In War and Revolution: Legislators of the Massachusetts General Court, 1691-1780

Dumping the East India Company Tea into Boston Harbor in December 1773 was a private act of defiance of the British government by not more than 100 people. The daring act aroused the British Ministry to punish the whole Massachusetts people with a series of laws that would greatly amend the 1691 Charter and close Boston Harbor to commercial traffic. The anger of Frederick, Lord North, and his parliamentary majority seemed much too harsh in reacting against this private offense and it heightened the anxiety of most New Englanders over what they regarded as an act of aggression by the royal government.

The swift rise of resistance in Massachusetts to the British coercive acts first occurred when Governor Thomas Gage removed the 1774 legislative sessions to Salem. The House of Representatives, always sensitive to any transfer of its meeting place, denounced the parliamentary act “as a very great grievance, which was manifestly inconsistent with the Letter, as well as the Spirit and Intention of the Charter.”1

A few days later, in a closed session of the House, the members also resolved that the “shutting up” of Boston Harbor “threatens the Total Destruction of the Liberties of all British America.” The angry members called for the meeting of a congress at Philadelphia, “or any other Place that shall be judged most suitable,” to plan resistance to this illegal act. “The meeting should determine upon wise and proper Measures to be by them recommended to all the Colonies, for the Recovery and Establishment of their just Rights and Liberties, Civil and religious, and the Restoration of that Union and Harmony between Great-Britain and the Colonies most ardently desired by all good Men.” The House then resolved that James Bowdoin, Thomas Cushing, Samuel Adams, John Adams, and Robert Treat Paine, or any three of them, meet with delegates of the other colonies. Finally, at such a solemn occasion as this, the House asked Governor Gage for a day of prayer and public fasting. His response was, however, to dissolve the General Court.

While the Representatives were deliberating behind closed doors, Colony Secretary Thomas Flucker tried to force his way in to dissolve the legislature before it called for a Continental Congress. Frustrated, he read aloud the proclamation in a vacant hall and posted it on the door of the chamber. Gage hoped for another election in late summer and another meeting with a more docile assembly in the fall. Hostility to him in Salem was sufficiently obvious from the insults of the townspeople that he withdrew in August to Boston for safety, but in September he issued the writs for election. Four weeks later, he decided unfortunately to cancel the elections because of the outward manifestations of what he interpreted as disloyalty—“many Tumults and Disorders.” His Mandamus Council, which had replaced the traditional Council, had difficulty in meeting, and many members appointed by the king found it safer to resign than to report for duty.2

On October 7, the General Court (now called a Congress), disregarding Gage’s order to dissolve, met first at Salem and then at Concord, later in Cambridge, and again later at Concord until December 10. It convened, of course, without royal assent and without an upper house, but it settled down to deliberate on the problems that resistance to the king was creating.3 It collected taxes through a receiver general, restored the militia, appointed officers, gathered arms, and continued the Committee of Safety. In short, the Congress provided for some measures of defense while it debated whether its actions were lawful. Meanwhile, the Continental Congress was meeting in Philadelphia. Thomas Gage was waiting for orders in Boston, and King George III and his advisors pondered the meaning of the political mess in America. Much bewilderment was everywhere, but the first Massachusetts congress at Concord dissolved itself on December 10 recommending that the towns select delegates for a second congress meeting February 1, 1775 at Cambridge.

The call to the towns urged them to send as many delegates as they wished so that deliberations, with God’s help, would save the people from impending ruin and secure the inestimable liberties of freedom. At least 236 delegates attended the Second Congress, which met first at Cambridge, then Concord, and finally at Watertown where it dissolved on May 29. A Third Congress convened on May 31 and deliberated until July 13, but adjourned on July 19 in favor of a meeting of the General Court, which began its deliberations without British permission.

Much had happened since February 1. The members of the three congresses continued to prepare for defense and tried to convince themselves that they had a right to sit as a legislative body. They actually voted on April 1, however, to cooperate with General Gage if he issued writs for a new meeting of the General Court on May 31, or to convene as a third congress if he did not call elections. Gage, in following this suggestion, issued writs in mid-April for the annual elections in May. Regular government, it was hoped, would return to Massachusetts. Unfortunately this course of action changed when the British Ministry declared Massachusetts in open rebellion and General Gage sent troops into Lexington and Concord on April 19. His foolish decision alienated colonials by military action, bloodshed, and bitterness. The Second Congress, in great anger, then voided the resolve to cooperate with Gage. In June, the Battle of Bunker Hill increased the bloodshed, spread hatred, and made compromise all but impossible. American militiamen nearly surrounded Boston and confined Gage’s power as governor to the occupied area of the city. The Continental Congress, meeting again in Philadelphia, recognized the seriousness of this military situation at Boston by establishing a military command in Massachusetts and by sending George Washington of Virginia to take command of the New England militia and recruit a revolutionary army. Even so, events moved so rapidly that people were bewildered. In July 1775, toasts were offered to the good health of George III, to the Continental Congress, and to George Washington.4

Meanwhile, the Third Congress prepared to give way to the General Court whose elections were being held. The orderly transfer of power to the Charter of 1691 government in July gave many legislators a momentary feeling of legitimacy. Certainly now they had time to await the day when these difficulties with the North ministry would be terminated and peace restored.

