1747. 1740. the last House), Royal Tyler, James Otis, and Oxenbridge Thacher. The preparation of these instructions by Samuel Adams may be in some sort considered to mark his entrance on public life. He was the son of a tradesman of Boston, who had represented that town in the General Court, where he had been active in opposition to Governor Shute, and had been rejected by Governor Shirley when elected to be a Counsellor. Samuel Adams, after completing the course of education at Harvard College, had at first designed to devote himself to the clerical profession, but from this purpose he was diverted by a growing interest in the political agitations of the period. For a little while he studied law, and was then engaged for a few months in a merchant's counting-house, from which employment he passed to be a partner of his father, who was a brewer. He succeeded to the business at his father's death; but it did not prosper, and he became one of the selectmen and one of the taxcollectors of Boston, the latter being a paid office. From early manhood he had been a frequent writer in the newspapers on subjects of political interest; he had industriously cultivated the arts of popular impression, and the friendship of political movers in all conditions; and, in the large circle to which his acquaintance now extended, he exerted the great influence due to talent, experience, assiduity, and patriotic zeal. He was now forty-two years old.1 1748. 1763. that it was hasty, and that it cannot be sustained. Ten years later than when Adams came thus conspicuously into public notice, he wrote (to Charles Thompson, June 2, 1774): "Would to God, they all, even our enemies, knew the warm attachment we have for Great Britain, notwithstanding we have been contending these ten years with them for our rights!" (Frothingham, Life of 66 The Instructions" were conceived in a mouerate tone, and related mostly to general topics. They advised legislation for vacating, till a re-election, the seats of members of the House who should become Crown officers; a reconsideration of the laws of excise; a liberal stipend for the judges; frugality in the public expenses; and a careful attention to the resources of material prosperity, especially to the course of trade, which already “labored under great discouragements," and was threatened with new burdens, the unjust and hurtful character of which ought immediately and urgently to be represented in Great Britain. But the following paragraphs were especially significant and effective as a popular appeal: "What still heightens our apprehensions is that these unexpected proceedings may be preparatory to new taxations upon us. For, if our trade may be taxed, why not our lands? Why not the produce of our lands, and everything we possess or make use of? This, we apprehend, annihilates our charter-right to govern and tax ourselves. It strikes at our British privileges, which, as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our fellowsubjects who are natives of Britain. If taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the character of free subjects to the miserable state of tributary slaves? "We therefore earnestly recommend it to you to use your utmost endeavors to obtain in the General Assembly all necessary instruction and advice to our agent at this most critical juncture; that while he is setting forth the unshaken loyalty of this Province and this town, its unrivalled exertion in supporting his Majesty's govern Warren, 232.) And on the very eve of the first conflict of arms he wrote (to Arthur Lee, Feb. 14. 1775) of independence, as "what some of them [the ministry] affect to apprehend, and we sincerely deprecate." (Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 400.) ment and rights in this part of his dominions, its acknowledged dependence upon and subordination to Great Britain, and the ready submission of its merchants to all just and necessary regulations of trade- he may be able in the most humble and pressing manner to remonstrate for us all those rights and privileges which justly belong to us either by charter or birth. "As his Majesty's other northern American Colonies are embarked with us in this most important bottom, we further desire you to use your endeavors that their weight may be added to that of this Province; that, by the united application of all who are aggrieved, all may happily obtain redress." When Bernard met the Court, he took no 1764. notice in his message of the great question of the May-June. day, but, as if to divert their attention, endeavored to direct it to the condition of the eastern Indians. Following out the purpose of the last paragraph but one of the Instructions from his constituents, Otis, as Chairman of a Committee of the House of Representatives, reported a letter of rebuke to the agent in England for the timid character of his communications with the Ministry. "You hope,'" the Committee wrote, quoting the agent's language, "there will be found a general disposition to serve the Colonies, and not to distress them.'1 The sudden passing of the Sugar Act, and continuing a heavy duty on that branch of our commerce, we are far from thinking a proof that your hope had any solid foundation. No agent of this Province has power to make express concessions in any case without express orders. And the silence of the Province should have been imputed to any cause, even to despair, rather than be construed into a tacit cession of their rights, or an acknowledgment of a right in the Parliament of Great Britain to impose duties. 