CHAPTER V A LITTLE DISCREET CONDUCT

It has been his [Thomas Hutchinson's] principle from a boy that mankind

are to be governed by the discerning few, and it has been ever since his

ambition to be the hero of the few.--Samuel Adams.

We have not been so quiet these five years.... If it were not for two or

three Adamses, we should do well enough.--Thomas Hutchinson.

In December, 1771, Horace Walpole, a persistent if not an infallible

political prophet, was of opinion that all the storms that for a decade

had distressed the Empire were at last happily blown over; among which

storms he included, as relatively of minor importance, the disputes with

the colonies. During two years following, this prediction might well

have appeared to moderate minded men entirely justified. American

affairs were barely mentioned in Parliament, and a few paragraphs in the

Annual Register were thought sufficient to chronicle for English readers

events of interest occurring across the Atlantic. In the colonies

themselves an unwonted tranquillity prevailed. Rioting, as an

established social custom, disappeared in most of the places where it

had formerly been so much practised. The Sons of Liberty, retaining the

semblance of an organization, were rarely in the public eye save at

the annual celebrations of the repeal of the Stamp Act, quite harmless

occasions devoted to the expression of patriotic sentiments. Merchants

and landowners, again prosperous, were content to fall back into

accustomed habits of life, conscious of duty done without too much

stress, readily believing their liberties finally vindicated against

encroachments from abroad and their privileges secure against

unwarranted and dangerous pretensions at home. "The people appear to be

weary of their altercations with the mother country," Mr. Johnson, the

Connecticut agent, wrote to Wedderburn, in October, 1771; "a little

discreet conduct on both sides would perfectly reëstablish that warm

affection and respect towards Great Britain for which this country was

once remarkable."

Discreet conduct was nowhere more necessary than in Massachusetts, where

the people, perhaps because they were much accustomed to them, grew

weary of altercations less easily than in most colonies. Yet even in

Massachusetts there was a marked waning of enthusiasm after the high

excitement occasioned by the Boston Massacre, a certain disintegration

of the patriot party. James Otis recovered from a temporary fit of

insanity only to grow strangely suspicious of Samuel Adams. Mr. Hancock,

discreetly holding his peace, attended to his many thriving and very

profitable business ventures. John Adams, somewhat unpopular for having

defended and procured the acquittal of the soldiers implicated in the

Massacre, retired in high dudgeon from public affairs to the practice

of his profession; in high dudgeon with everyone concerned--with himself

first of all, and with the people who so easily forgot their interests

and those who had served them, and with the British Government and all

fawning tools of ministers, of whom Mr. Thomas Hutchinson was chief.

Meanwhile, Mr. Hutchinson, so roughly handled in the secret diary of the

rising young lawyer, was the recipient of new honors, having been made

Governor of the province to succeed Francis Bernard. For once finding

himself almost popular, he thought he perceived a disposition in all

the colonies, and even in Massachusetts, to let the controversy subside.

"Though there are a small majority sour enough, yet when they seek

matter for protests, remonstrances, they are puzzled where to charge

the grievances which they look for." The new Governor looked forward to

happier days and an easy administration. "Hancock and most of the party

are quiet," he said, "and all of them, except Adams, abate of their

virulence. Adams would push the Continent into a rebellion tomorrow, if

it was in his power."

No one, in the year 1770, was better fitted than Samuel Adams, either by

talent and temperament or the circumstances of his position, to push the

continent into a rebellion. Unlike most of his patriot friends, he had

neither private business nor private profession to fall back upon when

public affairs grew tame, his only business being, as one might say,

the public business, his only profession the definition and defense of

popular rights. In this profession, by dint of single-minded devotion

to it through a course of years, he had indeed become wonderfully expert

and had already achieved for himself the enviable position of known and

named leader in every movement of opposition to royal or magisterial

prerogative. In this connection no exploit had brought him so much

distinction as his skillful management of the popular uprising which had

recently forced Governor Hutchinson to withdraw the troops from Boston.

The event was no by-play in the life of Samuel Adams, no amateur

achievement accomplished on the side, but the serious business of a man

who during ten years had abandoned all private pursuits and had embraced

poverty to become a tribune of the people.

Samuel Adams had not inherited poverty nor had he, after all, exactly

embraced it, but had as it were naturally drifted into it through

indifference to worldly gain, the indifference which men of single and

fixed purpose have for all irrelevant matters. The elder Samuel Adams

was a merchant of substance and of such consequence in the town of

Boston that in Harvard College, where students were named according to

the prominence of their families, his son's name was fifth in a class

of twenty-two. In 1748, upon the death of his father, Samuel Junior

accordingly inherited a very decent property, considered so at least

in that day--a spacious old house in Purchase Street together with a

well-established malt business. For business, however, the young man,

and not so young either, was without any aptitude whatever, being

entirely devoid of the acquisitive instinct and neither possessing nor

ever being able to acquire any skill in the fine art of inducing people

to give for things more than it cost to make them. These deficiencies

the younger Adams had already exhibited before the death of his father,

from whom he received on one occasion a thousand pounds, half of which

he promptly loaned to an impecunious friend, and which he would in any

case doubtless have lost, as he soon did the other half, on his own

account. In such incompetent hands the malt business soon fell to be a

liability rather than an asset. Other liabilities accumulated, notably

one incurred by the tax collectors of the town of Boston, of whom Samuel

Adams was one during the years from 1756 to 1764. For one reason or

another, on Adams's part certainly on account of his humane feelings and

general business inefficiency, the collectors fell every year a little

behind in the collections, and one day found themselves declared on the

official records to be indebted to the town in the sum of £9,878.

This indebtedness Mr. Hutchinson and other gentlemen not well disposed

towards Samuel Adams conveniently and frequently referred to in later

years as a "defalcation."

In this year of 1764, when he had lost his entire patrimony except the

old house in Purchase Street, now somewhat rusty for want of repair,

Samuel Adams was married to Elizabeth Wells. It was his second marriage,

the first having taken place in 1749, of which the fruit was a son and

a daughter. Samuel Adams was then--it was the year of the Sugar

Act--forty-two years old; that is to say, at the age when a man's hair

begins to turn gray, when his character is fixed, when his powers, such

as they are, are fully matured; well known as a "poor provider," an

improvident man who had lost a fair estate, had failed in business, and

was barely able, and sometimes not able, to support his small family.