The 1775 General Court meeting on July 19 in Watertown followed as best it could the old royal procedures, but it met now without the benefit of the British governor, his ever-present power of supervision and restraint, and all the trappings of monarchy. No speech from the throne, with gentle hints of subordination, was heard. The House of Representatives chose instead its own presiding officer, James Warren, its own clerk, Samuel Freeman, and the 28 members of the Council with out the help of the retiring council or the threat of rejection by a royal governor. The presence of Samuel Adams and James Otis, Jr., on the Council was enough to show that the political order had changed. Nearly the whole Council was composed of new men. Most were past members of the House of Representatives. They were well-known and active legislators, seasoned by earlier political wars with Britain. Missing were Jeremiah Powell, who would serve as president of the Council (1776-1779), and Artemas Ward and Richard Derby, who would be active in 1776 and later. The Council had 19 new members, many of whom would serve the independent state in the next decade. Men like James Bowdoin and Thomas Cushing would become, respectively, governor and lieutenant governor; Thomas Hancock, Samuel Adams, and John Adams also were destined to serve the state and the rising nation.5

Some of the Council would be absent more than present at the deliberations because they served in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia or were concerned with military problems in Massachusetts. Like their colleagues in the House of Representatives, they tried to adjust to the absence of royal authority and procedure. They attempted to capture for the Council the powers that were abandoned by the governor and found themselves confronted by arguments from the House of Representatives, which considered itself an equal body in making decisions.6

The House, unlike the Council, began its sessions with many inexperienced men who were serving their first term and with others who had only one term, but that was in the congresses. Nearly half of the 218 representatives had little or no previous service. Their leaders as reflected by committee membership, however, was better prepared than the entire membership, but William Story of Ipswich and John Brown of Boston made their initial appearances in this house. Both were extraordinarily active on committees in 1775 and 1776, apparently men of good judgment, unusual energy, and revolutionary fervor.7

Despite their heavy burdens, almost every member of the legislature held at least one committee seat. Only 11 had no record of committee service. Most population centers in the colony sent a representative, but the crowd of men in Watertown was deceptive because many towns sent no one. Towns like Hopkinton, Granby, Pelham, Upton, Great Barrington, Lenox, and towns in Maine pleaded hardship or insufficient notice of the meeting. Approximately 60 towns were not represented, while other towns chose delegates but the men did not stay for the meetings.

By most accounts, there was some reason to avoid a long stay in Watertown, which was admittedly small compared even with Salem, Worcester, and Springfield. Many legislators or their wives complained of the poor housing, crowded conditions, inappropriate meeting places, and inadequate town services. The representatives met in the local meeting house, which had moderate space, and they engaged carpenters to put a floor into a new residence across the road for the Council’s meeting place.

The accumulated business of the General Court was great, and the newly elected Council was urged to assemble quickly and join with the House of Representatives in considering the issues. James Warren of Plymouth was a good selection for speaker. Active as speaker in the 1769 House of Representatives, he stood with James Otis, Jr., and John Adams as a leading revolutionary. He served for a time as president of both the Second and Third Provincial congresses. His wife was Mercy Otis, sister of James, Jr., a writer and propagandist, whose reputation would surpass his own. A convinced revolutionary, James Warren energetically pushed his colleagues to get work done, but was modest in directing the 1775 General Court:

I am content to move in a small sphere. I expect no distinction but that of an honest man who has exerted every nerve. You and I must be content
[he said to John Adams] without a slice from the great pudding now on the table. . . . High Establishments will not be relished here, and I think bad policy in every view, and will lead us into the sins, folly and sufferings of our old impolitic and unnatural mother [Great Britain].8

Before Warren and his colleagues was laid an enormous pile of work, which would produce 1,089 separate resolutions or acts of the General Court by May 10, 1776, when it disbanded for new elections.9 During the weeks after July 19, 1775, the House of Representatives met six days a week, sometimes seven, and rested only on December 24 and December 31. The legislature was cautious at first regarding any suggestion to break with Great Britain, but faced necessary steps in the legislative process that made change unavoidable.

Designing a seal for the colony caused some delay and aroused much emotion. A joint committee — James Otis, Jr. and John Winthrop of the Council and  Joseph Hawley, Benjamin Church, and Nathan (or Seth) Cushing of the House —finally decided on August 5 that instead of “an Indian holding a Tomahawk and a Cap of Liberty, there be an English American, holding a Sword in the Right Hand, and Magna Charta in the Left Hand, with the words Magna Charta imprinted on it, and round him these words Ense petit placidam sub Libertate Quietem” (By means of the sword he seeks tranquillity under liberty).10 On the day the seal was approved, a committee on paper money issues decided to use “colony” on paper bills rather than “province” to refer to the political state of Massachusetts.11

