steadily behave

themselves as true and faithful subjects to his majesty’s person and

government.” [Footnote: _Conn. Church Doc._ ii. 81.]

Even so late as April, 1775, Mr. Caner, at Boston, felt justified in

making a very similar report to the society: “Our clergy have in the

midst of these confusions behaved I think with remarkable prudence. None

of them have been hindered from exercising the duties of their office

since Mr. Peters, tho’ many of them have been much threat’ned; and as

their people have for the most part remained firm and steadfast in

their loyalty and attachment to goverment, the clergy feel themselves

supported by a conscious satisfaction that their labors have not been in

vain.” [Footnote: Perry’s _Coll._ iii. 579.]

Nor did they shrink because of danger from setting an example of passive

obedience to their congregations. The Rev. Dr. Beach graduated at

Yale in 1721 and became the Congregational pastor of Newtown. He was

afterward converted, and during the war was forbidden to read the

prayers for the royal family; but he replied, “that he would do his

duty, preach and pray for the king, till the rebels cut out his tongue.”

[Footnote: _O’Callaghan Documents_, iii. 1053, 8vo ed.]

In estimating the energy of a social force, such as ecclesiasticism,

the indirect are often more striking than the direct manifestations of

power, and this is eminently true of Massachusetts; for, notwithstanding

her ministers had always been astute and indefatigable politicians,

their greatest triumphs were invariably won by some layman whose mind

they had moulded and whom they put forward as their champion. From

John Winthrop, who was the first, an almost unbroken line of these

redoubtable partisans stretched down to the Revolution, where it ended

with him who is perhaps the most celebrated of all.

Samuel Adams has been called the last of the Puritans. He was indeed

the incarnation of those qualities which led to eminence under the

theocracy. A rigid Calvinist, reticent, cool, and brave, matchless

in intrigue, and tireless in purpose, his cause was always holy, and

therefore sanctified the means.

Professor Hosmer thus describes him: “It was, however, as a manager

of men that Samuel Adams was greatest. Such a master of the methods by

which a town-meeting may be swayed, the world has never seen. On the

best of terms with the people, the shipyard men, the distillers, the

sailors, as well as the merchants and ministers, he knew precisely what

springs to touch. He was the prince of canvassers, the very king of the

caucus, of which his father was the inventor.... As to his tact, was it

ever surpassed?” [Footnote: Hosmer’s _Samuel Adams_, p. 363.] A bigot

in religion, he had the flexibility of a Jesuit; and though he abhorred

Episcopalians, he proposed that Mr. Duché should make the opening prayer

for Congress, in the hope of soothing the southern members. Strict in

all ceremonial observances, he was loose in money matters; yet even here

he stood within the pale, for Dr. Cotton Mather was looser, [Footnote:

See Letter on behalf of Dr. Cotton Mather to Sewall, _Mass. Hist. Coll._

fourth series, ii. 122.] who was the most orthodox of divines.

The clergy instinctively clave to him, and gave him their fullest

confidence. When there was any important work to do they went to him,

and he never failed them. On January 5, 1768, the Rev. Dr. Eliot told

Hollis he had suggested to some of the members of the legislature to

remonstrate against the bishops. [Footnote: _Mass. Hist. Coll._ fourth

series, iv. 422.] A week later the celebrated letter of instructions of

the house to the agent, De Berdt, was reported, which, was written by

Adams; and it is interesting to observe how, in the midst of a most

vigorous protest on the subject, he broke out: “We hope in God such an

establishment will never take place in America, and we desire you would

strenuously oppose it.” [Footnote: _Mass. State Papers_, 1765-1775, p.

132.]

The subtle but unmistakable flavor of ecclesiasticism pervades his whole

long agitation. He handled the newspapers with infinite skill, and the

way in which he used the toleration granted the Canadian Catholics

after the conquest, as a goad wherewith to inflame the dying Puritan

fanaticism, was worthy of St. Ignatius. He moved for the committee

who reported the resolutions of the town of Boston in 1772; his spirit

inspired them, and in these also the grievance of Episcopacy plays a

large part. How strong his prejudices were may be gathered from a few

words: “We think therefore that every design for establishing ...

a bishop in this province, is a design both against our civil and

religious rights.” [Footnote: _Votes and Proceedings of Boston_, Nov.

20, 1772, p. 28.]

The liberals, as loyal subjects of Great Britain, grieved over her

policy as the direst of misfortunes, which indeed they might be driven

to resist, but which they strove to modify.

