The ink with which the Treaty of Paris had been signed had scarcely been sanded ere that discord appeared between England and her American colonies that had been foreseen by French and other, statesmen of the period.  Joseph Sherwood, Rhode Island's agent in England, under date of August 4, 1763, suggested England's purpose to impose the maintenance of a standing army upon the colonies, writing: "It is rumored here, and I believe upon good foundation, that the government will expect a number of troops (some say 10,000) to be kept on foot and at the sole expense of the American provinces, for their own preservation and safeguard, in order to prevent encroachments and hostilities." The Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, in October, complained that the revenue failed to defray a fourth part of the expense of collecting it, and commanded "suppression of the clandestine and prohibited trade with foreign nations." The customs service was strengthened by the appointment of new and also additional officers.  For these the General Assembly established a table of fees in October.  Admiral Colvill, commanding his majesty's fleet, stationed the "Squirrel," ship, in Newport harbor "for the encouragement of fair trade by the prevention of smuggling." The General Assembly on January 24, 1764, directed Governor Hopkins to send to England, addressed to Sherwood, copies of a remonstrance (See Chapter X) against renewal of the sugar act, which had expired by limitation at the end of thirty years.  The remonstrance, drafted by Governor Hopkins, reviewed the economic situation of the colony, and undertook to prove that a free trade in sugar would be advantageous to Rhode Island by maintaining a profitable trade, and to England as a prosperous Rhode Island would become a better market for English goods, and if harmful to anybody, harmful only to the French, by reason of losing the brandy trade in Africa.  Parliament revived the sugar act, but reduced the duty from sixpence to threepence.  Imposts on other articles, including coffee, wines, and spice, were ordered.  Export of iron and lumber except to England was forbidden.

The legislation of 1764 included also an announcement of the stamp act, which required the placing of a revenue stamp upon every piece of vellum, parchment and paper used for commercial and legal purposes, including court processes; upon playing cards, dice, newspapers, pamphlets, advertisements, almanacs, calendars, apprenticeship agreements, and documents in any language other than English.  The preamble declared the purpose of the stamp act to be "the raising of a revenue for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting and securing his majesty's dominions in America." The stamp act was not to be put into effect immediately; an opportunity was to be given for Americans to choose another form of taxation.  The form of taxation was of much less importance to them than the fact of taxation.  Stamp taxes have become familiar in America as devices for raising revenue.  America in 1764 was opposed to any taxation by England, and the stamp act immediately aroused a storm of protest in America.  America interpreted the tax policy as a device for transferring to America part of the burden of an English national debt that had been accumulated principally through European wars.  The spoils of conquest, the territory acquired from France and Spain under the Treaty of Paris, alone should compensate England for war expenditures in America. The Earl of Halifax, in August 1764, requested the Governor to transmit without delay "a list of all instruments made use of in public transactions, law proceedings, grants, conveyances, securities of land or money within your government."

234
The General Assembly, in July, appointed Governor Hopkins, Daniel Jencks and Nicholas Brown a "committee of correspondence" to "confer and consult with any committee or committees that are or shall be appointed by any of the British colonies upon the continent of North America, and to agree with them upon such measures as shall appear to them necessary and proper to procure a repeal of the . . .  sugar act . . . and also the act . . . for levying several duties in the colony, or in procuring the duties in the last mentioned act to be lessened; also to prevent the levying a stamp duty upon the North American colonies and, generally, for the prevention of all such taxes, duties or impositions that may be proposed to be assessed upon the colonists which may be inconsistent with their rights and privileges as British subjects." In October, Governor Hopkins, Nicholas Tillinghast, Joseph Lippitt, Joshua Babcock, Daniel Jencks, John Cole and Nicholas Brown were appointed a committee "to prepare an address to his majesty for a redress of our grievances in respect to the duties, impositions, etc., already laid and proposed to be laid on this colony." Rumor that a petition had been sent to England praying "his majesty to vacate the Charter of this colony," resulted in a resolution that the colony agent in London be instructed "to use his utmost effort to prevent the evil intended by the said petitioners; and also, as soon as possible, to transmit a copy of the said petition, with the names of the subscribers, to the Governor and Company of this colony." The agent reported later that the petition, if sent to England, had not been presented.

"RIGHTS OF COLONIES EXAMINED"--Governor Hopkins in a message to the Assembly at the opening of the November session, said: "The burdens put on the trade of the northern colonies by a late act of Parliament are already severely felt; the stamp duties intended to be laid upon them will he a still heavier burden; and the plan formed by the British ministry to raise as much money in America as hath been expended for its defense, must complete our ruin.  To all this let me add the information I have received that a petition is already sent to England by a considerable number of the inhabitants of this colony, full of complaints against it, praying that our Charter may be taken away and a new form of government introduced.  These are certainly matters of the utmost importance to your constituents; and as such will, I hope, be seriously considered by you; every remedy that is possible properly applied and, should slavery become the portion of the unhappy people, let no part of their misfortune be chargeable on any neglect, or inattention of their representatives." Governor Hopkins in his final plea, beginning "should slavery become the portion of the unhappy people," had struck once more the note sounded by Governor Cranston in the address in which he was accused by Bellemont of insinuating that his majesty's government was "little better than bondage and slavery." The General Assembly adopted the address to his majesty prepared by its committee, and also requested Governor Hopkins "to correct the piece lying before this Assembly entitled 'The Rights of Colonies Examined,"' and directed a committee "to view the said performance after it shall be completed" and "if they shall approve the same," to send two fair copies to the colony agent "to be by him but in print, and to make use of the same in conjunction with the other agents, as they shall think will be most for the advantage of the colonies." The address to the King, written by Governor Hopkins and his associates, was dignified and respectful, but lacked altogether the fawning attitude assumed in communications to his majesty earlier than 1750. It asserted a contract as the basis for the relations between the colonists and the King, thus: "Before their departure, the terms they removed upon, and the relation they should stand in to the mother country, in their emigrant state, were settled.  They were to remain subject to the King, and dependent on the kingdom of England; in return, they were to receive protection, and enjoy all the privileges of freeborn Englishmen." The address complained to the King that "the restraints and burdens laid on the trade of these colonies by a late act of Parliament are such, as if continued, must ruin it," and instanced the sugar act as a measure that would destroy utterly the most important commerce of Rhode Island.

235
Furthermore, "the extensive powers given by the same act to the courts of vice-admiralty in America have a tendency in a great measure to deprive the colonies of that darling privilege, trials by juries, the unalienable birthright of every Englishman." The stamp act was characterized as tending "to deprive us of our just and long enjoyed rights.  We have hitherto possessed, as we thought, according to right, equal freedom with your majesty's subjects in Britain, whose essential privilege it is to be governed only by laws to which themselves have some way consented and not to be compelled to part with their property but as it is called for by authority of such laws." The address predicted that the withdrawal of money by taxation would "totally deprive" the people "of the means of paying their debts to, and continuing their trade with Great Britain, and leave the people here poor and miserable." "Our ancestors," the address continued, "being loyal and dutiful subjects, removed and planted here under a royal promise, that, observing and fulfilling the conditions enjoined them, they and their children after them forever, should hold and enjoy equal rights, privileges and immunities with their fellow subjects in Britain.  These conditions have been faithfully kept by this colony.  We do, therefore, most humbly beseech your majesty that our freedom and all our just rights may be continued to us inviolate." The final prediction, "whatever may be determined concerning them, the Governor and Company of Rhode Island will ever unalterably remain your majesty's most loyal, most dutiful and most obedient subjects" was destined not to be fulfilled literally.  Twelve years later, Stephen Hopkins and his associates were as staunch and daring rebels, as they had been "dutiful and most obedient subjects" in 1764.  The address was significant, however, because it stated concisely exactly the issues involved in the Revolution, restated in the Rhode Island Declaration of Independence of May 4, 1776, and the American Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, that is to say, a relation between colony and King resting upon contract, and a violation of the contract by the King and his ministers.