Most of the formal decisions of the 1775 legislature concerned the crisis with Britain. Almost all daily items of business included paying the expenses of legislators on official duties, billeting charges for soldiers at inns, allowing costs for medicines and care for soldiers, and passing the accounts for militia services. Such routine business filled the floor docket, but in committee deliberations outside the legislative chamber much time was spent on militia matters. Carefully devising a new code for the militia kept a committee of Joseph Hawley (Chair), James Sullivan, Elbridge Gerry, and Azor Orne meeting several months. Eleazer Brooks, Nathaniel Freeman, and Samuel Thatcher were added as the evolving bill was written and others may have served on the committee by the time the bill was passed on April 16, 1776. The bill received the importance it deserved and was spread over nearly ten pages of the journal. It described almost every kind of disobedience, and gave the burden of providing punishment to court martials. The law provided, however, for the death penalty to be imposed for only a few offenses like abandoning one’s post. Then the death penalty could be inflicted summarily and “immediately by order of any commissioned officer.” Otherwise, the legislature felt that “degrading, cashiering, drumming out of the camp, whipping [but] not exceeding thirty-nine lashes, fines not exceeding two months pay, or imprisonment not exceeding one month” should be the range of penalties that a court martial could impose. Nearly every conceivable offense was listed in the 59 sections of the final militia bill. Apparently the Committee wanted to insure clarity on infractions of rules and to make certain that a court martial, whenever possible, had the final word on punishment. Lacking in the law were administrative supervision, a process of appeals, and the availability of pardon. For the time being, because the colony had no governor or administrative force, the General Court relied on the law’s detail in describing offenses and providing punishment.12

The legislature apparently wanted to hold back any general movement of reform, undoubtedly because some people were questioning the legitimacy of its powers. Western towns were anxious to control the judicial courts by nominating the county judges; eastern towns wanted to increase their representation; and people generally wanted to limit plural office holding and establish a loyal electorate. Thomas Allen of Pittsfield seriously questioned the 1691 Charter as a constitution for the government of an independent state. He called the Charter oppressive, defective, and “rotten to the very core.” He accused the General Court of being composed of “designing men” who were perpetrating the corrupt government of British times by not calling a constitutional convention. His memorial arrived just after the legislature disbanded for elections in May 1776.13

Early in May, however, the House received another memorial from a convention of delegates in Essex County. They protested the unequal representation of their towns and sent a delegation headed by John Lowell to explain their grievances. His testimony so impressed the House that it appointed a committee of Joseph Hawley (Chair), James Sullivan, George Partridge, and others who were deeply sympathetic and quickly reported out of committee a bill that increased the size of delegations in the House by a mathematical formula applied to the population size. The 1776 House was then enlarged by nearly a third. Because representation was valued more by eastern than western towns, the size of delegations from Boston, Newburyport, and Ipswich showed the full increase, and many other towns took advantage of the opportunity to send additional delegates. However, in evaluating the benefit of the law, many towns decided that they did not need the increased representation in the House. Cost was certainly one reason. Near half of the towns of Hampshire and Berkshire counties were not represented. Lincoln County in Maine had no one in the House for most of 1778. The impressive strength of Essex, Bristol, and Suffolk counties in the House almost gave them a majority.14

Throughout the 1775 and 1776 sessions, members worried about harm from those disloyal to the colony. Delegations of legislators toured the colony to review local controls and identify some Tories, but they needed a standard of measurement. William Story, chairman of the legislative committee, worked with Committees of Correspondence, Safety, and Inspection and gathered the names of the people who “violated the Associations and Resolves of the Continental Congress,” or the pronouncements of local congresses, or joined in addresses to General Gage or to Governor Hutchinson, or fled to the British enemy. If guilty, these people were to be harassed for their disloyalty and their estates seized. Story’s committee also gathered names of some other Tories and publicized their crimes, but feared that many disloyal persons were still hiding.15

Conduct in the early 1770s that favored Britain caused loyal people much embarrassment later. Many discovered that there was a time to be loyal and a time to be disobedient. Some legislators also confronted challenges as they struggled to defend themselves against detractors—Jerathmeel Bowers faced open accusations in Swansea and Edward Bacon of Barnstable was forced to resign from the House. Another powerful legislator, the curiously energetic Dr. Benjamin Church, came under suspicion. A Harvard classmate of John Hancock, Bela Lincoln, and Oliver Wendell, Church was a major revolutionary and managed to be in Philadelphia as an envoy for the colony and a member of the group that escorted George Washington to Cambridge when the general took charge of the colonial troops. Congress in 1775 appointed Church the director of hospitals in the Cambridge area but his arrogance immediately got him into trouble with the regimental officers. A court martial followed, but the investigation turned to his favor. General John Sullivan, however, regarded his “behavior towards our sick and wounded . . . void of humanity and judgment.” Unable to endure the hostility, Church resigned in favor of serving full time in the legislature.16

In the House of Representatives, Church was one of the four Boston delegates. Like the other city members, he sat on many committees despite several long absences. He always seemed available to serve at the appropriate occasions of great honor. His absences in the House were also matters of record, but he was a busy doctor who was in and out of Boston in search of medicines and was excused. The dangers of British apprehension seemed not to bother him, though friends worried about his safety. Unknown to them, he corresponded for months through a cooperative mistress with the British military in Boston. When one of his letters fell into the hands of the American militia, it was deciphered by Samuel West, a military chaplain, and others and shown to Washington who, suspecting treason, ordered an arrest and court of inquiry. The inquiry left doubts about Church’s loyalty, or indiscretion, as he tried unskillfully to explain away his activities.17 Taking the evidence seriously, Washington turned to the Continental Congress for direction.