These mundane matters concerned Samuel Adams but little. To John Adams

he said on one occasion that "he never looked forward in life; never

planned, laid a scheme, or formed a design for laying up anything for

himself or others after him." This was the truth, inexplicable as it

must have seemed to his more provident cousin. It was even less than

the truth: during the years following 1764, Samuel Adams renounced all

pretense of private business, giving himself wholly to public affairs,

while his good wife, with excellent management, made his stipend

as clerk of the Assembly serve for food, and obtained, through the

generosity of friends or her own ingenious labors, indispensable clothes

for the family. Frugality, that much lauded virtue in the eighteenth

century, needed not to be preached in the old Purchase Street home;

but life went on there, somehow or other, decently enough, not without

geniality yet with evident piety. The old Bible is still preserved from

which each evening some member of the family read a chapter, and at

every meal the head of the house said grace, returning thanks for God's

benefits.

If Samuel Adams at the age of forty-two was known for a man who could

not successfully manage his own affairs, he was also known, and very

well known, for a man with a singular talent for managing the affairs of

the community; he could manage successfully, for example, town meetings

and every sort of business, great or small, incidental to local

politics. This talent he may have inherited from his father, who was

himself a notable of the neighborhood--one of the organizers of the "New

South" church, and prominent about 1724 in a club popularly known as

the "Caulkers' Club," formed for the purpose of laying "plans for

introducing certain persons into places of trust and power," and was

himself from time to time introduced into such places of trust and power

as justice of the peace, deacon, selectman, and member of the provincial

assembly. From an early age, the younger Samuel exhibited a marked

aptitude for this sort of activity, and was less likely to be found

"in his counting-house a-counting of his money" than in some hospitable

tavern or back shop discussing town topics with local worthies. Samuel

Adams was born to serve on committees. He had the innate slant of

mind that properly belongs to a moderator of mass meetings called to

aggravate a crisis. With the soul of a Jacobin, he was most at home in

clubs, secret clubs of which everyone had heard and few were members,

designed at best to accomplish some particular good for the people, at

all events meeting regularly to sniff the approach of tyranny in the

abstract, academically safeguarding the commonwealth by discussing the

first principles of government.

From the days of Anne Hutchinson, Boston never lacked clubs; and the

Caulkers' Club was the prototype of many, rather more secular and

political than religious or transcendental, which flourished in the

years preceding the Revolution. John Adams, in that Diary which tells us

so much that we wish to know, gives us a peep inside one of these clubs,

the "Caucus Club," which met regularly at one period in the garret of

Tom Dawes's house. "There they smoke tobacco till you cannot see from

one end of the garret to the other. There they drink flip, I suppose,

and there they choose a moderator who puts questions to the vote

regularly; and selectmen, assessors, collectors, wardens, fire-wards,

and representatives are regularly chosen before they are chosen in

the town. Uncle Fairfield, Story, Ruddock, Adams, Cooper, and a rudis

indigestaque moles of others are members. They send committees to wait

on the merchants' club, and to propose and join in the choice of men

and measures." The artist Copley, in the familiar portrait by which

posterity knows Samuel Adams, chose to represent him in conventional

garb, on a public and dramatic occasion, standing erect, eyes flashing

and mouth firm-set, pointing with admonitory finger to the Charter of

Massachusetts Bay--a portrait well suited to hang in the Art Museum or

in the meeting place of the Daughters of the Revolution. A different

effect would have been produced if the man had been placed in Tom

Dawes's garret, dimly seen through tobacco smoke, sitting, with coat

off, drinking flip, in the midst of Uncle Fairfield, Story, Cooper, and

a rudis indigestaque moles. This was his native habitat, an environment

precisely suited to his peculiar talent.

Samuel Adams had a peculiar talent, that indispensable combination of

qualities possessed by all great revolutionists of the crusading type,

such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Brown, or Mazzini. When a man

abandons his business or job and complacently leaves the clothing of his

children to wife or neighbors in order to drink flip and talk politics,

ordinary folk are content to call him a lazy lout, ne'er-do-well,

worthless fellow, or scamp. Samuel Adams was not a scamp. He might have

been no more than a ne'er-do-well, perhaps, if cosmic forces had not

opportunely provided him with an occupation which his contemporaries and

posterity could regard as a high service to humanity. In his own eyes,

this was the view of the situation which justified his conduct. When

he was about to depart for the first Continental Congress, a number of

friends contributed funds to furnish him forthwith presentable apparel:

a suit of clothes, new wig, new hat, "six pair of the best silk hose,

six pair of fine thread ditto, ... six pair of shoes"; and, it being

"modestly inquired of him whether his finances were not rather low than

otherwise, he replied it was true that was the case, but he was very

indifferent about these matters, so that his poor abilities were of any

service to the public; upon which the gentleman obliged him to accept

a purse containing about fifteen or twenty Johannes." To accept so much

and still preserve one's self-respect would be impossible to ordinary

men under ordinary circumstances. Fate had so ordered the affairs

of Samuel Adams that integrity of character required him to be an

extraordinary man acting under extraordinary circumstances.