"The Rights of Colonies Examined" was a finely reasoned exposition of the situation confronting the colonies and the government of England, the appeal of a free and liberty-loving people against the curtailment of their liberties and the inauguration of a tyranny.  The theme was epic and the treatment was masterful; the logic was reinforced by citation of historic episodes.  "Liberty is the greatest blessing that men enjoy, and slavery the heaviest curse that human nature is capable of'"--this opening sentence struck the key note.

The British constitution, "the best that ever existed among men, will be confessed by all to be founded on compact, and established by consent of the people.  By this most beneficial compact British subjects are to be governed only agreeably to laws to which themselves have some way consented; and are not to be compelled to part with their property but as it is called for by the authority of such laws.  The former is truly liberty; the latter is truly to be possessed of property, and to have something that may be called one's own.  On the contrary, those who are governed at the will of another, or of others, and whose property may be taken from them by taxes, or otherwise, without their consent. and against their will, are in the miserable condition of slaves." Passing immediately to a consideration of the question, "whether the British American colonies on the continent are justly entitled to like privileges and freedom as their fellow subjects in Great Britain," Hopkins cited, first, the emigration from England under charters granted by King Charles I as establishing these privileges and freedom by contract; secondly, abundantly from the history of colonies, Greek, Roman, French and Spanish, to prove that colonials universally had "equal liberty and freedom with their fellow subjects" in the mother country; thirdly, the British practice theretofore of treating the "colonies as possessed of these rights" and "as their dependent, though free, condition required." After 150 Years "the scene seems to be unhappily changing.  The British ministry, whether induced by a jealousy of the colonies, by false information, or by some alteration in the system of political government, we have no information; whatever hath been the motive, this we are sure of, the Parliament in their last session, passed an act limiting, restricting and burdening the trade of these colonies much more than had ever been done before; as also for greatly enlarging the power and jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty in the colonies; and also a resolution that it might be necessary to establish stamp duties, and other internal taxes, to be collected with them."

236
Hopkins conceded that "there are many things of a more general nature, quite out of reach of" the colonial "legislatures, which it is necessary should be regulated, ordered and governed.  One of this kind is the commerce of the whole British empire, taken collectively'and that of each kingdom and colony in it, as it makes a part of the whole, and that "the Parliament of Great Britain, that grand and august legislative body, must, from the nature of their authority, and the necessity of the thing, be justly vested with this power." He waived the question of colonial representation in Parliament, as possibly not "consistent with their distant and dependent state" or not "to their advantage," and asserted that the colonies "ought in justice, and for the very evident good of the whole commonwealth, to have notice of every new measure about to be pursued, and new act that is about to be passed, by which their rights, liberties or interests will be affected; they ought to have such notice, that they may appear and be heard by their agents, by counsel, or written representation, or by some other equitable and efficient way. . . . Had the colonies been fully heard before the late act had been passed, no reasonable man can suppose it ever would have passed at all; for what good reason can possibly be given for making a law to cramp the trade and ruin the interests of many of the colonies, and at the same time, lessen in a prodigious manner the consumption of the British manufactures in them?" Hopkins then undertook to prove that the enforcement of the sugar act would destroy Rhode Island's most profitable commerce and industry; that the restriction of export of lumber to England only would destroy the profit of exporting flaxseed to Ireland; that the new jurisdiction conferred upon admiralty courts could be applied in such manner as to destroy shipping practically by confiscation, which might follow proof of "only probable cause"; and that the stamp act inaugurated a system of "internal taxation" that violated first principles.  Rebutting the assumption that members of Parliament as "men of the highest character for their wisdom, justice and integrity" could not "be supposed to deal hardly, unjustly or unequally by any," Hopkins replied that "one who is bound to obey the will of another is as really a slave though he may have a good master as if he had a bad one, and that the pressure upon members of Parliament, who "must obtain the votes of the people," would induce them to make a virtue of transferring so much of the burden of taxation as possible from England to America.  He then asserted that "the richest and surest treasure of the prince was the love of his subjects." "We are not insensible," he wrote, "that when liberty is in danger, the liberty of complaining is dangerous. . . .. Is the defence of liberty become so contemptible and pleading for just rights so dangerous?" Hopkins reached up to the essential issue in the question, "And can it possibly be shown that the people in Britain have a sovereign authority over their fellow subjects in America?" The answer to this question was then and is now that the British Parliament had no more right to enact as law a statute that would operate in Rhode Island than the Rhode Island General Assembly had to enact as law a statute that would operate in England.  On this principle of independence within the empire rests the organization of the British dominions in the present century, including as it does colonial republics bound to the mother country by ties of amity and comity resting upon mutual recognition right.  Canada is rightly called "daughter" in the imperial household but "mistress" at home.  Hopkins reached the correct answer: "In an imperial state, which consists of many separate governments, each of which hath peculiar privileges," wrote Hopkins, "and of which kind it is evident the empire of Great Britain is; no single part, though greater than any other part, is by that superiority entitled to make laws for, or to tax such lesser part, but all laws, and all taxations, which bind the whole, must be made by the whole . . . . indeed, it must be absurd to suppose that the common people of Great Britain have a sovereign and absolute authority over their fellow subjects in America, or even any sort of power whatsoever over them; but it will be still more absurd to suppose they can give a power to their representatives which they have not themselves.

237
If the House of Commons do not receive this authority from their constituents, it will be difficult to tell by what means they obtained it, except it be vested in them by mere superiority and power." Hopkins then rebutted the assumption that England had engaged in any war solely to defend her American colonies, citing failure to defend them, the return of Louisburg to the French after its reduction by the colonials, and the pressure on the colonies to make war in America to sustain England's wars in Europe.  He asserted that the colonies "at all times when called upon by the crown raised money for the public service " and did it "cheerfully as the Parliament have done on like occasions"; and that the colonies would be drained of money by the new system of taxation and thus ruined.  The American colonists "have as little inclination as they have ability to throw off dependency; have carefully avoided every offensive measure and every interdicted manufacture; have risked their lives as they have been ordered, and furnished their money as it has been called for; have never been troublesome or expensive to the mother country; have kept due order and supported a regular government; have maintained peace and practiced Christianity; and in all conditions, and in every relation, have demeaned themselves as loyal, as dutiful, and as faithful subjects ought; and that no kingdom or state hath, or ever had, colonies more quiet, more obedient, or more profitable, than these have been." Only "a long train of abuses and usurpations," of which the legislation of 1763-1764 was the beginning, could drive such a people to rebellion.  "The Rights of Colonies Examined" was exactly the logical exposition of a thesis that would appeal to thoughtful men.