Washington’s further investigation convinced Speaker James Warren of the House of Representatives who had spoken with the military and felt that Church should be examined in a full legislative hearing. Taken to Watertown by chaise from house arrest at Cambridge and guarded by the sheriff and 20 soldiers, Church stood accused at the bar of the House on October 27 and was severely interrogated about his conduct as a representative. The proceedings of Washington’s board of inquiry, the deciphered letter, and Church’s statements in his own defense were placed before the House. Seats at the hearing were given to Council members and American Army staff. The transcript of the testimony then was handed to the House committee deliberating Church’s fate.18

Outside of the legislature were heard angry threats of physical violence, which forced Warren to order Church returned to the safety of Cambridge where he was confined until the House committee report was ready. In giving its judgment, the committee was convinced of his guilt, but unable to decide his punishment because of the absence of any appropriate law. Hanging was generally recommended by the aroused representatives, and at one time, Church had to escape from a lynch mob. The House finally decided on November 11 to expel him from its membership and have him held in prison because if he were free to move in the community, he could endanger himself and the war effort. A few days before this civil action the Congressional Army dismissed him for dishonorable behavior. In both cases, the charge was conducting “traitorous correspondence with our Enemies,” but in both cases, also, the authorities admitted that colonial laws had not provided appropriate punishment. Church was, nonetheless, taken to Connecticut for safety in 1777 and brought to Boston for further confinement in 1778. Later that year he was exchanged with other prisoners and placed on a ship bound for the West Indies. Soon after entering the Atlantic Ocean, the ship encountered heavy seas and sank with all aboard.19 By that time, laws were passed to provide swifter justice for traitors such as he.

Church’s apparent treason shocked most loyal New Englanders. No past trial of that gravity had ever been held in the House, but the restraint of tradition was impressive. Ordinarily, in British times, traitorous correspondence was sufficient to bring the death penalty, but the House of Representatives was cautious. The cooperation of Washington and the major generals was equally judicious, and they requested the aid of the Continental Congress. The Massachusetts legislature’s relations with Washington were cordial throughout the siege of Boston. Neither wanted to hang Church. When the British departed on March 17, the legislature ordered a dinner for Washington and his staff who would be leaving the area, and a committee chaired by John Brown, and James Warren, Edward Rawson, John Pitts, and Josiah Sartell as members, arranged the festivities. Toasts for Washington, the legislature, and peace added to the joy of the evening.20

For eight months of the legislative year, the neighboring communities of Boston worked with Washington and his staff to accomplish the objectives of the siege. Their relations were good, and the legislature responded when it could with help of all kinds. A committee of six legislators, chaired by James Sullivan, went out to Cambridge on March 28, 1776, to deliver their farewell message. Washington was leaving for New York. Part of the last paragraph of the address reveals the tone of this message to the commander:

May you still go approved by Heaven, revered by all good Men, and dreaded by those Tyrants who claim their Fellow-Men as their property; may the united Colonies be defended from Slavery by your virtuous arm; may they still see their enemies flying before you, and (the Deliverance of your Country being effected) may you in Retirement enjoy that Peace and Satisfaction of Mind, which always attends the Good and Great.21

With the Boston siege lifted by the British evacuation of the city and harbor, the General Court prepared to return to its traditional meeting place. Committees were sent over to Boston to estimate damage, to round up any Tories still in the city, and to provide for its defense now that Boston was restored to its former glory as capital of the colony.22

Unfortunately leaders of the General Court quickly realized that an early move to the city was not advisable because British troops might return as invaders. So Watertown, which had seemed uncomfortable and crowded in 1775, was again to be the headquarters for the legislature in 1776-77. Another reason for staying in Watertown was the limited space available in the Boston town house. The elections for 1776 increased substantially the size of the House of Representatives, which doubled from the legislatures of the 1760s.23

In this crisis of representation, many towns stretched the law to get the maximum number of delegates.24 When the legislature met on May 29, 1776, leaders could not believe what had happened. One of the first orders of business was the appointment of a committee to determine the official population of every town. In the meantime, the bewildering number of representatives was dealt with orderly. Their election papers were examined, and most qualified. Where there were legal problems in the election process, the responsibility for determining the size of the delegation was left to the voters of the towns. Therefore, an inordinate number of newly elected representatives arrived in Watertown and took their seats without serious challenges. Of them, 39 would have no committee participation and 24 probably only stayed long enough to have a single committee. The legislative numbers, nonetheless, were relatively larger than in 1775 and the workload was widely spread among those who chose to stay.25

The leadership of the House had changed slightly from that of 1775. James Warren, Joseph Palmer, William Story, and Jedediah Preble were the most active legislators in a group of 42 men who had from 41 to 122 committee assignments apiece. When the sessions ended on May 10, 1777, both houses had taken official action on 1,205 pieces of legislation. Allowing for bills and petitions that were disapproved, the business of the house was not only extraordinarily large but exceedingly tedious.