The character of his mind, as well as the outward circumstances of

his life, predisposed Samuel Adams to think that a great crisis in the

history of America and of the world confronted the men of Boston. There

was in him some innate scholastic quality, some strain of doctrinaire

Puritan inheritance diverted to secular interests, that gave direction

to all his thinking. In 1743, upon receiving the degree of Master of

Arts from Harvard College, he argued the thesis, "Whether it be lawful

to resist the Supreme Magistrate, if the Commonwealth cannot otherwise

be preserved." We may suppose that the young man acquitted himself

well, reasoning with great nicety in favor of the legality of an illegal

action, doubtless to the edification of Governor Shirley, who was

present and who perhaps felt sufficiently remote from the performance,

being himself only an actual supreme magistrate presiding over a real

commonwealth. And indeed for most young men a college thesis is but an

exercise for sharpening the wits, rarely dangerous in its later

effects. But in the case of Samuel Adams, the ability to distinguish

the speculative from the actual reality seemed to diminish as the years

passed. After 1764, relieved of the pressure of life's anxieties

and daily nourishing his mind on premises and conclusions reasonably

abstracted from the relative and the conditioned circumstance, he

acquired in a high degree the faculty of identifying reality with

propositions about it; so that, for example, Liberty seemed threatened

if improperly defined, and a false inference from an axiom of politics

appeared the same as evil intent to take away a people's rights. Thus it

was that from an early date, in respect to the controversy between

the colonies and the mother country, Samuel Adams became possessed of

settled convictions that were capable of clear and concise presentation

and that were at once impersonal and highly subjective, for which

outward events--the Stamp Act, the Townshend duties, the appointment

of Thomas Hutchinson as Governor, or whatever--furnished as it were the

suggestion only, the convictions themselves being largely the result of

inward brooding, the finespun product of his own ratiocinative mind.

The crisis which thus threatened--in the mind of Samuel Adams--was

not an ordinary one: no mere complication of affairs, or creaking

of worn-out institutions, or honest difference of opinion about the

expediency or the legality of measures. It was a crisis engendered

deliberately by men of evil purpose, public enemies well known and often

named. Samuel Adams, who had perhaps not heard of even one of the many

materialistic interpretations of history, thought of the past as chiefly

instructive in connection with certain great epochal conflicts between

Liberty and Tyranny--a political Manicheanism, in which the principle of

Liberty was embodied in the virtuous many and the principle of Tyranny

in the wicked few. Those who read history must know it for a notorious

fact that ancient peoples had lost their liberties at the hands of

designing men, leagued and self-conscious conspirators against the

welfare of the human race. Thus the yoke was fastened upon the Romans,

"millions ... enslaved by a few." Now, in the year 1771, another of

these epochal conflicts was come upon the world, and Samuel Adams,

living in heroic days, was bound to stand in the forefront of the

virtuous against "restless Adversaries ... forming the most dangerous

Plans for the Ruin of the Reputation of the People, in order to build

their own Greatness upon the Destruction of their liberties."

A superficial observer might easily fall into the error of supposing

that the restless adversaries and designing conspirators against whom

patriots had to contend were all in England; on the contrary, the most

persistent enemies of Liberty were Americans residing in the midst

of the people whom they sought to despoil. One might believe that in

England "the general inclination is to wish that we may preserve our

liberties; and perhaps even the ministry could for some reasons find it

in their hearts to be willing that we should be restored to the state

we were in before the passing of the Stamp Act." Even Lord Hillsborough,

richly meriting the "curses of the disinterested and better part of

the colonists," was by no means "to be reckoned the most inveterate and

active of all the Conspirators against our rights. There are others on

this side of the Atlantick who have been more insidious in plotting

the Ruin of our Liberties than even he, and they are the more infamous,

because the country they would enslave, is that very Country in which

(to use the words of their Adulators and Expectants) they were 'born and

educated.'" Of all these restless adversaries and infamous plotters of

ruin, the chief, in the mind of Samuel Adams, was probably Mr. Thomas

Hutchinson.

Judged only by what he did and said and by such other sources of

information as are open to the historian, Thomas Hutchinson does not

appear to have been, prior to 1771, an Enemy of the Human Race. One of

his ancestors, Mistress Anne Hutchinson, poor woman, had indeed been--it

was as far back as 1637--an enemy of the Boston Church; but as a family

the Hutchinsons appear to have kept themselves singularly free from

notoriety or other grave reproach. Thomas Hutchinson himself was born

in 1711 in Garden Court Street, Boston, of rich but honest parents, a

difficult character which he managed for many years to maintain with

reasonable credit. In 1771, he was a grave, elderly man of sixty years,

more distinguished than any of his forebears had been, having since

the age of twenty-six been honored with every important elective and

appointive office in the province, including that of governor, which

he had with seeming reluctance just accepted. It may be that Thomas

Hutchinson was ambitious; but if he elbowed his way into office by

solicitation or by the mean arts of an intriguer the fact was well

concealed. He was not a member of the "Caulkers' Club." So far as is

known, he was not a member of any club designed "to introduce certain

persons into places of trust and power"; except indeed of the club,

if one may call it such, composed of the "best families," closely

interrelated by marriage and social intercourse, mostly wealthy,

enjoying the leisure and the disposition to occupy themselves with

affairs, and commonly regarding themselves as forming a kind of natural

aristocracy whose vested duty it was to manage the commonwealth. To this

club Mr. Hutchinson belonged; and it was no doubt partly through its

influence, without any need of solicitation on his part, that offices

were thrust upon him.

One morning in September, 1760--it was the day following the death of

Chief Justice Sewall--Mr. Hutchinson was stopped in the street by the

first lawyer in the province, Jeremiah Gridley, who assured him that

he, Mr. Hutchinson, must be Mr. Sewall's successor; and it soon appeared

that other principal lawyers, together with the surviving judge of the

Superior Court, were of the same opinion as Mr. Gridley. Although the

place was an attractive one, Mr. Hutchinson distrusted his ability to

discharge competently the duties of a Chief Justice, since he had never

had any systematic training as a lawyer. Besides, as he was aware, James

Otis, Sr., who desired the place and made no secret of the fact that he

had formerly been promised it by Governor Shirley, at once became active

in pressing his claims upon the attention of Governor Bernard. In this

solicitation he was joined by his son, James Otis, Jr. Mr. Hutchinson,

on the contrary, refrained from all solicitation, so he tells us at

least, and even warned Governor Bernard that it would perhaps be wiser

to avoid any trouble which the Otises might be disposed to make in

case they were disappointed. This line of conduct may have been only a

shrewder form of solicitation, the proof of which, to some minds, would

be that Mr. Hutchinson was in fact appointed to be Chief Justice. This

appointment was afterwards recalled as one of Mr. Hutchinson's

many offenses, although at the time it seems to have given general

satisfaction, especially to the lawyers.