Washington wrote in 1774: “I am well satisfied, ... that it is the

ardent wish of the warmest advocates for liberty, that peace and

tranquillity, upon constitutional grounds, may be restored, and the

horrors of civil discord prevented.” [Footnote: Washington to Mackenzie.

_Washington’s Writings_, ii. 402.] Jefferson affirmed: “Before the

commencement of hostilities ... I never had heard a whisper of a

disposition to separate from Great Britain; and after that, its

possibility was contemplated with affliction by all.” While John Adams

solemnly declared: “For my own part, there was not a moment during the

Revolution, when I would not have given everything I possessed for a

restoration to the state of things before the contest began, provided

we could have had a sufficient security for its continuance.” [Footnote:

Note of Sparks, _Washington’s Writings_, ii. 501.]

In such feelings Samuel Adams had no share. In each renewed aggression

he saw the error of his natural enemy, which brought ever nearer the

realization of the dream of independence he had inherited from the past;

for the same fierce passion burned within him that had made Endicott

mutilate his flag, and Leverett read his king’s letter with his hat on;

and the guns of Lexington were music in his ears.

He was not a lawyer, nor a statesman, in the true meaning of the word,

but he was a consummate agitator; and if this be remembered, his

career becomes clear. When he conceived the idea of the possibility of

independence is uncertain; probably soon after the passage of the

Stamp Act, but the evidence is strong that so early as 1768 he had

deliberately resolved to precipitate some catastrophe which would make

reconciliation impossible, and obviously an armed collision would have

suited his purpose best.

Troops were then first ordered to Boston, and at one moment he was

tempted to cause their landing to be resisted. An old affidavit is still

extant, presumably truthful enough, which brings him vividly before the

mind as he went about the town lashing up the people.

“Mr. Samuel Adams ... happened to join the same party ... trembling and

in great agitation.... The informant heard the said Samuel Adams

then say ... ‘If you are men, behave like men. Let us take up arms

immediately, and be free, and seize all the king’s officers. We shall

have thirty thousand men to join us from the country.’ ... And before

the arrival of the troops ... at the house of the informant ... the said

Samuel Adams said: ‘We will not submit to any tax, nor become slaves....

The country was first settled by our ancestors, therefore we are free

and want no king.’ ... The informant further sayeth, that about a

fortnight before the troops arrived, the aforesaid Samuel Adams, being

at the house of the informant, the informant asked him what he thought

of the times. The said Adams answered, with great alertness, that, on

lighting the beacon, we should be joined with thirty thousand men from

the country with their knapsacks and bayonets fixed, and added, ‘We will

destroy every soldier that dare put his foot on shore. His majesty has

no right to send troops here to invade the country, and I look upon them

as foreign enemies!’” [Footnote: Wells’s _Samuel Adams_, i. 210, 211.]

Maturer reflection must have convinced him his design was impracticable,

for he certainly abandoned it, and the two regiments disembarked in

peace; but their position was unfortunate. Together they were barely a

thousand strong, and were completely at the mercy of the populous and

hostile province they had been sent to awe.

The temptation to a bold and unscrupulous revolutionary leader must have

been intense. Apparently it needed but a spark to cause an explosion;

the rabble of Boston could be fierce and dangerous when roused, as had

been proved by the sack of Hutchinson’s house; and if the soldiers could

be goaded into firing on the citizens, the chances were they would be

annihilated in the rising which would follow, when a rupture would be

inevitable. But even supposing the militia abstained from participating

in the outbreak, and the tumult were suppressed, the indignation at the

slaughter would be deep enough to sustain him in making demands which

the government could not grant.

Hutchinson and the English officers understood the danger, and for many

months the discipline was exemplary, but precautions were futile.

Though he knew full well how to be all things to all men, the natural

affiliations of Samuel Adams were with the clergy and the mob, and in

the ship-yards and rope-walks he reigned supreme. Nor was he of a temper

to shrink from using to the utmost the opportunity his adversaries

had put in his hands, and he forthwith began a series of inflammatory

appeals in the newspapers, whereof this is a specimen: “And are the

inhabitants of this town still to be affronted in the night as well as

the day by soldiers arm’d with muskets and fix’d bayonets?... Will the

spirits of people, as yet unsubdued by tyranny, unaw’d by the menaces

of arbitary power, submit to be govern’d by military force?” [Footnote:

Vindex, _Boston Gazette_, Dec. 5, 1768.]