Speaker Warren in anticipating this load of business convinced the House of Representatives to appoint a few standing committees—one “whose business was . . . to consider the state of the colony,” another to consider constitutional plans and representation, and another to examine the defenses. During the coming months, these committees did not function very well, and from time to time the speaker had to remind them of their responsibilities. Apparently there was a committee that routed bills in the house and another that studied the needs of the colony in terms of pending legislation. Warren in time was given Timothy Danielson as vice-speaker and other acting speakers who were his substitutes when he was himself ill or presiding elsewhere over committees.26

The committee system, however, was the House’s greatest problem. These single-issue committees impeded business when committees with broader responsibilities might have processed many local issues more quickly. By the end of the legislative year, the legislature vested the Council with much executive authority during recesses to handle routine and urgent issues.

The legislative desire to study all pressing matters made lawmaking for about 75 to 100 members an ordeal. Because they were deeply concerned about public approval, despite the usual secrecy of floor proceedings, they conducted various kinds of inquiries. One of the most important was the inquiry into popular attitudes regarding independence. The legislature desired a report from each town regarding the consequences of a break with England. When a local report was delayed, Warren sent out reminders until he received a response. Apparently an overwhelming majority of the towns favored some declaration regarding independence and greeted the Council announcement in August with enthusiasm: “the Honorable Congress [in Philadelphia] have declared the United American Colonies, Free and Independent States. This declaration we have ordered to be made public, agreeable to the request of Congress through every part of Massachusetts Bay; and we shall readily concur with you, in expressing our approbation of the measure, and readiness to risque our lives and fortunes in defense and support of it.”27 A committee of 12 was already concerned about how the Massachusetts government should react to independence. Chaired by Joseph Palmer and including Joseph Hawley, James Warren, and Timothy Pickering, among others, the committee began developing a constitution for an independent state.

From August 29 forward, the House Journal referred to Massachusetts as a state.28 Already the attitude toward the war seemed more serious, perhaps in the realization that the battles around Boston were but preliminaries of an offensive to come. Washington was then facing the enemy in New York, and troops were moving that way from Massachusetts. A committee on fortification was inordinately busy looking at the defenses in Boston Harbor. Special committees were examining other fortifications, moving cannons into strategic places, and ascertaining the availability of supplies.

By this time, the currency had become a crucial issue. The shortages of products, the flood of paper money, and inflation of prices had forced the legislature to do something. It had neglected to provide a tax base for maintaining the value of the paper money, but it now turned to bonds to restore confidence. In the 1776-1777 legislative year, it issued £556,400 in bonds with a 5 or 6 percent return and momentarily achieved stability.29 In addition, the legislature sought to control wages and prices, which was apparently a popular policy until officials tried to enforce the law. Shortages drove up prices, or perhaps invited those who had supplies to wait for a modification of regulations. Near riot conditions affected many towns when suppliers withheld wheat and corn. The House seemed almost incapable of confronting the problem of inflation and delayed action on its own committee report. Some of its most active legislators tried to enforce the law, but were prevented by the legislature’s reluctance to pass additional measures.

Two basic pieces of legislation were signed into law—one “to prevent monopoly and oppression” and the other to establish an embargo of exports. Both might have worked if there were administrative and enforcement authorities, but the legislature depended on the towns and the goodwill of the people. Apparently no standing committee monitored the enforcement of the law when such representatives as William Story of Boston, the chairman, Caleb Davis and William Cooper of Boston, and Eleazer Brooks and Nathaniel Peasely Sergeant of the regulatory committee urged support of the controls.

Before the 1776 legislature disbanded in May, it permitted the town of Hutchinson to change its name to Barré, from the hated governor to the beloved English parliamentary leader.30 It provided an up-to-date statement on the population of the Massachusetts Bay towns so that the towns could elect a legal number of delegates, and finally, it decided, despite the perils of a Boston attack, to return the legislature to Boston, “its ancient and traditional seat.” The year was difficult. The Continental Army lost New York City and most of New Jersey and the states faced renewed attacks in 1777 on a wide front from New York to Quebec. Massachusetts awakened from beliefs that the war would be won quickly or that independence was an easier political condition to live under than the old rule of the governor and the empire. Writs went out in early May 1777 for new elections to the General Court and for its first session to convene in Boston on May 28.

During most of the 1776-1777 legislative year, a standing committee discussed a possible new constitutional structure for the state. Its discussions were not continuous, but much progress was made by May 1777. It laid a rather simple plan before the legislature, which approved the recommendation without much enthusiasm. It would hold a constitutional convention simultaneously with the 1777-1778 legislative sessions.31 The same representatives and councilors would sit in both bodies, and the completed constitution would be sent out to the towns for ratification.

The 1777 elections did not reflect any great excitement over the privilege of writing a new constitution. Most towns reflected instead the crisis in the economy and disillusionment with the war and reduced the number of their representatives. Suffolk County towns sent only 24 instead of the 42 representatives of 1776. Elsewhere in the state, small interior towns and distant towns on the shores of Maine debated the cost of representatives versus the value of a voice in legislation and decided to wait until the 1778 elections. Some townsmen may have been angry over the monopoly of debate by a fraction of the membership and inspired the changes in legislative procedure voted by the 1777 House of Representatives.