The lawyers may well have been pleased, for the new Chief Justice was

a man whose outstanding abilities, even more than his place in society,

marked him for responsible position. Thomas Hutchinson possessed the

efficient mind. No one surpassed him in wide and exact knowledge, always

at command, of the history of the province, of its laws and customs, of

past and present practice in respect to the procedure of administration.

Industrious and systematic in his habits of work, conscientious in the

performance of his duties down to the last jot and tittle of the law,

he was preëminently fitted for the neat and expeditious dispatch of

official business; and his sane and trenchant mind, habituated by long

practice to the easy mastery of details, was prompt to pass upon any

practical matter, however complicated, an intelligent and just judgment.

It was doubtless thought, in an age when the law was not too highly

specialized to be understood by any but the indoctrinated, that

these traits would make him a good judge, as they had made him a good

councilor. Not all people, it is true, are attracted by the efficient

mind; and Mr. Hutchinson in the course of years had made enemies, among

whom were many who still thought of him as the man chiefly responsible

for the abolition, some eleven years before, of what was probably the

most vicious system of currency known to colonial America. Nevertheless,

in the days before the passing of the Stamp Act, Mr. Hutchinson was

commonly well thought of, both for character and ability, and might

still without offense be mentioned as a useful and honored public

servant.

Mr. Hutchinson did not, at any time in his life, regard himself as

an Enemy of the Human Race, or of America, or even of liberty rightly

considered. Perhaps he had not the fine enthusiasm for the Human Race

that Herder or Jean Jacques Rousseau had; but at least he wished it

well; and to America, the country in which he was born and educated and

in which he had always lived, he was profoundly attached. Of America he

was as proud as a cultivated and unbigoted man well could be, extremely

jealous of her good name abroad and prompt to stand, in any way that was

appropriate and customary, in defense of her rights and liberties. To

rights and liberties in general, and to those of America in particular,

he had given long and careful thought. It was perhaps characteristic

of his practical mind to distinguish the word liberty from the various

things which it might conceivably represent, and to think that of these

various things some were worth more than others, what any of them was

worth being a relative matter depending largely upon circumstances.

Speaking generally, liberty in the abstract, apart from particular and

known conditions, was only a phrase, a brassy tinkle in Mr. Hutchinson's

ear, meaning nothing unless it meant mere absence of all constraint.

The liberty which Mr. Hutchinson prized was not the same as freedom from

constraint. Not liberty in this sense, or in any sense, but the welfare

of a people neatly ordered for them by good government, was what he took

to be the chief end of politics; and from this conception it followed

that "in a remove from a state of nature to the most perfect state of

government there must be a great restraint of natural liberty."

The limitations proper to be placed upon natural liberty could scarcely

be determined by abstract speculation or with mathematical precision,

but would obviously vary according to the character and circumstances

of a people, always keeping in mind the "peace and good order" of the

particular community as the prime object. In all such matters reasonable

men would seek enlightenment not in the Utopias of philosophers but in

the history of nations; and, taking a large view of history, the history

more particularly of the British Empire and of Massachusetts Bay,

it seemed to Mr. Hutchinson, as it seemed to John Locke and to Baron

Montesquieu, that a proper balance between liberty and authority had

been very nearly attained in the British Constitution, as nearly

perhaps as common human frailty would permit. The prevailing "thirst

for liberty," which seemed to be "the ruling passion of the age,"

Mr. Hutchinson was therefore able to contemplate with much sanity and

detachment. "In governments under arbitrary rule" such a passion for

liberty might, he admitted, "have a salutary effect; but in governments

in which as much freedom is enjoyed as can consist with the ends of

government, as was the case in this Province, it must work anarchy and

confusion unless there be some external power to restrain it."

In 1771, Thomas Hutchinson was perfectly convinced that this passion for

liberty, during several years rising steadily in the heads of the most

unstable part of the population, the most unstable "both for character

and estates," had brought Massachusetts Bay to a state not far removed

from anarchy. Not that he was unaware of the mistakes of ministers. The

measures of Mr. Grenville he had regarded as unwise from every point

of view. In behalf of the traditional privileges of the

colonies--privileges which their conduct had well justified--and in

behalf of the welfare of the Empire, he had protested against these

measures, as also later against the measures of Mr. Townshend; and of

all these measures he still held the same opinion, that they were unwise

measures. Nevertheless, Parliament had undoubtedly a legal right--other

rights in the political sense, Mr. Hutchinson knew nothing of--to pass

them; and the passing of legal measures, however unwise, was not to his

mind clear evidence of a conspiracy to establish absolute despotism

on the ruins of English liberty. Mr. Hutchinson was doubtless

temperamentally less inclined to fear tyranny than anarchy. Of the

two evils, he doubtless preferred such oppression as might result from

parliamentary taxation to any sort of liberty the attainment of which

might seem to require the looting of his ancestral mansion by a Boston

mob. In 1771, at the time of his accession to the governorship, Mr.

Hutchinson was therefore of opinion that "there must be an abridgment of

what is called English liberty."

The liberty Thomas Hutchinson enjoyed least and desired most to have

abridged was the liberty of being governed, in that province where he

had formerly been happy in the competent discharge of official duties,

by a self-constituted and illegal popular government intrenched in the

town of Boston. In a letter which he wrote in 1765 but did not send, he

said:

It will be some amusement to you to have a more circumstantial account

of the model of government among us. I will begin with the lowest

branch, partly legislative, partly executive. This consists of the

rabble of the town of Boston, headed by one Mackintosh, who, I imagine,

you never heard of. He is a bold fellow, and as likely for a Masaniello

as you can well conceive. When there is occasion to burn or hang

effigies or pull down houses, these are employed; but since government

has been brought to a system, they are somewhat controlled by a superior

set consisting of the master-masons, and carpenters, &c., of the town of

Boston. When anything of more importance is to be determined, as opening

the custom-house on any matter of trade, these are under the direction

of a committee of the merchants, Mr. Rowe at their head, then Molyneaux,

Soloman Davis, &c.: but all affairs of a general nature, opening of

the courts of law, &c., this is proper for a general meeting of the

inhabitants of Boston, where Otis, with his mob-high eloquence, prevails

in every motion, and the town first determine what is necessary to be

done, and then apply either to the Governor or Council, or resolve that

it is necessary for the General Court to correct it; and it would be a

very extraordinary resolve indeed that is not carried into execution.