In 1770 it was notorious that “endeavors had been systematically

pursued for many months, by certain busy characters, to excite quarrels,

rencounters, and combats, single or compound, in the night, between the

inhabitants of the lower class and the soldiers, and at all risks to

enkindle an immortal hatred between them.” [Footnote: Autobiography of

John Adams. _Works of J. Adams_, ii. 229.] And it is curious to observe

how the British always quarrelled with the laborers about the wharves;

and how these, the closest friends of Adams, were all imbued with the

theory he maintained, that the military could not use their weapons

without the order of a civil magistrate. Little by little the animosity

increased, until on the 2d of March there was a very serious fray at

Gray’s rope-walk, which was begun by one of the hands, who knocked down

two soldiers who spoke to him in the street. Although Adams afterward

labored to convince the public that the tragedy which happened three

days later was the result of a deliberately matured conspiracy to

murder the citizens for revenge, there is nothing whereon to base such a

charge; on the contrary, the evidence tends to exonerate the troops, and

the verdicts show the opinion of the juries. There was exasperation on

both sides, but the rabble were not restrained by discipline, and on

the night of the 5th of March James Crawford swore he he saw at Calf’s

corner “about a dozen with sticks, in Quaker Lane and Green’s Lane, met

many going toward King Street. Very great sticks, pretty large cudgells,

not common walking canes.... At Swing bridge the people were walking

from all quarters with sticks. I was afraid to go home, ... the streets

in such commotion as I hardly ever saw in my life. Uncommon sticks such

as a man would pull out of an hedge.... Thomas Knight at his own door,

8 or 10 passed with sticks or clubs and one of them said ‘D--n their

bloods, let us go and attack the main guard first.’” [Footnote: Kidder’s

_Massacre_, p. 10.] The crown witnesses testified that the sentry was

surrounded by a crowd of thirty or forty, who pelted him with pieces of

ice “hard and large enough to hurt any man; as big as one’s fist.” And

ha said “he was afraid, if the boys did not disperse, there would be

trouble.” [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 138.] When the guard came to his help

the mob grew still more violent, yelling “bloody backs,” “lobster

scoundrels,” “damn you, fire! why don’t you fire?” striking them with

sticks.

“Did you observe anybody strike Montgomery, or was a club thrown? The

stroke came from a stick or club that was in somebody’s hand, and the

blow struck his gun and his arm.” “Was he knocked down?... He fell, I am

sure.... His gun flew out of hand, and as he stooped to take it up, he

fell himself.... Was any number of people standing near the man that

struck his gun? Yes, a whole crowd, fifty or sixty.” [Footnote: Kidder’s

_Massacre_, pp. 138, 139.] When the volley came at last the rabble fell

back, and the 29th was rapidly formed before the main guard, the front

rank kneeling, that the fire might sweep the street. And now when every

bell was tolling, and the town was called to arms, and infuriated men

came pouring in by thousands, Hutchinson showed he had inherited the

blood of his great ancestress, who feared little upon earth; but

then, indeed, their adversaries have seldom charged the Puritans with

cowardice in fight. Coming quickly to the council chamber he passed

into the balcony, which overhung the kneeling regiment and the armed and

maddened crowd, and he spoke with such calmness and courage that even

then he was obeyed. He promised that justice should be done and he

commanded the people to disperse. Preston and his men were at once

surrendered to the authorities to await their trial.

The next day Adams was in his glory. The meeting in the morning was as

wax between his fingers, and his friend, the Rev. Dr. Cooper, opened

it with fervent prayer. A committee was at once appointed to demand the

withdrawal of the troops, but Hutchinson thought he had no power and

that Gage alone could give the order. Nevertheless, after a conference

with Colonel Dalrymple he was induced to propose that the 29th should be

sent to the Castle, and the 14th put under strict restraint. [Footnote:

Kidder’s _Massacre_, p. 43.] To the daring agitator it seemed at last

his hour was come, for the whole people were behind him, and Hutchinson

himself says “their spirit” was “as high as was the spirit of their

ancestors when they imprisoned Andros.” As the committee descended

the steps of the State House to go to the Old South where they were to

report, the dense crowd made way for them, and Samuel Adams as he walked

bare-headed through their lines continually bowed to right and left,

repeating the catchword, “Both regiments or none.” His touch on human

passions was unerring, for when the lieutenant-governor’s reply was

read, the great assembly answered with a mighty shout, “Both regiments

or none,” and so instructed he returned. Then the nature of the man

shone out; the handful of troops were helpless, and he was as inflexible

as steel. The thin, strong, determined, gray-eyed Puritan stood before

Hutchinson, inwardly exulting as he marked his features change under

the torture. “A multitude highly incensed now wait the result of

this application. The voice of ten thousand freemen demands that both

regiments be forthwith removed.... Fail not then at your peril to comply

with this requisition!” [Footnote: Hosmer’s _Samuel Adams_, p. 173.] It

was the spirit of Norton and of Endicott alive again, and he was flushed

with the same stern triumph at the sight of his victim’s pain: “It

was then, if fancy deceived me not, I observed his knees to tremble. I

thought I saw his face grow pale (and I enjoyed the sight).” [Footnote:

Adams to Warren. Wells’s Samuel Adams, i. 324.]