AFFAIR OF THE "ST. JOHN" AND THE "SQUIRREL"--Meanwhile stirring events had been taking place in Narragansett Bay.  Early in June, 1764, Admiral Colvill sent four armed vessels "to spread themselves in the principal harbors between Casco Bay and Cape Henlopen, in order to raise men." Lieutenant Hill, commanding the "St. John," schooner, reported "very little success, the merchants having, to all appearances, entered into a combination to distress us, as far as they are able, and by threats and promises, to prevent seamen from entering for those vessels." Lieutenant Hill reported also "the behavior of the people of Rhode Island . . . . extremely insolent and unprecedented." From the Lieutenant's narrative it appeared that while the "St.  John" was lying at anchor at Newport on June 30, news was received that a brig was unloading in a creek near Howland's Ferry.  The vessel had unloaded her cargo and sailed before Lieutenant Hill reached Howland's Ferry.  The cargo consisted of ninety-three hogsheads of sugar.  Lieutenant Hill sent an armed boat in pursuit of the brig, which was captured and proved to be the "Basto" of New York, Wingate, master, from Monti Christo.  The Lieutenant loaded the sugar, which he had seized, on board the brig; thereupon the owner of the vessel, fearing that the latter might be taken to Halifax for trial in the admiralty court, had Lieutenant Hill arrested and compelled him to give bail to take the "Basto" into Newport for trial there. On July 4 the Newport collector of customs seized the brig and cargo again, alleging that the first seizure had been irregular because Lieutenant Hill had not qualified by taking the oath of office.  Lieutenant Hill was in Boston on July 9, when further events occurred, of which a relation by British officers is the only report that has been preserved.

As to the causes for the commotion in Newport in July there was disagreement.  The "St. John" was on a mission to raise seamen, and probably was resorting to impressment, which was a practice approved by the British navy at the time, and one of the issues involved later in the War of 1812.

238
That, besides the episode of interfering with the brig "Basto," would make the vessel unpopular in Newport.  One British officer reported that trouble started when a British boat crew attempted to arrest Thomas Moss, alleged to have been a deserter (Desertion was the charge usually made the pretext for impressment.); another officer reported that the Newporters had demanded surrender of three of the crew of the "St. John," who were accused of stealing.  With that exception the narratives were essentially similar and corroborative.

"On Monday, the 9th of July, 1764, at two o'clock in the afternoon, sent the boat, manned and armed, on shore to bring off Thomas Moss, a deserter, who had left the vessel some days before, and was then on the wharf; a large mob assembled and rescued him; and seeing our people in great danger, we fired a swivel, unshotted, as signal for the boat to come on board. The mob took Mr. Doyle, the officer of the boat, prisoner, and wounded most of the boat's crew with stones, which fell as thick as hail round and in the boat; and they threatened to sacrifice Mr. Doyle if the pilot was not immediately sent on shore and delivered up to their mercy; they even threatened to haul the schooner on shore and burn her.  At five we sent the boat on board the 'Squirrel' to acquaint the commanding officer of our situation.  In the meantime the mob filled a sloop full of men, and bore right down on board us; but, seeing us determined to defend the vessel, they thought proper to sheer off and. go on shore again.  At six the boat returned from the 'Squirrel' with orders to get under way and anchor close under her stern.  The mob growing more and more tumultuous we fired a swivel and made a signal to the 'Squirrel' for assistance, and got under sail.  As soon as the mob saw our design they sent a sloop and two or three boats full of men to the battery on Goat Island, and began to fire on us, notwithstanding the Lieutenant of the 'Squirrel' went on shore and forbade the gunner to do any such thing.  They even knocked him down, and it was with much difficulty that he got from them; they fired eight shot at us, one of which went through our mainsail whilst we were turning out.  At eight we anchored in ten fathom of water within half a cable's length of the 'Squirrel,' and received one shot more from the battery, which went close under the 'Squirrel's' stern.  They threatened to sink us if we did not immediately weigh and run into the harbor again; but on the 'Squirrel's' getting a spring upon its cable and bringing her broadside to bear upon the battery, they left off.  At eleven next morning they set Mr. Doyle at liberty."

An officer on the "Squirrel" reported that soon after the scuffle at the landing place "several gentlemen came on board and said they came to represent the occasion of the disturbance, lest the officer of the schooner should have made a misrepresentation of the affair.  They said there was a theft committed by three of the schooner's people; that a peace officer went off, and they had refused him admittance; and they now imagined he would return with an armed force, to gain admittance.  I told the gentlemen the offenders should be sent on shore.  The signal was then made by the schooner pursuant to my former directions.  I immediately sent a boat and a petty officer to order her out of the harbor; on which the gentlemen told me they would fire on her from the fort.  I then told the officer if they fired from the fort, to go on shore to the fort, and let them know it was my orders for her to move and anchor near us; and that the men should be delivered to justice; and if he fired again, I should be obliged to return it.  They still continued their fire.  I then ordered a spring in our cable, and went ashore to the fort to let them know the consequences of their behavior.  I found no other officer than the gunner, governed by a tumultuous mob, who said they had orders to fire, and they would fire.  They used me with great insolence, and knocked me down, and would have detained me.  I then returned to the boat, ordered the ship to prepare for action, and proceeded on board the schooner, and brought her to anchor near the ship; they then ceased firing.  I then went on shore to demand justice of the Deputy Governor for the treatment I had received at the fort.

239
He replied I must pursue the law.  I told him I would redress myself, if they were to be found, as he seemed not active to do me justice. I then returned to take the people off who had insulted me, but could not find them."

Captain Smith of the "Squirrel" reported that the gunner at the fort "produced an order for stopping the vessel signed by two of the council, the Deputy Governor being absent at that time. I, in company with my Lieutenant, waited on the Governor and council to demand a proper acknowledgment for the insult they had committed. . . . I found them a set of very ignorant council.  They agreed that the gunner had acted by authority, and that they would answer for it when they thought it necessary.  It appears to me that they were guided by the mob, whose intentions were to murder the pilot and destroy the vessel.  I am very sorry they ceased firing before we had convinced them of their error.  But I hope it will . . .  be the means of a change of government in this licentious republic."

However exaggerated, possibly, the narratives were, there was no doubt that the King's colors had been fired upon, and that British naval officers were not popular in Newport. Admiral Colvill reported the matter to England, and the English government issued an order to the Governor and Company of Rhode Island to return "with all possible dispatch an exact and punctual account of the whole proceeding, authenticated in the best manner the case will admit of; together with the names and descriptions of the offenders, and what means were used at the time of the tumult by the government and magistracy of that colony for the suppression thereof, and the protection of his majesty's vessels and their crews; particularly whether anything and what was done by the government of said colony when the populace possessed themselves of the battery upon Goat Island; and what measures had been since taken to discover and bring to justice the offenders." Governor Ward had succeeded Governor Hopkins by the time, June, 1765, the inquiry reached America.  He replied that "as I was out of the administration last year and was out of town when the affair happened, it will require more time for me to acquaint myself with and prepare a statement of the case properly authenticated than if I had been present at the time of the transaction." He promised to lay the letter from England before the General Assembly at the September session, 1765, and did.  There were changes of officers in England also, and the affair of the "St. John" and the "Squirrel" was lost sight of in a series of events of greater immediate significance in England and America, also.  The General Assembly's resolution in September, 1765, that the Governor "issue a proclamation for apprehending the rioters, and commanding all persons to apprehend and bring them to justice, and to prevent any such riots for the future," referred to other disturbances as well as the firing on H. M. S. "St.  John."