This was in 1765. In 1770, the matter had ceased to be amusing, for

every year the model government was brought to a greater perfection,

so that at last the Town Meeting, prescriptively composed of certain

qualified voters and confined to the determination of strictly local

matters, had not only usurped all the functions of government in the

province, which was bad enough, but was completely under the thumb

of every Tom, Dick, and Harry who might wish to attend, which was

manifestly still worse. "There is a Town Meeting, no sort of regard

being had to any qualification of voters, but all the inferior people

meet together; and at a late meeting the inhabitants of other towns who

happened to be in town, mixed with them, and made, they say themselves,

near 3000,--their newspapers say 4000, when it is not likely there are

1500 legal voters in the town. It is in other words being under the

government of a mob. This has given the lower part of the people such a

sense of their importance that a gentleman does not meet with what used

to be common civility, and we are sinking into perfect barbarism....

The spirit of anarchy which prevails in Boston is more than I am able to

cope with." The instigators of the mob, it was well known, were certain

artful and self-seeking demagogues, of whom the chief had formerly been

James Otis; but in late years Mr. Otis, "with his mob-high eloquence,"

had given way to an abler man, Samuel Adams, than whom, Mr. Hutchinson

thought, there was not "a greater incendiary in the King's dominion,

or a man of greater malignity of heart, [or one] who less scruples any

measure however criminal to accomplish his purposes."

The letter, undated and undirected, in which Thomas Hutchinson

pronounced this deliberate judgment on Samuel Adams, was probably

written about the time of his accession to the Governorship; that is to

say, about the time when Mr. Johnson, the Connecticut Agent, was writing

to Wedderburn that "the people seem to grow weary of altercations," and

that "a little discreet conduct on both sides" would perfectly restore

cordial relations between Britain and her colonies. In the way of "a

little discreet conduct," even a very little, not much was to be hoped

for from either Governor Hutchinson or Samuel Adams in their dealings

with each other. Unfortunately, they had dealings with each other:

in the performance of official functions, their incommensurable and

repellent minds were necessarily brought to bear upon the same matters

of public concern. Both, unfortunately, lived in Boston and were likely

any day to come face to face round the corner of some or other narrow

street of that small town. That reciprocal exasperation engendered by

reasonable propinquity, so essential to the life of altercations, was

therefore a perpetual stimulus to both men, confirming each in his

obstinate opinion of the other as a malicious and dangerous enemy of

all that men hold dear. Thus it was that during the years 1771 and

1772, when if ever it appeared that others were "growing weary of

altercations," these honorable men and trusted leaders did what they

could to perpetuate the controversy. By giving or taking occasion

to recall ancient grudges or revive fruitless disputes, wittingly or

unwittingly they together managed during this time of calm to keep the

dying embers alive against the day when some rising wind might blow them

into devouring flames.

With Samuel Adams it was a point of principle to avoid discreet conduct

as much as possible. In his opinion, the great crisis which was his

soul's abiding place, wherein he nourished his mind and fortified his

will, admitted of no compromise. Good will was of no avail in dealing

with the "Conspirators against our Liberties," the very essence of whose

tactics it was to assume the mask of benevolence, and so divide, and

by dividing disarm, the people; "flattering those who are pleased with

flattery; forming connections with them, introducing Levity, Luxury, and

Indolence, and assuring them that if they are quiet the Ministry will

alter their Measures." During these years there was no power in the

course of events or in the tongue of man to move him in the conviction

that "if the Liberties of America are ever completely ruined, it will

in all probability be the consequence of a mistaken notion of prudence,

which leads men to acquiesce in measures of the most destructive

tendency for the sake of present ease." Never, therefore, were "the

political affairs of America in a more dangerous state" than when the

people had seemingly grown weary of altercations and Parliament could

endure an entire session "without one offensive measure." The chief

danger of all was that the people would think there was no danger.

Millions could never be enslaved by a few "if all possessed the

independent spirit of Brutus who to his immortal honor expelled the

proud Tyrant of Rome." During the years of apathy and indifference

Samuel Adams accordingly gave his days and nights, with undiminished

enthusiasm and a more trenchant acerbity, to the task of making Brutuses

of the men of Boston that the fate of Rome might not befall America.

They were assured in many an essay by this new Candidus that

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution,

are worth defending at all hazards: and it is our duty to defend them

against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from

our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger

and expense of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care

and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy upon the

present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to

be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of

them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we

are in most danger at present. Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us

contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the

rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter.

Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made,

which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than

ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude and

perseverance. Let us remember that "if we suffer tamely a lawless attack

upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom!" It

is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds,

that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers in the event.

These were days when many a former Brutus seemed ready to betray the

cause. Deserted by James Otis, whom he had supplanted, and by John

Hancock, whose great influence he had formerly exploited and whom he

had "led about like an ape," as was currently reported, Samuel Adams

suffered a measure of eclipse. The Assembly would no longer do his

bidding in respect to the vital question of whether the General Court

might be called by the Governor to meet outside of Boston; and it

even imposed upon him, as one of a committee, the humiliating task of

presenting an address to Mr. Hutchinson, acknowledging his right to

remove the legislature to any place he liked--"to Housatonic, in the

western extreme of the province," if he thought fit. There was even

grave danger that the Governor would be satisfied with this concession

and would recall the Court to sit in Boston. Boston was indeed the very

place where Samuel Adams wished to have it sit; but to attain a right

end in a wrong manner would be to suffer a double defeat, losing at once

the point of principle and the grievance necessary for maintaining the

contention. Friends of the Government were much elated at the waning

influence of the Chief Incendiary; and Mr. Sparhawk condescended to

express a certain sympathy for their common enemy, now that he was so

much diminished, "harassed, dependent, in their power." It was indeed

under great difficulties, during these years when Massachusetts was

almost without annals, that Samuel Adams labored to make Brutuses of the

men of Boston.