For the first time since 1691, the representatives published the rules of legislative behavior. They may reflect only commonsense ways of conducting a meeting, but they also spread broadly the opportunity to speak on the floor. Consider rule V:

No member shall speak more than twice to one Question without first obtaining leave of the House, nor more than once until the other members who have not spoken shall speak, if they desire it.32

Seating of representatives also was an important aspect of power. At the beginning of every session, members could select their seats. The seats were theirs as long as the session continued, but seats could not be exchanged under the new rules without consent of the House. Everyone addressing the House under ordinary conditions of debate gained permission to speak from the presiding officer, arose from his seat, and spoke there without being interrupted unless to be corrected. Other rules protected debaters by regulating the actions of members who might try to be discourteous or to harass. Such as rule XIII:

No Member shall be permitted to stand up to the interrogation of another, while any member is speaking, or pass between the Speaker of the House and the person speaking.

The rules may also have been reformed as a preliminary measure in preparation for the constitutional deliberations later in the year.33 The formal sessions would begin in December. Until then, a committee of 19 representatives and councilors was chosen in June and was reviewing the reaction of the towns to the projected constitution. The members of the Council — Thomas Cushing, DanielDavis, JohnTaylor, and JeremiahPowell — were dragging their feet and, according to James Warren, were as unsympathetic as most of the other members, thus denying the committee much leadership. “The Committee on a Constitution have done nothing lately. I hope when we meet again, we shall get along with it, and form a tolerable one, but I tremble with diffidence every step I take.”34

As the Committee deliberated, general agreement was discovered on many features of the evolving plan. The government would have a two-house legislature and a weak governor. Most male taxpayers over 20 years of age would have the vote, and property restrictions would give way to a popular franchise that might be regulated by residency and the payment of taxes. The representation of the towns, according to Warren, was “our greatest difficulty.” How many electors should equal one town vote? The plan that the committee was considering reflected the political experience of Connecticut, whose popular charter had been in force since 1662. In that plan, each town received two representatives, but the Council was elected statewide.35

The issues of December and January 1777-1778 reflected the rivalry between coast and frontier settlements, agriculture and commerce, and degrees of feeling for representative democracy. Some delegates favored a strong executive, property qualifications for the franchise, and a tilt of power toward the East. Other delegates, mostly from the western towns, remembering the royal council and governor, favored instead a bicameral legislature and a ceremonial governorship.

By February 28, the constitution was ready for public examination. It provided for a bicameral legislature, a senate of 28 members chosen by districts, and a house of representatives elected by the towns. All incorporated towns would have one representative and the larger ones would have additional delegates according to a formula based on population. The governor had powers to provide for law and order and important executive authority, but no veto power over legislation. Voters were generally qualified for office by their wealth.36

The constitution, a compromise of many interests, did not enjoy wide popular support. The debates in the towns revealed increasing hostility until the voters overwhelmingly opposed it. Conventions in some counties likewise revealed the people’s overwhelming hostility. The lack of a bill of rights and an affirmation of human equality were the basis of opposition, but the Constitution, in general, lacked precision. James Warren, on June 7, 1778, tried to summarize the effect of the recent election on him and the state. He had not been reelected by Plymouth voters in May, and the legislature did not promote him to the Council. “[If I were] dismissed from the Navy Board I should be truly a private Man, and an Independent Farmer. . . . I am tired of public life tho’ I was determined never to desert the Colours I helped to hoist. . . . If you Enquire how all this came to pass, I must tell you it is oweing to various causes. The people feel themselves uneasy and don’t know the reason. They have therefore shifted their members more generally than ever.”37

The 1777-1778 legislative sessions were busy, despite the absences of many members discussing constitutional problems. The major issues of finance, military preparation, and inflation in various forms were part of most daily business. Men like Samuel Niles of Braintree, William Dunsmore of Lancaster, Ebenezer Wales of Dorchester, and John Pitts of Boston were inordinately active handling the committee load. Whether they were the most active of the members is unknown because some members sat on standing committees that discussed many issues each day.

When the 1777 legislature ended its sessions on May 1, 1778, most of the leaders must have felt their tasks were only partly completed. The constitution was before the voters, and the battles on distant fields of war were still serious. British soldiers from the Battle of Saratoga in October 1777 were incarcerated in the colony, and military needs of food supplies, clothing, and other necessaries were troubling the state.

The new elections were probably no more earth shaking than the 1777 elections, despite James Warren’s appraisal. Suffolk County did not return six of 28 representatives and Essex County six of 30. Elections in Maine generally ignored the issues. Massachusetts towns like Marblehead, Leominster, Littleton, and Bedford sent no representatives. Other towns delayed their choices, but by the spring of 1779, they had someone in Boston.

The new speaker of the House was John Pickering, a worthy successor for Warren and a man of calm, judicious temperament who had many friends. His rival for power, notwithstanding, was John Hancock who returned from his presidency of the Continental Congress and caused anxiety over his desire to lead. Pickering became a cautious leader, while Hancock was an aggressive one, and in 1779 became speaker.38

The debate over the 1778 constitution subsided, but the people in the towns and counties, particularly in western Massachusetts, agitated for an independent constitutional convention, which would draw up a new document with a strong legislature and a clear statement of human rights—those rights of property, person, and thought that “we hold so dear.”