1 The rebuke relates to letters of his of Dec. 30, 1763, Feb. 11 and March 13, 23, 1764. and taxes upon a people who are not represented in the House of Commons." Along with this letter, the Representatives voted to send to Mauduit a "Brief State of the Rights of the British Colonies. . . . drawn up by one of the House," which the agent was informed was "to be improved as he might judge proper." This paper, which without doubt was written by Otis, contains what is to a considerable extent an abstract of the argument in his treatise then about to be published. After some preliminary considerations going to establish that "the Colonies having been by their charters declared natural subjects, and entrusted with the power of making their own laws, not repugnant to the laws of England," the question is stated as being "not upon the general power or right of the Parliament, but whether it is not circumscribed within some equitable and reasonable bounds. The Judges of England have declared. . . . that Acts of Parliament against natural equity are void, that Acts of Parliament against the fundamental principles of the British Constitution are void. . . . . It is evidently the interest, and 1 The paper voted by the Representatives, June 13, 1764, to be sent to Mauduit in England was not, I think, what it has been supposed to be, namely, Otis's "Rights of the British Colonies asserted and proved," but an outline of it under the title of Substance of a Memorial," &c. It is printed in all the editions which I have seen as the second article in the Appendix to Otis's "Rights of the British Colonies," &c. The vote (see House Journal) speaks of the paper as a "brief state," &c., which Otis's "Rights of the British Colonies" was not. (See Hutch., III. 110.) June 29, 1764, Bernard wrote (Sparks's MS. New England Papers, I. 90) that the book promised in the instructions to the agent was not yet published. The Boston Evening Post" of July 23 advertised Otis's The Boston Evening Post, By James Otis, Esq. Hutchinson says (III. 107), that Otis wrote a "pamphlet," which was printed in the beginning of 1764, upon the subject of taxes by Parliament. This was probably the "book published by Mr. Otis," which was referred by the House to their Committee, prior to the latter's reporting, on the 13th of June, a letter to the agent. (Hutch., III. 110.) ought to be the care, of those entrusted with the administration of government, to see that every part of the British Empire enjoys to the full the rights they are entitled to by the laws." And the argument is urged that restrictions on the commerce of New England with the Sugar Islands were not, and could not be, productive to Great Britain, but, on the contrary, must be detrimental to the business of that country. 1764. June. Another particular of the course in which the Instruc tions to the Boston Representatives were followed out, was of still greater interest at the time, and led to consequences of the utmost importance. The day before the prorogation of the Court, the House appointed a Committee to correspond with the Assemblies of the several Anglo-American Colonies, with a view to the common action of each for the protection of all.1 The contrivance of this machinery of Committees of Correspondence, which played a material part in the later transactions, has been referred with high probability to Samuel Adams. If it was his, what it indicates is his forwardness in promoting union as a means of strength. The particu lar method that of correspondence, and of committees to carry it on would naturally suggest itself to any mind as soon as the desirableness of joint action had become sufficiently apparent.2 1 Bernard perceived the importance of this measure, and wrote of it to the Board of Trade, June 29. (MS. Letters, III. 159.) 2 The proceedings of this Court gave high offence to the authorities at home. "Their Lordships took into consideration the printed votes of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts Bay as also a book therein referred to, and it appearing to their Lordships that in the said votes the Acts and Resolutions of the British Parliament were treated with indecent disre spect, and principles of a dangerous nature and tendency adopted and avowed, it was agreed to lay said papers before his Majesty and Council,"&c (Journal of the Board of Trade, for Dec 11, 1764) The Privy Council referred the papers to a Committee, on whose report several votes of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts Bay, of the 1st, 8th, 12th, and 13th of June, 1764," were submitted to the King, with the Council's "opinion that it is a matter of the highest consequence to the Kingdom and the legislature of Great |