THE "MAIDSTONE" AFFAIR--H.M.S. "Maidstone" replaced the "Squirrel" in Rhode Island waters in 1765, combining enforcement of the revenue laws with impressment of seamen.  For both purposes all vessels, even fishing smacks and small sloops carrying firewood to the town of Newport, were visited and searched.  Impressment excepted for a time only Newporters, lest too great offence be given to the latter, on whom the "Maidstone" was dependent somewhat for supplies of food and water.  Interference with vessels and impressment of seamen soon had the effect of banishing all shipping, save incoming vessels from foreign voyages, from Newport.  Fishing and wood carrying stopped, and Newport was effectually cut off from supplies.  Vessels were tied up at the wharves without cargoes, and hundreds of sailors loitered in the streets for want of employment.  On June 4, 1765, the King's birthday, the "Maidstone" sent a boarding party to a vessel arriving from Africa, and impressed the entire crew, including several inhabitants of Newport.  This aroused the people.  At nine in the evening of June 4, a boat from the "Maidstone," landing at one of the Newport wharves, was seized by a crowd, estimated as including 500 sailors and boys, dragged up Queen Street at a speed so great that the iron keel left a trail of sparks, carried to the Common and publicly burned.

240
Governor Ward sent the sheriff of Newport County on board the "Maidstone" to demand release "of several inhabitants of this colony, largely impressed and detained on board said ship contrary to law." On June 11, Governor Ward repeated his demand "that all the inhabitants of this colony who have been forcibly taken and detained . . . . be forthwith dismissed." His letter to Captain Antrobus under date of July 12 summarized the situation thus:

The men whose discharge I requested were detained several weeks; many others, in the meantime impressed; the very fishing boats which daily supplied the town were fired at, and interrupted so much in their fishing that some of them dared not go out of the harbor; and the town, if these measures had been continued, would soon have greatly suffered; nay, to such an extravagant height of imprudence and insolence had your people arrived as to enter on board a wood boat (upon the King's birthday, the very day upon which you affect to lay so great stress), having only two men in her, and to take one of them out, and even to follow the vessel to the wharf. This encouraged the populace, and was the immediate occasion of the riot, which ended in burning the Maidstone boat.  These things gave a general uneasiness to the inhabitants, who not only saw the great disadvantage they must suffer in their trade and commerce, but were also apprehensive that the supplies which came to the town by water (without which they cannot subsist)  would be so much obstructed as greatly to enhance the price of the necessaries of life.

And here, sir, I must observe, that the impressing of Englishmen is, in my opinion, an arbitrary action, contrary to law, inconsistent with liberty, and to be justified only by urgent necessity.  You assert that while your ship is afloat the civil authority of this colony does not extend to and cannot operate within her.  But I must be of opinion, sir,  that while she lies in the body of a county, as she then did and still does, within the body of the county of Newport, all her officers and men are within the jurisdiction of this colony, and ought to conform themselves to the laws thereof; and while I have the honor to be in the administration, I shall endeavor to assert and maintain the liberties and privileges of his majesty's subjects; and the honor, dignity and jurisdiction of the colony.  As the men whose discharge I was anxious for have been dismissed, and no further complaints have been made me on that head, I am content to drop the dispute, and hope for the future there may be no occasion for renewing it.

The Governor mentioned in his letter a formal complaint of the destruction of the boat to the Chief Justice of the county, and added: "But in justice to this town I must observe, that by the best information I can get, no person of the least note was concerned in the riot; the persons who committed the crime consisting altogether of the dregs of the people, and a number of boys and negroes." The famous Boston tea party, several years later, was conducted by a strange band of Indians who appeared suddenly in the quaint and quiet Puritan town.  Who shall say that disguise was not known by the strange tatterdemalion band, including negroes, who burned the boat of the "Maidstone"?  The courts of Rhode Island were open to the British officers for prosecution of offenders, "supposed to be known,". but there were no convictions.

THE STAMP ACT--The exasperation aroused in Newport by the activities of the "Maidstone" including what was described by a contemporary writer as "the hottest press ever knon in this town," had not subsided when news reached America that Parliament had passed the stamp act, to become effective November 1. and that it had been signed for King George III, who was mentally deficient and under guardianship.  Venturesome sea captains, sailing to and from ports farther up Narragansett Bay, no doubt had found ways of avoiding the "Maidstone" by use of the West Passage or by night sailing, which were not available to Newport vessels, which must lie at wharves commanded by the 'Maidstone's" batteries.  But the stamp act could not be avoided by seamanship.  Providence expressed its discontent with the stamp act in resolutions.  At a special town meeting on August 7, 1765, Stephen Hopkins, Nicholas Cooke, Samuel Nightingale, Jr., John Brown, Silas Downer and James Angell were appointed a committee to draft instructions to the town's representatives in the General Assembly.  Resolutions drafted by the committee were adopted August 13; in large part they were similar to the resolutions adopted by the Virginia House of Burgesses on motion of Patrick Henry, and, with variations emphasizing Rhode Island's unusual independence in legislative matters, were subsequently adopted by the General Assembly at its session in September, 1765.