The people remained dissatisfied and eventually forced the General Court to call for special elections in 1779 to provide delegates for a constitutional convention. It did not separate the membership of the two bodies, the 1779 General Court and the Convention, and at least 43 legislators were selected also as delegates for the Convention. The selection process opened up the possibility of a larger base of representation when clergymen and people with little or no property were permitted to be members. Newcomers, often refugees from the threatened areas of Rhode Island and Connecticut, were frequently chosen. The mix of delegates in backgrounds was obviously greater than in the General Court, and the Convention undoubtedly had a larger electoral base than any legislature in Massachusetts history.39

Of the 311 delegates who eventually registered as members, very few had no legislative experience or were not representatives or councilors in times past. The 12 Boston delegates were all very well known—James Bowdoin, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Oliver Wendell, John Lowell, and Samuel Allyne Otis—but the size of the delegation varied from week to week with the issues and member responsibilities elsewhere. Hancock was speaker of the 1779 House of Representatives and Samuel Adams was a councilor, but Boston had kept such skilled hands as Caleb Davis and Thomas Walley in the House looking after its interests. In short, the Boston delegations had the province leaders in both bodies, but important and powerful men shared responsibilities in looking specifically after the Boston interest by serving in a single body.40

Though 311 delegates were elected, at no time did the whole membership make its appearance. Counts of delegates at times of votes on sensitive issues like the Bill of Rights and representation varied remarkably. On the first day, September 2, 1779, about 251 members appeared at Cambridge, but over the coming months when provisions of the Constitution were drawn, often with recesses of several weeks for deliberations of committees, non-committeemen lost interest and attendance dipped to no more than 35 in January and February 1780.41 Some members, so discouraged by the lack of attendance, urged delay of proceedings until better weather and politics would be more favorable. But the Constitution passed its final draft on March 2 and was debated by the voters almost immediately. Three months of debate followed over controversial provisions, like Article III of the Bill of Rights, which provided for public support of the religious establishment in public education. Most Baptists found the article unacceptable. But other people, overlooking these issues for the present, welcomed the restoration of the position of governor. A single executive and executive councilors, they felt, were desperately needed to handle the administrative problems that the current legislature was failing to solve. They pointed also to the great expansion of the House that was making government unwieldy.

The presence of a Bill of Rights, a well-constructed constitutional document, and clear wording of its provisions pleased the majority of voters. On June 16, the Convention declared the Constitution approved.42 A delegation of that body then called on the General Court on June 17 to arrange for the transfer of power—for elections, meeting date, religious ceremonies, and a banquet and entertainment. James Bowdoin made the announcement for the Convention to a joint assembly of the General Court, with Jeremiah Powell and John Hancock in the chairs and a General Court of 90 members present. The tall revolutionary gave a brief message followed by a hearty applause. The General Court divided into chambers again and appointed committees to make the arrangements.43 John Pickering of Salem was chair and was joined by Nathaniel Gorman of Charlestown and Joshua Orne of Marblehead, who took the major responsibility, but other members from the House and Council were added as the great event approached. Samuel Cooper of Brattle Street Church was asked to speak at the religious dedication. This son of Judith Sewall and William Cooper was most appropriate as the choice of the General Court. A long-time rebel, a “Silver Tongued” orator, and a clerical grandson of old Samuel Sewall, he was the occasion’s magical tie of past with present.44 His 45-page tribute to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the makers of the Constitution was a solemn performance, but happily sparked with fine oratory.

We have now a government free indeed; but after all, it remains with the people, under God, to make it an honourable and happy one.45

His colorful address was probably his last public statement of significance. Like the General Court of May 1780, he was witnessing and being part of a transition. He died in December 1783. The General Court sessions of May 1780 still remain in manuscript. Somehow, as the torch of history was passed to the October 1780 General Court, the importance of the legislative sessions was ignored. Even the members as they processed petitions as in past years stayed away from sessions in large numbers, making committee membership fluid from the need to find replacements. Probably no more than 70 of the 180 qualified members actually participated.46 Although the ever-present Hancock was the speaker, even his presence on the floor seemed restricted by election activities elsewhere which would honor him as the Commonwealth’s first governor, and the first person in Massachusetts history to 1780 to be elected by all the male voters of Massachusetts and Maine to be their leader. Until his death in 1793, he would serve many distinguished terms as governor and not be defeated by any opposition candidate.

Until the House of Representatives was replaced in October 1780, it processed petitions and spent much of its time on military matters. A system of standing committees now handled the problems of returning soldiers, the sale of public land, correspondence with the military, and certain financial matters. If legislation was required, the committee voted out a bill and it was heard on the House floor. Some members like Thomas Walley of Boston, Thomas Crane of Stoughton, Michael Farley of Ipswich, and James Warren of Plymouth were ever ready to chair or serve on these committees. Many of those bills were sent up to the Council and won favorable votes.

The General Court, in both branches, was the heart of the governing body of Massachusetts. Problems that could not be handled locally found their ways eventually to the Court. If the issue could be decisively settled, it was effective. But, if the problem required supervision, the legislature had problems of administration. A governor was then necessary. Notwithstanding, the General Court was the representative voice of the people during trying revolutionary times until it was replaced by the new constitutional legislature in October 1780.

NOTES

   1. Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts , (Boston, 1919-1990), 50: 264-265, 288-291.

   2. Ibid., 51: (1775-1776), pt. 1, in introduction by Malcolm Freiberg, ix-x;
Gerald H. Clarfield, “The Short Unhappy Civil Adminstration of Thomas Gage,”
Essex Institute, Historical Collections, 109 (1975): 138-151.

