now wrote (Feb. 12, 1772), "to look on the dark side of the prospect; but at present I have more spirits to encounter what is before me, or else really there is a better prospect than there has been of some good degree of peace and order, without giving up any part of the prerogative." It seemed hardly possible that the community, now so quiet, was the same, which, two years before, had been stirred on the waves of a fearful passion by the baptismal flow of innocent blood for American liberty.

The town had determined to have an annual commemoration of the massacre. An influential committee1 chosen to select the orator, unanimously selected Warren, who was thus called upon to become the exponent of the community, when the Whig cause was far from being hopeful. On the anniversary morning (March 5, 1772), with his mind filled with the thought he was to utter, he might have read in the Tory organ, the "News Letter," an able communication, filling one side and a half, which commenced in the following strain: "Among the many novel doc

1 This committee, chosen at a town-meeting, April 2, 1771, were Thomas Cushing, Richard Dana, John Hancock, Ebenezer Story, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Church, Samuel Pemberton. At this time, Church was playing a treacherous game (Bancroft, vi. 409). When Bernard was governor, he says in his letters that he had authentic sources of information, which he was under obligations to keep secret, but gives no names.

On the 2d of March, 1772, there was a petition to the selectmen for a townmeeting on the 5th. William Phillips's name is at its head, and it was numerously signed. It stated that the committee on the selection of the orator had unanimously chosen Dr. Joseph Warren, but had made no report to the town; and the subscribers conceived "it of high importance that the proceedings of the committee should be ratified by the town with as much union and formality as they were originated, as well as that the town should take some order touching the regulations of said affair," and asked for a legal town-meeting. The selectmen, on the same day, issued a warrant for a meeting, to be held in Faneuil Hall, at nine o'clock, to receive the report of the committee.

trines broached by our newspaper-politicians, there is none more wild and chimerical, or big with greater mischiefs to the colonies, than this, - that the king, with each and every of the colonial assemblies, form so many complete and entire separate governments, independent of the realm of England." This was partisan misrepresentation, made in the face of constant denials by the Whigs, that they entertained such ideas of independence. The just division line between the purely colonial and the imperial was not precisely defined in written law, and because political science had not reached a sufficiently advanced point to define it; but it was practically understood in America. The colonists had grasped that idea of local self-government which is now pronounced to be the basis of constitutional freedom,' and which that admirable statesman, Sir William Molesworth, fifteen years ago, advocated for the British colonies with such a signal triumph, that the "London Times" called him the liberator and regenerator of the colonial empire of Great Britain.

On this anniversary, the town met in legal meeting, in Faneuil Hall, at nine o'clock, when Richard Dana was chosen the moderator. He was an eminent lawyer, of unblemished private character and large public 'spirit, whose name often occurs in connection with the proceedings of the patriots. It happened to be the

1 May, in his excellent "Constitutional History of England," ii. 460, says, "That Englishmen have been qualified for the enjoyment of political freedom, is mainly due to those ancient local institutions by which they have been trained to self-government. . . . England alone among the nations of the earth has maintained a constitutional polity; and her liberties may be ascribed, above all things, to her free local institutions. . . . Thousands of small communities have been separately trained to self-government; taxing themselves, through themselves, for local objects."

forenoon of the ancient "Thursday Lecture;" and, when the town voted to adjourn to the Old South, it fixed half past twelve to assemble again. At this hour, the town was called to order in the church. The pulpit was covered with black cloth. "That capacious house," the "Gazette" says, "was thronged with a very respectable assembly, consisting of the inhabitants and many of the clergy, not only of this, but of the neighboring towns." The "News Letter" says "the vast concourse was composed of both sexes." The object which the popular leaders had in view was to rouse public attention to danger, when aggression was insidious and the aggressors were adroit.

The orator, after a remark on the causes of the mighty revolutions in the rise and fall of States, which strike the mind with solemn surprise, paid a tribute to civil government. When it had for its object the strength and security of all, it was one of the richest blessings to mankind, and ought to be held in the highest veneration. In new-formed communities, the grand design of this institution is most generally understood, because that equality which prevailed among them is remembered, and every one feels it to be his interest and duty to preserve inviolate a constitution founded on free principles, on which the public safety depends. It was a noble fidelity to such a free constitution that raised Rome to her summit of glory, gave her peace at home, and extended her dominion abroad; but, when this fidelity decayed, she became the scorn and derision of nations, "and a monument of this eternal truth, that public happiness depends on a virtuous and unshaken attachment to a free constitution."

The orator next urged that it was this noble attachment to a free constitution that inspired the first settlers of this country, who, rather than carry on a civil war to obtain it, left their native land, and landed on this barren soil, which they cultivated and defended. At length, after the struggles between liberty and slavery, during the tyrannic reign of the Stuarts, the connection between this colony and Great Britain was settled by the compact of the charter, which secured to this province, as absolutely as any human instrument could do it, all the liberties and immunities of British subjects. "And it is undeniably true, that the greatest and most important right of a British subject is, that he shall be governed by no laws but those to which, either in person or by his representative, he hath given his consent. This is the grand basis of British freedom; it is interwoven with the constitution; and, whenever this is lost, the constitution must be destroyed."

The orator then considered the division of this constitution copied here into three branches, with the characteristics of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, composing the law-making power, -the governor representing the king; the council, the lords; and the House of Representatives, the House of Commons, in which only a tax can originate: and only when the consent of these branches was obtained was taxation legal. In the name of justice, how could the late acts of parliament taxing America be constitutionally binding? Are the members of the House of Commons the democracy of the province? If not, can they originate a bill taxing the people here? Are the lords the peers of America? If not, no act of

ee

theirs can be said to be that of our aristocratic branch. "The power of the monarchic branch, we with pleasure acknowledge, resides in the king, who may act either in person or by his representative." A proclamation for raising money in America, issued by the king's sole authority, would be equally consistent with the constitution, and therefore equally binding with the late acts of parliament imposing a revenue; for all their validity arose from his approval. By what figure of rhetoric can the inhabitants of Massachusetts be called free subjects, when they are obliged to obey implicitly such laws as are made for them by men three thousand miles off, whom they know not and whom they never have empowered to act for them." Or how can they be said to have property, if such a foreign body can oblige them to deliver a part or the whole of their substance without their consent. If in this way they may be taxed, " even in the smallest trifle, they may also, without their consent, be deprived of every thing they possess, although never so valuable, never so dear."

The orator then dwelt on the means used to enforce these acts, -a standing army, with the intention to overawe the inhabitants, and portrayed its baneful influences. He dwelt on the massacre, the removal of the troops, and the trial of the soldiers. He commented on the astonishing infatuation in the British councils, which dictated the repeated attacks on the freedom of the colonies, and, even from the point of interest, could see no gains from the policy which they might not secure by the smooth channel of commerce. The trade of the colonies contributed to the amazing increase of the riches of Britain; and it was