241
The "Providence Gazette," revived after a long suspension, printed a special edition on August 24, which included copies of the Providence resolutions, extracts from reports in other colonial papers of action taken elsewhere, part of the speech made by Colonel Barre in Parliament against the stamp act, and an editorial praising resistance by patriots.  The edition of August 24 carried the motto: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty," and across the top of the front page, in glaring letters after the streamer fashion of modern newspapers, the words "Vox Populi, Vox Dei." The revolution against the stamp act had been complete, though quiet and orderly, in Providence.  In Newport, where the people had been stirred to violence by persistent interference with the commerce on which the prosperity of the town depended, popular demonstration of wrath preceded action in town meeting by resolution, on September 3, 1765.  On August 27, Augustus Johnston, who had been appointed distributor of stamps in the colony; Thomas Moffat, Scotch physician, temporarily resident in Newport and outspoken advocate of the English policy; and Martin Howard, whose "Letter from a Gentleman of Halifax to His Friend in Rhode Island," answering "The Rights of Colonies Examined," by Stephen Hopkins, had been second in a series of pamphlets recalling exchanges a century earlier by Roger Williams and John Cotton, were hanged in effigy on a gallows erected in front of the Colony House.  In the evening the effigies were cut down and burned in the presence of a throng of people that filled every available space from which the fire might be seen. The demonstration was continued on the following day, when the houses of Johnston, Moffat and Howard were wrecked, and much of their furnishings destroyed.  Johnston, Moffat and Howard, with the three officers at the custom house in Newport, fled from the town in terror, seeking protection on board the "Cygnet," English sloop-of-war, then in the harbor.  Johnston, whose resignation as distributor of stamps, because he could not "execute the office against the will of our Sovereign Lord the People," had been announced by the "Providence Gazette" of August 24, in a letter dated November 22, declared: "In the evening of the twenty-eighth of August last a large mob was raised in the town of Newport, on account of the stamp act, as was said; and I was reduced to the necessity of seeking for an asylum on board H. M. S. 'Cygnet,' for the preservation of my life.  On coming on shore the next day I was obliged, for the security of my life and property, to sign a paper purporting that I would not execute said office without the consent of the inhabitants of the colony, which was the first time that I was desired to resign said office." Samuel Crandall, described as "a principal fellow amongst the mob," was accused by the customs officers of proposing "infamous terms presumptuously" for their return to shore, as follows: "That we must receive our fees as settled by an act of the Assembly of the colony, in defiance of an act passed at the last session of Parliament; and deliver up the prize sloop, molasses and scows, now under protection of the 'Cygnet,' waiting the determination of the prosecution against them, at Halifax." From the latter it appeared that, while the stamp act was the immediate irritant, the uprising at Newport followed a series of provocative measures taken by the King's collectors and English naval officers.  Gideon Wanton, Jr., an Assistant, acting in the absence of Governor Ward, assured the collector and his associates, on August 31, that "the fury of the populace hath entirely subsided, and the minds of the people quieted; so that there is not the least danger or apprehension of any further riotous proceedings"; and expressed his wish that the customs, officers would resume the execution of their offices under an assurance of "all the protection in my power for the safety of your persons and interest." He pointed out that the "putting an entire stop to the trade and commerce of the colony," by closing the custom house, "will be attended with most pernicious consequences."

242
Governor Ward, who returned to Newport on August 31, in the afternoon renewed Gideon Wanton's request, with "the most absolute assurance that everything is perfectly tranquil," and on September 1, writing again, said that Samuel Crandall had called on him and given further assurance "that he has not the, least intention of raising any disturbance or riot, or of doing any kind of injury." Governor Ward placed an armed guard about the custom house.  On the same day the captain of the "Cygnet" complained that rumors had reached him of a plot to retake the prize sloop, and warned Governor Ward that if any demonstration of force was made, the "Cygnet" would open fire on the fort and on the town of Newport.  The war might have begun at that moment, so tense was the attitude of all parties. Johnston, Moffat and Howard, subsequently presented claims to the government for damages amounting approximately to £2500, because of destruction of property, and removal from the colony of two of them.  The colony disputed the claims as excessive, and also because they had not, been presented either to the General Assembly or to the colony courts.  In later negotiations these claims were urged as set-off against the colony's petition for reimbursement for war expenditures incurred on behalf of the English government in 1756.  In 1772-1773, itemized inventories of property alleged to have been destroyed or carried away were presented, the totals of £613 were reduced to £296 by committees of the General Assembly which investigated the claims, and ordered paid on settlement by England of the colony's account as of 1756.

The General Assembly met at East Greenwich on the second Monday in September, 1765, for a most momentous session.  The Speaker of the House of Deputies announced receipt by him of an invitation to send representatives to a conference to be held at New York on the first Tuesday in October and Metcalfe Bowler and Henry Ward were thereupon chosen to attend the Stamp Act Congress.  Careful instructions for the delegates were drafted, and the Assembly itself adopted solutions more emphatic and dating than any others of the period, as follows:

This Assembly, taking into the most serious consideration an act passed by the Parliament of Great Britain at their last session for levying stamp duties, and other internal duties in, North America, do resolve:
1. That the first adventurers, settlers of this, his majesty's colony and dominion of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, brought with them and transmitted to their posterity and all other his majesty's subjects since inhabiting in this, his majesty's colony, all the privileges and immunities that have at any time been held, enjoyed and possessed by the people of Great Britain.
2. That by a Charter granted by King Charles II, in the fifteenth year of his reign the colony aforesaid is declared and entitled to all the privileges and, immunities of natural born subjects, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the realm of England.
3. That his majesty's liege people this colony have enjoyed the right of being governed by their own Assembly, in the article of taxes and internal police; and that the same hath never been forfeited, or any other way yielded up; but hath been constantly recognized by the King  and people of Britain.
4. That, therefore, the General Assembly of this colony have, in their representative capacity, the only exclusive right to lay taxes and imposts upon the inhabitants of this colony; and that every attempt to vest such power in any person or persons whatever, other than the General Assembly aforesaid, is unconstitutional and hath a manifest tendency to destroy the liberties of the people of this colony.
5. That his majesty's liege people, the inhabitants of this colony, are not bound to yield obedience to any law or ordinance designed to impose internal taxation whatsoever upon them other than the laws or ordinances of the General Assembly aforesaid,
6. That all the officers in this colony, appointed by the authority thereof, be and they are hereby directed to proceed in the execution their respective offices in the same manner as usual; and that this Assembly will, indemnify and save harmless all the said officers, on account of their conduct, agreeably to this resolution.

243
The fifth paragraph in the Rhode Island resolutions, declaring that the colony was "not bound to yield obedience to any law or ordinance designed to impose any internal taxation whatsoever upon them other than the laws or ordinances of General Assembly," had been too daring and revolutionary for Virginia, which rejected it.  The sixth paragraph ordered government as usual under guaranty of support and indemnity. The Assembly ordered the apprehension of the Newport rioters and precautions future riots.

RHODE ISLAND AT THE STAMP ACT CONGRESS--Meeting at South Kingstown on the last Wednesday in October, 1765, the General Assembly received the report of the delegates to Stamp Act Congress that the latter had adopted "several declarations of their opinion respecting the rights and liberties of the colonists, and agreed upon a loyal and dutiful address to his majesty, and humble application to both houses of Parliament to procure the repeal of the stamp act and of all clauses of any other acts of Parliament whereby the jurisdiction of admiralty is extended beyond its ancient limits in the colonies, and of the other acts for the of American commerce." Resolutions of cordial thanks to Colonel Isaac Barre "for his generous and patriotic endeavors in a late session of Parliament, for the interest of the colonies" were adopted.  It was voted and resolved "that the last Thursday in this instant November be observed throughout this colony as a day of public thanksgiving to Almighty God, for the many favors and mercies received the year past; and that prayers be put for a blessing on the endeavors of the colony for preservation of their invaluable privileges; and that his honor the Governor be, and he is hereby requested to issue a proclamation accordingly." This was the earliest precedent for the last Thursday in November as Thanksgiving Day (In each of 1759 and 1760 the Thursday preceding the last Thursday was Thanksgiving Day).