Probably nothing prevented a complete rupture but the hopeless weakness

of the garrison, for Hutchinson, feeling the decisive moment had come,

was full of fight. He saw that to yield would destroy his authority,

and he opposed concession, but he stood alone, the officers knew their

position was untenable, and the council was unanimous against him.

“The Lt G. endeavoured to convince them of the ill consequence of this

advice, and kept them until late in the evening, the people remaining

assembled; but the council were resolute. Their advice, therefore, he

communicated to Col Dalrymple accompanied with a declaration, that he

had no authority to order the removal of the troops. This part Col.

D. was dissatisfied with, and urged the Lt G. to withdraw it, but he

refused, and the regiments were removed. He was much distressed, but he

brought it all upon himself by his offer to remove one of the regiments.

No censure, however, was passed upon him.” [Footnote: _Diary and Letters

of T. Hutchinson_, p. 80.]

Had the pacification of his country been the object near his heart,

Samuel Adams, after his victory, would have abstained from any act

however remotely tending to influence the course of justice; for he must

have known that it was only by such conduct the colonists could inspire

respect for the motives which actuated them in their resistance. A

capital sentence would have been doubly unfortunate, for had it been

executed it would have roused all England; while had the king pardoned

the soldiers, as assuredly he would have done, a deep feeling of wrong

would have rankled in America.

A fanatical and revolutionary demagogue, on the other hand, would have

longed for a conviction, not only to compass his ends as a politician,

but to glut his hate as a zealot.

Samuel Adams was a taciturn, secretive man, whose tortuous course would

have been hard to follow a century ago; now the attempt is hopeless. Yet

there is one inference it seems permissible to draw: his admirers

have always boasted that he was the inspiration of the town meetings,

presumably, therefore, the votes passed at them may be attributed to his

manipulation. And starting from this point, with the help of Hutchinson

and his own writings, it is still possible to discern the outlines of a

policy well worthy of a theocratic statesman.

The March meeting began on the 12th. On the 13th it was resolved:--

“That ---- He and they hereby are appointed a committee for and in

behalf of the town to find out who those persons are that were the

perpetrators of the horred murders and massacres done and committed

in King Street on several of the inhabitants in the evening of the 5th

instant and take such examinations and depositions as they can procure,

and lay the whole thereof before the grand inquest in order that such

perpetrators may be indicted and brought to tryal for the same, and upon

indictments being found, said committee are desired to prepare matters

for the king’s attorney, to attend at their tryals in the superior

court, subpoena all the witnesses, and do everything necessary for

bringing those murtherers to that punishment for such crimes, as the

laws of God and man require.” [Footnote: _Records of Boston_, v. 232.]

A day or two afterward a number of Adams’s friends, among whom were some

of the members of this committee, dined together, and Hutchinson tells

what he persuaded them to do.

“The time for holding the superior court for the county of Suffolk was

the next week after the tragical action in King Street. Although bills

were found by the grand jury, yet the court, considering the disordered

state of the town, had thought fit to continue the trials over to the

next term, when the minds of people would be more free from prejudice.”

“A considerable number of the most active persons in all publick

measures of the town, having dined together, went in a body from table

to the superior court then sitting, and Mr. Adams, at their head and in

behalf of the town, pressed the bringing on the trial the same term with

so much spirit, that the judges did not think it advisable to abide by

their own order, but appointed a day for the trials, and adjourned the

court for that purpose.” [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist._ iii. 285, 286 and

note.]

The justices must afterward have grown ashamed of their cowardice, for

Rex _v._ Preston did not come on until the autumn, and altogether very

little was accomplished by these attempts to interfere with the due

administration of the law. “A committee had been appointed by the town

to assist in the prosecution of the soldiers ... but this was irregular.

The courts, according to the practice in the province, required no

prosecutors but the officers of the crown; much less would they have

thought it proper for the principal town in the province to have brought

all its weight, which was very great, into court against the prisoners.”