3. The Journals of Each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts . . . , ed. William Lin-
coln (Boston, 1838), 7, 74.

  4. Even so, the 1775 Journals of the House of Representatives did not include the royal coat of arms on its frontispiece when the journals were published later that year.

   5. Journals of the House of Representatives , 51: pt. 1, 5-6.

   6. Ibid., 261-262; James Warren to John Adams, Nov. 5, 14, 1775, Papers of John Adams , Robert J. Taylor, ed. et al. (Cambridge, 1979), 3: 282, 303.

7. William Story (1720-1799) had 159 committees in 1775 and 116 in 1776. He was the second most active man each year. Apparently he was a Bostonian living out of the city because of the British occupation. He was a businessman, city auditor for years, and clerk of the Suffolk Co. Probate Court. John Brown (1743-1825) was less distinguished, but served three years in the House of Representatives. His committee activity was 31 seats in 1775, 20 in 1776, and memberships on the Board of War, which made him exceedingly active.

8. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , “James Warren,” 11 (1960): 590.

9. The Acts and Resolves . . . of the Provinces of the Massachusetts Bay , 19 (1918), 7-412.

10. Journals of the House of Representatives , 51: pt. 1, 20, 46-48, 51.

11. Ibid., pt. 1, 51.

12. Ibid., pt. 3, 127-136.

13. See legislative reaction to Allen’s activities, ibid., pt. 3, 143-144, 161. Earlier James Warren had complained about the Charter to John Adams: “I am sick of our Constitution, more so than ever. . . . I hate the name of Our Charter, which fascinates and Shackles us.” See Papers of John Adams , Robert J. Taylor, ed. et al. (Cambridge, 1979), 303.

14. See Journals of the House of Representatives , 54: 4-5.

15. Ibid., 51: (1775-1776), pt. 3, 104, 153-154.

16. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , “Benjamin Church,” 13 (1965): 380-397.

17. Ibid., 391-397.

18. Journals of the House of Representatives, 51: pt. 1, 163-164, 186, 87, 201-206, 246.

19. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , “Benjamin Church,” 13 (1965): 396-397; Maude B. Vosburgh, “The Disloyalty of Benjamin Church, Jr.,” Cambridge Historical Society Publications, 30: 69.

20. Journals of the House of Representatives , 51: pt. 3, 18-19.

21. Ibid., 51.

22. Ibid., 44, 71, 81-82.

23. Journals of the House of Representatives , 52: pt. 1, pp. 3-6. Boston in past legislatures had four representatives, in 1776 it sent twelve, but at least two would go to the Council. Newburyport sent five instead of the single representative.

24. Ibid., pt. 1, 10. James Warren seemed not disturbed by the numbers of representatives, but by some of the irregularities in towns like Salem. “We have had yet Nothing before us to determine what we are to expect from the Conduct of this new house. The Election [of the Council] took us two Intire days, and Controversial Elections filled up the rest of last week.” June 2, 1776, Robert J. Taylor, ed. et al. Papers of John Adams (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), 4: 231-232.

25. John Warren to John Adams, May 8, 1776, Papers of John Adams , ibid., 4: 177.

26. The Acts and Resolves . . . of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, 19 (1918): 423-946; Journals of the House of Representatives , 52: pt. 1, 13, 14.

27. Journals of the House of Representatives , 52: pt. 1, 74.

28. Ibid., 76, 77.

29. Ibid., E. James Ferguson, The Power of the Purse: A History of American Public Finance, 1776-1780 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1961), 25-47.

30. Journals of the House of Representatives , 52: pt. 1, 142, 146.

31. Ibid., 53: pt. 1, 27, 28-29.

32. Ibid., 7-8.

33. James Warren to John Adams, June 5, 1777, Papers of John Adams (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), Robert J. Taylor, ed. et al. 4: 218-219.

34. James Warren to John Adams, Aug. 10, Papers of John Adams , ibid., 5: 271.

35. See Oscar and Mary Handlin, eds., The Popular Sources of Political Authority (Cambridge, Mass., 1966), 190-201.

36. See introduction, Journals of the House of Representatives , 54.

37. James Warren to John Adams, June 7, 1778, Papers of John Adams , Robert J. Taylor, ed. et al. (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), 6: 188.

38. Ibid., 189. “The Great Man tarried here till after Election, and then went off with the Pomp and Retinue of an Eastern Prince.”

39. Robert J. Taylor, “Construction of the Massachusetts Constitution,” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society , 90 (1980): 317-346.

40. Proceedings of the Convention Begun and Held at Concord . . . the 14th Day of July , 1779.

41. Taylor, op. cit., 323-324.

42. “Massachusetts House of Representatives Journal for May 25 to October 18, 1780,” Ms. Massachusetts Archives, Boston.

43. Ibid.

44. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , “Samuel Cooper,” 11 (1960): 192-212.

45. Samuel Cooper, A Sermon Preached before his Excellency John Hancock, Esq.; Governor, the Honourable the Senate and the House of Representatives. . . . , October 25, 1780 (Boston, 1780).

46. The ms. copy of the 1780 May Journals had no official statement of membership.