Near as Rhode Island seemed to be to revolution in 1765, resistance to injustice rather than independence was the dominating purpose. Governor Ward's statement in a letter to the colony agent under date of November 7, was clear upon this point: "The complaints of this colony on their present grievances do not arise from any unwillingness to contribute to the interest of Great Britain, or the least desire of throwing off or lessening, in any manner, our dependence upon her.  We unanimously esteem our relation to our mother country as our greatest happiness, and are ever ready, and at the hazard of our lives and fortunes, to do anything in our power for her interest, and all we desire in return is the quiet enjoyment of the common rights and privileges of Englishmen, which we imagine we have a natural right and just title to." Samuel Ward was true as steel, however; he alone of American Governors in 1765 refused to take the oath to enforce the stamp act prescribed for Governors.  As the Revolution drew nearer he was identified with the patriot cause; in 1774 he accompanied his colleague at the Albany Congress and his opponent in Rhode Island internal politics, Stephen Hopkins, as delegate to the Continental Congress.

RESISTANCE TO THE STAMP ACT--November 1, 1765, arrived, and with it the time for putting the stamp act into effect in America.  Practically no public business could be transacted in a legal way without the use of stamped paper; and none was to be had, whether "distributors" feared to sell or good Americans refused to buy.  In Rhode Island public business proceeded as usual, because the General Assembly had ordered it so, and had guaranteed to sustain colony officers.  Only the officers at the custom house in Newport were interested in stamps.  Their application for stamps to Augustus Johnston as distributor elicited an answer to the effect that stamps had been consigned to him and received; that he had been persuaded by duress to resign his office; and that he had carried the stamps on board the "Cygnet."

244
He declined to furnish stamps, because, as he said "I am apprehensive that if any attempt should be made by me to land the papers or execute said office, without the consent of the inhabitants of the colony, that my life and property would be endangered." The customs officers then presented to Governor Ward their letter to Johnston and his answer to it, because "we think it incumbent on us (particularly for our own justification) to apply to your honor, in order to know whether any stamped papers are to be had within your government." On December 23 Johnston was called before the Governor and council to answer explicitly the question, "Whether you will accept the office of distributor of stamps for this colony, or not?" Three days later Governor Ward, writing to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, said: "Augustus Johnston, Esq., who (as he informs, me) was appointed chief distributor in this colony, hath resigned that office," adding that "people of every rank and condition are so unanimous in their opinion that the operation of the act for levying stamp duties in America would be inconsistent with their natural and just rights and privileges, injurious to his majesty's service and the interest of Great Britain, and incompatible with the very being of this colony, that no person, I imagine, will undertake to execute that office."

REPEAL OF STAMP ACT--Parliament, on receiving news from America, early in 1766, of the sturdy opposition to the stamp act, faced the alternative of enforcement or repeal, and eventually chose the latter.  The petitions of "the merchants of London, Leeds, Bristol, Glasgow and other places, trading to America," and complaining already of loss of trade through the American policy of boycotting English goods, mentioned by Sherwood in his letter of February 25, 1766, undoubtedly had an effect in producing in the House of Commons the majority of 108 for repeal.  William Pitt and Edmund Burke were powerful in the debate.  Sherwood, the colony agent, and Secretary Conway, each announcing the repeal, mentioned Parliament's wish that compensation should be paid for losses in recent riots and other disorderly procedure, and urged a display of generous gratitude in America. , The General Assembly voted resolutions of thanks to his majesty, and ordered the salutes in honor of the repeal and of the King's birthday, fired at the fort, paid for from the colony treasury.  The Governor was directed to thank the merchants of London for promoting the repeal of the stamp act.  The "Providence Gazette " recorded a celebration in Providence of the King's birthday, June 4, as a day of public rejoicing.  "The auspicious morn was ushered in by the ringing of bells, and a discharge of several cannon from a battery planted on the parade.  The courthouse, a most elegant structure, was beautifully ornamented with colors, and the shipping in the harbor hove out theirs at a signal given. Joy and gladness shone in every countenance; and nothing was to be heard but mutual congratulations until eleven o'clock, when, according to the order of the day, there was a general gathering of the people on the parade.  From thence they marched in order, with drums beating, trumpets sounding, and colors displayed, to the Presbyterian meetinghouse, where thanks were given to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, for His kindness to His people, in releasing them from the heavy burdens which, were imposed on them, and for continuing their liberties.  There was an animated and well-adapted. discourse delivered by the Rev. Mr. Rowland from Psalm cxxvi, 3, and the religious exercises were concluded with a beautiful anthem performed by a company of musicians.  The assembly returned in like good order as they came, to the courthouse, where his majesty's health was drunk by many hundreds under a royal salute of twenty-one cannon, when the company adjourned to four o'clock.  Upon their reassembling they drank thirty-two of the most loyal, patriotic and constitutional toasts, under a discharge of seven, five and three cannon, accompanied with the sound of drums, trumpets and loud huzzas of the loyal multitude, who were liberally treated by the gentlemen of the town.  In the evening 108 sky rockets with a beehive containing 108 serpents, were played off before the courthouse (which was most beautifully illumined), with divers other kinds of fireworks.

245
At nine o'clock there was an elegant boiled collation served up to the company; and at eleven, when every heart was full fraught with joy and loyalty, the company retired.  And that the daughters of liberty might not be wholly excluded from rejoicing in a way agreeable to them, the evening after there was a grand ball given by the gentlemen of the town, at which there was the most brilliant appearance of ladies the town ever saw.  The whole was carried on to general satisfaction, and without hurtful accident."

Lest repeat of the stamp act establish a constitutional precedent, in accord with the English usage of applying to resolutions of Parliament defining policies a doctrine resembling judicial stare decisis, Parliament enacted with the repealing statute the so-called "declaratory act," asserting explicitly a right vested in Parliament to make laws for "the colonies and people of America, subject of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever." At the same time the acts of trade were revised, and adjusted practically upon a revenue, rather than a regulatory or prohibitory, standard.  The reduction of the duty on molasses to one penny per gallon, and modifications of the tariff on sugar, coffee and spice were considered favorable to American colonial trade, and promised revival of colonial prosperity.  The Duke of Richmond, writing June 12, 1766, announced the "opening and establishing certain ports on the Islands of Jamaica and Dominica for the more free importation and exportation of certain goods and merchandises," and continued: "Thus, you see, gentlemen, that not only the greatest attention has been shown to his majesty's American subjects, by the repeal of an act which they had complained of, but those grievances on trade which seemed to be the first and chief object of their uneasiness have been taken into most minute consideration, and such regulations have been established as will, it is hoped, restore the trade of America, not only to its former flourishing state, but be the means of greatly increasing and improving it." The Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, under date of August 1, requested information concerning new manufactures set up in Rhode Island since 1734; Governor Lyndon reported "ten forges for making iron out of ore; two furnaces, one for making ore into pigs, and the other for making hollow-ware out of ore; six spermacetti works; twelve potash works, three rope-walks, and one paper mill, at which is manufactured wrapping, package and other coarse paper . . . . neither for these nor any other manufactures is any bounty or other encouragement given by the colony."