[Footnote: _Idem_, iii. 286, note.]

Nevertheless, Adams had by no means exhausted his resources, for it was

possible so to inflame the public mind that dispassionate juries could

hardly be obtained.

At the same March meeting another committee was named, who were to

obtain a “particular account of all proceedings relative to the massacre

in King Street on Monday night last, that a full and just representation

may be made thereof?” [Footnote: Kidder’s _Massacre_, p. 23.] The

reason assigned for so unwonted a proceeding as the taking of _ex parte_

testimony by a popular assembly concerning alleged murders, for which

men were to be presently tried for their lives, was the necessity for

controverting the aspersions of the British officials; but the probable

truth of this explanation must be judged by the course actually pursued.

On the 19th the report was made, consisting of “A Short Narrative of the

Horrid Massacre in Boston,” together with a number of depositions;

and though perhaps it was natural, under the circumstances, for such a

pamphlet to have been highly partisan, it was unnatural for its authors

to have assumed the burden of proving that a deliberately planned

conspiracy had existed between the civilians and the military to murder

the citizens; especially as this tremendous charge rested upon no

better foundation than the fantastic falsehoods of “a French boy, whose

evidence appeared to the justice so improbable, and whose character was

so infamous, that the justice, who was one of the most zealous in the

cause of liberty, refused to issue a warrant to apprehend his master,

against whom he swore.” [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist_. iii. 279, 280.] “Then

I went up to the custom-house door and knocked, ... I saw my master and

Mr. Munroe come down-stairs, and go into a room; when four or five men

went up stairs, pulling and hauling me after them.... When I was carried

into the chamber, there was but one light in the room, and that in the

corner of the chamber, when I saw a tall man loading a gun (then I saw

two guns in the room) ... there was a number of gentlemen in the room.

After the gun was loaded, the tall man gave it to me, and told me to

fire, and said he would kill me if I did not; I told him I would not. He

drawing a sword out of his cane, told me, if I did not fire it, he would

run it through my guts. The man putting the gun out of the window, it

being a little open, I fired it side way up the street; the tall man

then loaded the gun again.... I told him I would not fire again; he told

me again, he would run me through the guts if I did not. Upon which I

fired the same way up the street. After I fired the second gun, I saw

my master in the room; he took a gun and pointed it out of the window;

I heard the gun go off. Then a tall man came and clapped me on the

shoulders above and below stairs, and said, that’s my good boy, I’ll

give you some money to-morrow.... And I ran home as fast as I could, and

sat up all night in my master’s kitchen. And further say, that my master

licked me the next night for telling Mrs. Waldron about his firing out

of the custom-house. And for fear that I should be licked again, I did

deny all that I said before Justice Quincy, which I am very sorry for.

[Footnote: Kidder’s _Massacre_, p. 82. Deposition 58.]

“CHARLOTTE BOURGATE + (his mark).”

* * * * *

While it is inconceivable that a cool and sagacious politician, whose

object was to convince Parliament of the good faith of Massachusetts,

should have relied upon such incredible statements to sway the minds of

English statesmen and lawyers, it is equally inconceivable he should

not have known they were admirably adapted to still further exasperate

an already excited people; and that such was his purpose must be

inferred from the immediate publication of the substance of this

affidavit in the newspapers. [Footnote: _Boston Gazette_, March 19,

1770.]

Without doubt a vote was passed on the 26th of March, a week after the

committee had presented their report, desiring them to reserve all the

printed copies not sent to Europe, as their distribution might tend to

bias the juries; but even had this precaution been observed, it came

too late, for the damage was done when the Narrative was read in

Faneuil Hall; in fact, however, the order was eluded, for “many copies,

notwithstanding, got abroad, and some of a second edition were sent from

England, long before the trials of the officer and soldiers came on.”

[Footnote: Hutch. _Hist._ iii. 279.] And at this cheap rate a reputation

for magnanimity was earned.