So far deserted by his friends, Samuel Adams might never have succeeded

in overcoming these difficulties without the assistance presently

rendered by his enemies. Of those who were of invaluable aid to him in

this way, Thomas Hutchinson was one. The good Governor, having read his

instructions, knew what his duties were. One of them manifestly was to

stand in defense of Government; and, when Government was every day being

argumentatively attacked, to provide, as a counter-irritant, arguments

in defense of Government. Imagining that facts determined conclusions

and conclusions directed conduct, Mr. Hutchinson hoped to diminish the

influence of Samuel Adams by showing that the latter's facts were wrong,

and that his inferences, however logically deduced, were therefore not

to be taken seriously. "I have taken much pains," he says, "to procure

writers to answer the pieces in the newspapers which do so much mischief

among the people, and have two or three engaged with Draper, besides a

new press, and a young printer who says he will not be frightened, and I

hope for some good effect."

The Governor had read his instructions, but not the mind of Samuel

Adams or the minds of the many men who, like the Chief Incendiary, were

prepared "to cultivate the sensations of freedom." Perhaps the only

"good effect" of his "pieces" was to furnish excellent theses for Samuel

Adams to dispute upon, which he did with unrivaled shrewdness each week

in the Boston Gazette under the thin disguise of Candidus, Valerius

Poplicola, or Vindex. To this last name, Vindex, Mr. Hutchinson thought

there might appropriately have been added another, such as Malignus

or Invidus. And indeed of all these disputative essays, in the Boston

Gazette or in Mr. Draper's paper, one may say that the apparent aim was

to win a dialectic victory and the obvious result to prove that ill will

existed by exhibiting it.

Thomas Hutchinson's faith in the value of disputation was not easily

disturbed; and after two years, when it appeared that his able

lieutenants writing in Mr. Draper's newspaper were still as far as

ever from bringing the controversy to a conclusion, he could no longer

refrain from trying his own practiced hand at an argument--which he did

in a carefully prepared address to the General Court, delivered January

6, 1773. "I have pleased myself for several years," he said, "with

hopes that the cause [of the 'present disturbed and disordered state'

of government] would cease of itself, and the effect with it, but I am

disappointed; and I may not any longer, consistent with my duty to

the King, and my regard to the interests of the province, delay

communicating my sentiments to you upon a matter of so great

importance." The cause of their present difficulties Mr. Hutchinson

thought as evident as the fact itself: a disturbed state of government

having always followed, must have been caused by the denial of the

authority of Parliament to make laws binding the province. Upon a right

resolution of this question everything depended.

The Governor accordingly confined himself to presenting, all in good

temper, a concise and remarkably well-articulated argument to prove that

"no line can be drawn between the supreme authority of Parliament

and the total independence of the colonies"; of which argument the

conclusion must be, inasmuch as the total independence of the colonies

was not conceivably any one's thought, that supreme authority rested

with Parliament. This conclusion once admitted, it was reasonable

to suppose that disturbances would cease; for "if the supremacy of

Parliament shall no longer be denied, it will follow that the mere

exercise of its authority can be no matter of grievance." In closing,

his Excellency expressed the desire, in case the two Houses did not

agree with his exposition of the Constitution, to know their objections.

"They may be convincing to me, or I may be able to satisfy you of the

insufficiency of them. In either case, I hope we shall put an end to

those irregularities which ever will be the portion of a government

where the supreme authority is controverted." In this roundabout way,

Governor Hutchinson finally reached as a conclusion the prepossession

with which he began; namely, that whereas a disturbed state of

government is, ex hypothesi, a vital evil, assertions or denials which

tend to cause the evil must be unfounded.

It happened that both Houses, the lower House especially, remained

unconvinced by the Governor's exposition of the Constitution; and both

Houses took advantage of his invitation to present their objections.

The committee which the lower House appointed to formulate a reply found

their task no slight one, not from any doubt that Mr. Hutchinson was in

error, but from the difficulty of constructing an argument that might be

regarded as polemically adequate. At the request of Major Hawley,

John Adams was accordingly "invited, requested, and urged to meet the

committee, which he did every evening till the report was finished."

When the first draft of a reply, probably drawn by Dr. Joseph Warren,

was presented to Mr. Adams for his criticism, he "modestly suggested to

them the expediency of leaving out many popular and eloquent periods,

and of discussing the question with the Governor upon principles more

especially legal and constitutional," there being in this first

draft, so Mr. Adams thought, "no answer, nor any attempt to answer the

Governor's legal and constitutional arguments, such as they were." And

so, being "very civilly requested" by the committee to make such changes

in the draft as seemed to him desirable, Mr. Adams "drew a line over the

most eloquent parts of the oration they had before them, and introduced

those legal and historical authorities which appear on the record."

The reply, prepared in this way and finally adopted by the Assembly,

was longer and more erudite than Mr. Hutchinson's address. To meet the

Governor's major premise and thus undermine his entire argument, legal

precedents and the facts of history were freely drawn upon to prove

that the colonies were properly "outside of the Realm," and therefore,

although parts of the Empire by virtue of being under the special

jurisdiction of the Crown, not subject in all matters to parliamentary

legislation. Law and history thus supported the contention, contrary to

the Governor's assertion, that a line not only could be but always had

been "drawn between the supreme authority of Parliament and the total

independence of the colonies." Apart from any question of law or fact,

the Assembly thought it of high practical importance that this line

should be maintained in the future as in the past; for, "if there be no

such line," none could deny the Governor's inference that "either

the colonies are vassals of the Parliament, or they are totally

independent"; upon which the Assembly would observe only that, "as it

cannot be supposed to have been the intention of the parties in

the compact that we should be reduced to a state of vassalage, the

conclusion is that it was their sense that we were thus independent."

With very few exceptions, everyone who was of the patriot way of

thinking regarded the Assembly's reply as a complete refutation of the

argument presented in Governor Hutchinson's address.