NEWPORT MASSACRE --The benevolent disposition manifested in England was not destined to be long continued.  On Townshend's return to the Ministry in 1766, he resumed almost immediately his American colonial policy, involving (1) billeting 10,000 English troops in America; (2) Strict enforcement of trade and navigation and revenue acts; and (3) effective taxation of the colonies.  Duties were laid on tea, glass, red and white.lead, and paper in 1767; a board of commissioners to supervise enforcement of the navigation acts was created; and the New York Assembly was suspended because of refusal to furnish supplies for a detachment of British troops.  Thus England furnished America with pretexts for renewing the quarrel that appeared to have ended with the joyously good feeling that attended repeal of the stamp act.  America was as prompt as might be expected in taking up once more the defense of liberty.  Colonial committees of correspondence established first during the stamp act controversy resumed activity.  Colonial assemblies passed resolutions and exchanged copies.  Stout resistance to customs officers appeared in places, with open quarrels between Americans and English officers, which indicated deep-seated hostility. One of these resulted in the Newport massacre, May 3, 1768.  As in the instance of the Boston massacre, which occurred nearly two years later, (March 5, 1770) reports of the Newport massacre vary, one alleging-murderous assault upon an unarmed youth by a British naval officer provoked by derisive laughter as he and two companions passed by on a Newport sidewalk; the other alleging an affray in which the British Officers drew in self-defense, and slew the youth and wounded one of his companions.

246
Henry Sparker, run through the body by a British sword, died.  The coroner returned a verdict of willful murder, and three British officers from the "Senegal," man-of-war, were arrested: Thomas Careless, charged with murder; Charles John Marshall and Thomas Young, as accessories.  The General Assembly, in May, ordered a special session of the Superior Court of judicature to meet in June, three months earlier than the regular sitting.  The officers were acquitted on their plea of self-defense.

Recourse to the concerted action by resolutions in colonial assemblies, by resolutions in Congress, and by resistance that had procured the repeal of the stamp act was indicated early in 1768 as about to be taken against the Townshend policy.  On February 11 the Massachusetts House of Representatives addressed a letter to the Speaker of the "House of Representatives in Rhode Island," in which it was suggested that "it seems to be necessary that all possible care should be taken that the representations of the several assemblies, upon so delicate a point, should harmonize with each other." The letter then summarized a protest sent by Massachusetts to the Ministry.  Hillsborough, writing from Whitehall in April; cautioned Rhode Island, with reference to the Massachusetts protest, thus: "As his majesty considers this measure to be of a most dangerous and factious tendency, calculated to inflame the minds of his good subjects in the colonies, to promote an unwarrantable combination, and to excite and encourage an open opposition to and denial of the authority of Parliament, and to subvert the true principles of the constitution; it is his majesty's pleasure that you should, immediately upon the receipt hereof, exert your utmost influence to defeat this flagitious attempt to disturb the public peace by prevailing upon the Assembly of your province to take no notice of it, which will be treating it with the contempt it deserves.  The repeated proofs which have been given by the Assembly of Rhode Island of their reverence and respect for the laws, and of their faithful attachment to the constitution, leaves little room in his majesty's breast to doubt of their showing a proper resentment of this unjustifiable attempt to revive those distractions which have operated so fatally to the prejudice of his kingdom and the colonies; and, accordingly, his majesty has the fullest confidence in their affections and expects that they will give him the strongest proofs of them in this and every other occasion." Governor Lyndon, answering, promised to lay the matter before the General Assembly.  Hillsborough, on September 2, wrote: "The King having observed that the governors of his colonies have, upon several occasions, taken upon themselves to communicate to their councils and assemblies either the whole or parts of letters which they have received from his majesty's principal secretaries of state, I have it in command from his majesty to signify to you that it is his majesty's pleasure that you do not, upon any pretence whatever, communicate to the Assembly any copies or extracts of such letters as you shall receive from his majesty's principal secretaries of state, unless you have his majesty's particular directions for so doing." Governor Joseph Wanton answered the foregoing.thus: "Your lordship's letter of, September 2 last, having been laid before the General Assembly, I am, at their request, to observe to your lordship that, by the Charter of this colony, the supreme authority is vested in the General Assembly; the constitution all letters, intelligence and correspondence relating to public matters the welfare of the colony must necessarily be laid before them, and there receive a final decision. The instruction contained in your lordships letter, I imagine, must have without a sufficient attention to the nature of this government, which clearly appears from the letter itself, it being addressed to the Governor and Company, which is the General Assembly. The letter being circular, I think easily accounts for the mistake."

If the Colony House did not rock with laughter at Hillsborough's commendation, in his letter of April 21, of the "reverence and respect for the laws" displayed by the members of the General Assembly, it was because their sense of humor was suppressed for the time being by the seriousness of the situation.

247
Governor Lyndon wrote to Hillsborough that the General Assembly had considered the Massachusetts letter and "upon mature deliberation they are of opinion that it hath not any tendency to faction; that it is not calculated to inflame the minds of his majesty's good subjects in the colonies, or to promote an unwarrantable combination, or to excite and encourage an open opposition to and denial of the authority of Parliament, or to subvert the true principles of the constitution.  On the contrary, that letter appears to this Assembly to contain not only a just representation of our grievances, and an invitation to unite, in humble, decent and loyal addresses to the throne for redress; but also sentiments of the greatest loyalty to his majesty, of veneration for his high court of Parliament, of attachment to the British constitution, and of affection to the mother country. . . . This Assembly cannot but express great surprise and concern that an attempt to unite fellow subjects, laboring under the same hardships, in petitioning the throne in a constitutional, humble and loyal manner, for redress should be termed a factious and unwarrantable combination.  Nor, my lord, can this Assembly conceive that this idea arises from any part of the letter itself, but rather from false and malicious insinuations of the temper and disposition of the colonies, made by their enemies.  Therefore, this Assembly, instead of treating that letter with any degree of contempt, thinks themselves obliged, in duty to themselves and to their country, to approve the sentiment contained in it." The Assembly did even more; it adopted its own letter of protest to be addressed to the King.  The letter recited the loyalty of Rhode Island, and the great happiness that the colony had enjoyed under the Charter, and continued: "It is, therefore, with the greatest I concern and grief that your majesty's loyal subjects in this colony find their property given and granted by your majesty's Parliament without their consent.  Although we have the highest veneration for that most august body, to whom we cheerfully and readily submit, as to the supreme legislature of the whole empire, in all things consistent with the first and most fundamental rights of nature; yet we humbly conceive that the late acts of Parliament imposing duties and taxes upon your majesty's subjects in America, not for the regulation of commerce, merely, but for the express purpose of raising a revenue, thereby giving and granting the property of the Americans, without their consent, to be an infringement of those rights and privileges derived to us from nature, and from the British constitution, and confirmed by our Charter, and uninterrupted enjoyment of them for more than a century past." Governor Lyndon, in a letter transmitting the Assembly's letter, wrote: "At the same time, my lord, that this Assembly pleads for a right, which, in their opinion, constitutes the sole difference between free subjects and slaves, they are far, very far, from aiming at an independence of the mother country." Writing also to Sherwood, the colony agent, Governor Lyndon said: "By these (letters) you will know the sentiments of the General Assembly about the late acts of Parliament for raising a revenue upon the free inhabitants of the colonies without their consent.  They took upon them as incompatible with their rights, and with their existence as a free people." Hillsborough, acknowledging receipt of the General Assembly's address to the King, wrote: "The King having commanded me to read this address to him, and having well weighed the contents and purports thereof, has ordered me to signify to you, for the information of the General Assembly, that his majesty does not approve thereof, and . . . . holds himself bound by every tie of regard for the welfare and interest of the whole community to reject any petition or address founded upon claims and pretensions inconsistent with the authority of the supreme, legislature over all the British empire, which authority his majesty is resolved to preserve and support entire and inviolate."