How thoroughly the clergy sympathized with their champion appears from

their clamors for blood. As the time drew near it was rumored Hutchinson

would reprieve the prisoners, should they be convicted, till the king’s

pleasure could be known. Then Dr. Chauncy, the senior minister of

Boston, cried out in his pulpit: “Surely he would not counteract the

operation of the law, both of God and of man! Surely he would not suffer

the town and land to lie under the defilement of blood! Surely he would

not make himself a partaker in the guilt of murder, by putting a stop

to the shedding of their blood, who have murderously spilt the blood of

others!” [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist._ iii. 329, note.] Adams attended when

the causes were heard and took notes of the evidence; and one of the few

occasions in his long life on which his temper seems to have got

beyond control was when the accused were acquitted. His writings betray

unmistakable chagrin; and nothing is more typical of the man, or of the

clerical atmosphere wherein he had been bred, than his comments upon the

testimony on which the lives of his enemies hung. His piety caused him

to doubt those whose evidence was adverse to his wishes, though they

appeared to be trying to speak the truth. “The credibility of a witness

perhaps cannot be impeach’d in court, unless he has been convicted of

perjury: but an immoral man, for instance one who will commonly prophane

the name of his maker, certainly cannot be esteemed of equal credit by

a jury, with one who fears to take that sacred name in vain: It is

impossible he should in the mind of any man.” [Footnote: _Boston

Gazette_, Jan. 21, 1771.]

And yet this rigid Calvinist, this incarnation of ecclesiasticism, had

no scruple in propagating the palpable and infamous lies of Charlotte

Bourgate, when by so doing he thought it possible to further his own

ends. He was bitterly mortified, for he had been foiled. Yet, though he

had failed in precipitating war, he had struck a telling blow, and

he had no reason to repine. Probably no single event, before fighting

actually began, left so deep a scar as the Boston massacre; and many

years later John Adams gave it as his deliberate opinion that, on

the night of the 5th of March, 1770, “the foundation of American

independence was laid.” Nor was the full realization of his hopes long

delayed. Gage occupied Boston in 1774. During the winter the tireless

agitator, from his place in the Provincial Congress, warned the people

to fight any force sent more than ten miles from the town; and so when

Paul Revere galloped through Middlesex on the night of the 18th of April

he found the farmers ready. Samuel Adams had slept at the house of the

Rev. Jonas Clark. Before sunrise the detachment sent to seize him was

close at hand. While they advanced, he escaped; and as he walked across

the fields toward Woburn, to the sound of the guns of Lexington, he

exclaimed, in a burst of passionate triumph, “What a glorious morning is

this!”

Massachusetts became the hot-bed of rebellion because of this unwonted

alliance between liberality and sacerdotalism. Liberality was her

birthright; for liberalism is the offspring of intellectual variation,

which makes mutual toleration of opinion a necessity; but that her

church should have been radical at this crisis was due to the action of

a long chain of memorable causes.

The exiles of the Reformation were enthusiasts, for none would then have

dared defy the pains of heresy, in whom the instinct onward was feebler

than the fear of death; yet when the wanderers reached America the

mental growth of the majority had culminated, and they had passed

into the age of routine; and exactly in proportion as their youthful

inspiration had been fervid was their later formalism intense. But

similar causes acting on the human mechanism produce like results;

hence bigotry and ambition fed by power led to persecution. Then, as

the despotism of the preachers deepened, their victims groaning in their

dungeons, or furrowed by their lash, implored the aid of England, who,

in defence of freedom and of law, crushed the theocracy at a blow. And

the clergy knew and hated their enemy from the earliest days; it was

this bitter theological jealousy which flamed within Endicott when he

mutilated his flag, and within Leverett when he insulted Randolph;

it was a rapacious lust for power and a furious detestation of rival

priests which maddened the Mathers in their onslaught upon Dudley, which

burned undimmed in Mayhew and Cooper, and in their champion, Samuel

Adams, and which at last made the hierarchy cast in its lot with an ally

more dangerous far than those prelates whom it deemed its foe. For no

church can preach liberality and not be liberalized. Of a truth the

momentary spasm may pass which made these conservatives progressive, and

they may once more manifest their reactionary nature, but, nevertheless,

the impulsion shall have been given to that automatic, yet resistless,

machinery which produces innovation; wherefore, in the next generation,

the great liberal secession from the Congregational communion broke

the ecclesiastical power forever. And so, through toil and suffering,

through martyrdoms and war, the Puritans wrought out the ancient destiny

which fated them to wander as outcasts to the desolate New England

shore; there, amidst hardship and apparent failure, they slowly achieved

their civil and religious liberty, and conceived that constitutional

system which is the root of our national life; and there in another

century the liberal commonwealth they had builded led the battle against

the spread of human oppression; and when the war of slavery burst forth

her soldiers rightly were the first to fall; for it is her children’s

heritage that, wheresoever on this continent blood shall flow in defence

of personal freedom, there must the sons of Massachusetts surely be.

End of Project Gutenberg’s The Emancipation of Massachusetts, by Brooks Adams