In the Governor's opinion, the disturbed state of government to which

he had referred in his address was at this time brought to the

highest pitch by the committees of correspondence recently established

throughout the province--an event long desired and now brought to pass

by Samuel Adams. That something might be done by a coördinated system of

local committees was an "undigested thought" that dropped from Adams's

mind while writing a letter to Arthur Lee in September, 1771. At that

time, such was the general apathy of the people, it would clearly "be an

arduous task for any man to attempt to awaken a sufficient Number in

the colonies to so grand an undertaking." But Samuel Adams, who thought

"nothing should be despaired of," took upon himself the performance of

this arduous task. Such committees, if they were anywhere needed, were

certainly needed in Massachusetts, where the people labored under a

"state of perfect Despotism," daily submitting to be ruled--by a native

Governor who refused to accept a grant from the General Court, received

his salary from London, and governed the province according to his

instructions. "Is it not enough," asked Valerius Poplicola in the

Gazette "to have a Governor ... pensioned by those on whom his existence

depends? ... Is Life, Property, and Every Thing dear and sacred, to be

now submitted to the Decisions of pension'd judges, holding their places

during the pleasure of such a Governor, and a Council perhaps overawed?"

Confronted by so unprecedented a situation, it occurred to Samuel Adams

that perhaps Mr. Hutchinson himself might be induced to come to his

assistance. Late in 1772 he accordingly got the Boston town meeting

to present to the Governor an address expressing great alarm at the

establishment of salaries for judges, and praying that the legislature,

which was to meet the 2d of December, might not be prorogued. It

was possible that in replying the Governor might take a "high tone,"

refusing the request as an interference with his own prerogative; but,

as it was clearly the right of the people to petition, for the Governor

to refuse would be, Samuel Adams thought, to "put himself in the wrong,

in the opinion of every honest and sensible man; the consequence of

which will be that such measures as the people may determine upon to

save themselves ... will be the more reconcilable even to cautious

minds, and thus we may expect that unanimity which we wish for." The

Governor, in a tone that might be called "high," did in fact object

to the request as not properly a function of town meetings and thus

furnished the occasion for organizing the committees which he thought so

disturbing to the state of government.

It was on November 2, 1772, upon a motion of Samuel Adams, that a

committee was appointed by a town meeting in Faneuil Hall "to state the

Rights of the colonies and of this Province in particular, as Men, as

Christians, and as Subjects; to communicate and publish the same to the

several Towns in this Province and to the World as the sense of this

Town, with the Infringements and Violations thereof that have been,

or from time to time may be made ... requesting of each Town a free

communication of their Sentiments on this Subject." The report of the

committee, adopted November 20, announced to the world that, as men, the

colonists, and those of Massachusetts in particular, were possessed of

certain "Natural Rights," among them the right to life, liberty, and

property; and that, inasmuch as "men enter into Society ... by voluntary

consent," they still retained "every Natural Right not expressly given

up or by the nature of the Social Compact necessarily ceded." Being

Christians as well as men, the colonists enjoyed also those rights

formulated in "the institutes of the great Lawgiver and head of the

Christian Church, ... written and promulgated in the New Testament."

Lastly, being Englishmen, the colonists were, "by the Common Law of

England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, ... entitled, and by

the acts of the British Parliament ... declared to be entitled to all

the Liberties and Privileges of Subjects born ... within the Realm."

The infringements which had been made upon these rights, although

well known, were once more stated at length; and all the towns of the

province were requested, in case they agreed with the sentiments of the

Town of Boston, to unite in a common effort "to rescue from impending

ruin our happy and glorious Constitution." For its part, the Town of

Boston was confident that the wisdom of the other towns, as well as

their regard for themselves and the rising generation, would not suffer

them "to dose, or set supinely indifferent on the brink of destruction,

while the Iron hand of oppression is daily tearing the choicest Fruit

from the fair Tree of Liberty."

Moderate men might think, in the winter of 1773, that "the Iron hand of

oppression tearing the choicest Fruit from the Fair Tree of Liberty" was

a figure of speech which did not shape itself with nice flexibility to

the exact form and pressure of observable facts. It is the limitation

of moderate men to be much governed by observable facts; and if the

majority could not at once rise to the rhetoric of Samuel Adams, it

was doubtless because they had not his instinctive sense of the Arch

Conspirator's truly implacable enmity to America. The full measure of

this enmity Mr. Adams lived in the hope of some day revealing.

It was of course well known that Mr. Bernard had formerly written home

letters most injurious to the province; and in 1770 there "was abundant

reason to be jealous," as Samuel Adams, writing on behalf of the Town

of Boston, assured Benjamin Franklin, "that the most mischievous and

virulent accounts have been lately sent to Administration from Castle

William," no doubt from the Commissioners of the Customs. Conveying

malicious and unfounded misrepresentations of America under the seal of

official correspondence had indeed long been a favorite means of mending

the fortunes of those decayed gentlemen and bankrupt politicians whose

ambition it was to rise in office by playing the sycophant to some great

man in England. Mr. Bernard had "played this game," and had been found

out at it, as every one knew. But Mr. Bernard was no American; and it

was scarcely to be imagined that Mr. Hutchinson, who boasted "that his

Ancestors were of the first Rank and figure in the Country, who ... had

all the Honors lavished upon him which his Fellow-Citizens had it in

their power to bestow, who professed the strongest attachment to his

native Country and the most tender feelings for its Rights, ... should

be so lost to all sense of Gratitude and public Love as to aid the

Designs of despotick power for the sake of rising a single step higher."

This was indeed scarcely to be imagined, yet Samuel Adams imagined it

perfectly. Before there was any material evidence of the fact, he was

able, by reasonable inference, to erect well-grounded suspicions into

a kind of working hypothesis. Mr. Hutchinson, Governor of the Province,

was an Enemy of Liberty with many English friends; he would be required

by official duty and led by personal inclination to maintain a regular

correspondence with high officials in England; from which the conclusion

was that Thomas Hutchinson, professed friend of America, was a traitor,

in secret alienating the affections of the King from his loyal subjects.

Samuel Adams knew this well; and now, after all these years, the

material evidence necessary to convince men of little faith was at

hand. Under circumstances that might be regarded as providential, Thomas

Hutchinson was at last unmasked.

The prelude to this dramatic performance was pronounced in the

Massachusetts Assembly, one day in June, 1773, by Mr. John Hancock, who

darkly declared that within eight and forty hours a discovery of great

pith and moment would be made to the House. On the next day but one,

Samuel Adams arose and desired the galleries cleared, as there were

matters to lay before the members which the members only had a right

to know of. When the galleries were cleared he informed the House that

certain letters, written by high officials in the province and extremely

hostile to the rights and liberties of America, had been procured in

England and transmitted to a gentleman who had in turn placed them in

his, Mr. Adams's, hands, but with the strictest injunction that they be

returned without being copied or printed. Mr. Adams had given his pledge

to this effect; and, if the House would receive them on these terms, he

would be glad to read the letters, no restriction having been placed

on their being read. They were read accordingly; and a committee having

been appointed to make recommendations, it was at length resolved by

the House of Assembly that certain letters presented to it by Mr. Samuel

Adams tended and were manifestly designed to undermine the Constitution

and establish a despotic power in the province. The proceedings of the

House being spread abroad, it soon became everywhere known that only

the pledged word of the House stood in the way of revelations highly

damaging to the public character of Governor Hutchinson.

This outcome of the matter, however gratifying to Samuel Adams, did

not satisfy Governor Hutchinson. After there had been "buzzed about for

three or four months a story of something that would amaze everybody,"

and these dark rumors being "spread through all the towns in the

province and everybody's expectations ... raised," it was exasperating

to his pragmatic nature to have nothing more definite transpire than

that the something which would amaze everybody would indeed amaze

everybody if only it could be made known. It should at least be made

known to the person most concerned. The Governor therefore requested the

Assembly to furnish him copies of the letters which were attributed to

him and declared by the House to be destructive of the Constitution. In

reply, the House sent certain dates only. The House was of opinion that

the Governor could easily make authentic copies of whatever letters

he had written at these dates, if he had written any; and such copies,

being furnished to the Assembly, might be published, and the whole

matter thus cleared up without violating the pledged word of anyone.

With this request the Governor refused to comply, on the ground that it

would be improper to reveal his private correspondence and contrary to

instructions to reveal that of a public nature. He would say, however,

that he had written letters on the days mentioned, but in these letters

there was no statement of fact or expression of opinion not already well

known. What his opinions were the Assembly and the world might very well

gather from his published speeches and his History of Massachusetts Bay.

It could scarcely be maintained that he had ever lacked frankness in

the expression of his opinions; and while his opinions might be thought

destructive of the Constitution, it was rather late to be amazed at

them. In any case, the Assembly was assured by the Governor that his

letters neither tended "nor were designed to subvert, but rather to

preserve entire the constitution of government" as established by the

charter of the province.

A great many people besides the Governor desired to see letters the

substance of which could be so differently understood. Samuel Adams

probably preferred not to be forced to print them; knowing their

contents, he may have thought that here was a case of those "dangers

which, being known, lose half their power for evil"; besides, having

pledged his word, he wished to keep it. Yet the pressure of public

opinion, becoming every day greater, was difficult to resist,

particularly by men who were firm believers in the wisdom of the people.

Moreover, it presently appeared that there was no longer any point in

refusing to publish the letters, inasmuch as Mr. Hancock assured the

House that men on the street were, in some way not known, possessed of

copies, some of which had been placed in his hands. Mr. Hancock's copies

being found on comparison to be accurate rescripts of the letters which

had been read in the House, a committee was accordingly appointed to

consider how the House might come into honorable possession of the

originals; from which committee Mr. Hawley soon reported that Samuel

Adams had informed them that the gentleman from whom he had received

the letters now consented to their being copied, seeing that they had

already been copied, and printed, seeing that they were already widely

circulated; whereupon the House, considering itself in honorable

possession, ordered the letters all published.

Nevertheless it was thought expedient, before issuing the letters, to

print and circulate such a series of "Resolves" as might prepare the

public mind for what was to come later. This was accordingly done. The

"Resolves," bearing date of June 16, 1773, indicated clearly and at

length the precise significance of the letters; declared it to be the

humble opinion of the House that it was not to the interest of the Crown

to continue in high places persons "who are known to have, with great

industry, though secretly, endeavored to undermine, alter, and overthrow

the Constitution of the province"; and concluded by praying "that his

Majesty would be pleased to remove ... forever from the government

thereof" the Honorable Andrew Oliver and his Excellency Thomas

Hutchinson.

His Majesty did not remove Mr. Hutchinson; but the Governor's

usefulness, from every point of view, was at an end. When the notorious

letters were finally printed, it appeared that there were seventeen in

all, of which six were written by Mr. Hutchinson in the years 1768 and

1769. These latter documents did not in fact add anything to the world's

stock of knowledge; but they had been so heralded, ushered in with so

much portentous explication that they scarcely needed to be read to be

understood. "Had they been Chevy Chase," the Governor said, the people

would have believed them "full of evil and treason." It was indeed the

perfect fruit of Samuel Adams's labors that the significance of Mr.

Hutchinson's letters had in some manner become independent of their

contents. So awake were the people to the danger of being deceived, that

whatever the Governor now said or ever had written was taken to be but

the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Meanwhile, the attention of all patriots was diverted from the letters

to a far more serious matter; and when, on December 16, 1773, a cargo

of the East India Company's tea, consigned among others to Thomas and

Elisha Hutchinson, was thrown into Boston harbor, the great crisis,

which Samuel Adams had done so much to make inevitable by virtue of

thinking it so, was at last a reality. It was a limitation of Thomas

Hutchinson's excellent administrative mind that he was wholly unaware

of this crisis. In February of the next year, finding that "a little

discreet conduct," or indeed any conduct on his part, was altogether

without good effect, the Governor announced that he had "obtained leave

from the King to go to England." On the 1st of June, driving from his

home to the foot of Dorchester Heights, he embarked on the Minerva and

arrived in London one month later. It was his expectation that after a

brief absence, when General Gage by a show of military force should have

brought the province to a reasonable frame of mind, he would return and

assume again the responsibilities of his office. He never returned, but

died in England on June 3, 1780, an unhappy and a homesick exile from

the country which he loved.

The Eve of the Revolution; A Chronicle of the Breach with England · 第 5 / 6 章