Hillsborough, in May, 1768, complained that customs officers "meet with great obstructions and are deterred from exerting themselves in the execution of their duty." The General Assembly answered by resolution directing the Governor to "inform his lordship that this Assembly knew of no obstructions his majesty's officers have met within this colony."

248
Hillsborough, in December, wrote "that his majesty learns with great satisfaction that his commissioners and officers of the customs have met with no obstruction in the performance of their duty in his colony of Rhode Island." Disorder and obstruction had occurred elsewhere; Sherwood wrote that, while he would use his utmost zeal for the repeal of the obnoxious legislation, he feared "the behavior of some people in your neighboring province will be so far resented as to prevent any good effects being immediately produced by the endeavors of your friends.  I mean that this government will not, at present, think it consistent with their dignity to repeal those acts, lest such a measure should be construed into a silent acknowledgment that they are not able to carry their acts into execution. . . . The legislature are determined not to repeal those, acts for the present, but to enforce the execution of them.  Eventually the resentment aroused in Rhode Island produced disorder.  In May, 1769, Jesse Saville, a tide waiter in the custom house at Providence, was seized while on duty, and tarred and feathered.  An offer of a reward of £50 failed to produce information of the assailants.

SCUTTLING OF THE "LIBERTY"--In July the first overt act of the Revolution occurred in Rhode Island; the "Liberty," armed British sloop, was seized, dismasted and scuttled, and her boats were burned at Newport. The "Liberty" had been fitted out by the commissioners of the King's customs in Boston and sent to Rhode Island waters to detain and examine all vessels suspected of violating the revenue laws.  The "Newport Mercury" of May 22, 1769, reported: "Last Tuesday a sloop from the West Indies belonging to Providence, in this colony, was seized by the officers of the 'Liberty,' sloop of war." The "Providence Gazette" of May 27: "On Monday, arrived here, his majesty's armed sloop "Liberty," Captain Reed, from Newport." Both the "Gazette" of July 22 and "Mercury" of the same date reported the destruction of the "Liberty.  The following narrative is in part from each of the papers, which agreed on the essential details:

Captain Reed, commander of the sloop "Liberty," having seized a brig, Captain Packwood, and the "Sally," sloop, Edward Finker, master, both belonging to Connecticut, on Monday, July 17, brought both into Newport on the same day.  The brig was seized on suspicion of "having done an illicit act," and the "Sally" was alleged to be loaded with a cargo of prohibited goods.  Up to Wednesday no prosecution of either brig or sloop had been undertaken.  The reports in "Gazette" and "Mercury," and the statements in proclamations issued subsequently indicate that probably the seizure of the brig was unwarranted, and that Captain Packwood had obtained clearance papers at the custom house at Newport.  On Wednesday Captain Packwood went on board the brig for some necessaries.  The "Gazette" reported that his clothing and other personal efforts had been removed to the "Liberty," and that he found sailors from the "Liberty" unbending the sails on the brig, probably to prevent sailing.  The "Mercury" reported that officers of the prize crew on board the brig refused to allow Captain Packwood access to his clothing.  Both papers agree that there was a quarrel on board the brig, in the course of which Captain Packwood drew his sword and with it cleared his way to his boat.  While the latter was proceeding to the wharf at Newport it was fired upon by the "Liberty," two musket balls passing close to Captain Packwood.  Attempts to fire a swivel and pistol failed.  In the evening of Wednesday, July 19, Captain Reed of the "Liberty," who was ashore, was seized by a crowd on Long Wharf, and compelled to order the crew of the "Liberty" ashore to answer for the attack on Captain Packwood.  The "Liberty" was then boarded, her cables cut, and she was allowed to drift to shore.  There her masts and rigging were cut away, her guns were heaved overboard, and she was scuttled.  Her two boats were dragged to the common and burned.  The brig, Captain Packwood, and the "Sally," sloop, were released and sailed away.

249
'The "Mercury" of July 31 reported: "Last Saturday afternoon the sloop 'Liberty' was floated by a high tide, drifted over to Goat Island, and is grounded at the north end, very near where the pirates were buried.  What this prognosticates we leave to the determination of astrologers!" On August 7, the "Mercury" reported further: "Last Monday evening, just after the storm of rain, hail and lightning, the 'Liberty,' sloop, which we mentioned in our last to have drifted to Goat Island, near where the pirates were buried, was discovered on fire; and she continued burning for several days, till almost entirely consumed." Governor Wanton issued a proclamation on July 21, "directing and requiring all the officers of justice in this colony to use their utmost endeavors to inquire after and discover the persons guilty of the aforesaid crimes." His majesty's commissioners of customs offered a reward of £100 "for the apprehending and bringing to condign punishment the persons concerned in this daring and atrocious outrage." Neither proclamation nor reward availed; no doubt some of the Connecticut sailors from the brig and sloop were among the "unidentified strangers" who by revelation what hand set the fire that burned the "Liberty."

At the session of, the General Assembly in June, 1769, a committee was appointed to consider a letter received from Payton Randolph, Speaker of the Virginia House of Burgesses, enclosing resolutions adopted by Virginia on May 16.  At the October session the Assembly adopted as its own the second, third and fourth Virginia resolutions, excepting the first, because Rhode Island had already adopted and sent to the King a resolution, stronger than that from Virginia, declaring the Assembly's exclusive right to levy taxes in Rhode Island. Otherwise the resolutions declared the rights (1) to petition the King for redress of grievances; and (2) to trial by a jury of the vicinage.  The latter was a protest against the threat to carry persons arrested on the charge of treason to England for trial there, because American juries invariably acquitted their fellow-citizens charged with the violation of laws which, from the American point of view, were unconstitutional.  Meanwhile Sherwood, with resident agents of other American colonies, had been in conference with Hillsborough; the latter, Sherwood wrote, "repeatedly assured us that the legislature and ministry here had laid aside every idea of raising a revenue in America for the service of the government; and that it was resolved upon by them to repeal the act laying duties upon paper, glass and colors; and that every reasonable and proper measure would be taken to remove the jealousies, fears and apprehensions of the Americans." A more effective weapon than resolutions and disorder--the boycott of English goods which had been so convincing as a protest against the stamp act--had been revived, and associations of merchants bound by agreements not to import English goods and of consumers bound by agreements not to buy English goods, had risen throughout the colonies.  The Sons of Liberty, and in Rhode Island the Daughters of Liberty, organizations suggested by Colonel Barre's appeal for America in the debate on the stamp tax, were revived.  Liberty trees, dedicated as meeting places for patriots, were found in most towns.  The Providence Liberty Tree had been dedicated July 25, 1768, by Silas Downer, thus:

We do, in the name and behalf of all the true sons of liberty in America, Great Britain, Ireland, Corsica, or wheresoever they may be dispersed throughout the world, dedicate and solemnly devote this tree to be a tree of liberty.  May all our councils and deliberations under its venerable branches be guided by wisdom, and directed for the support and maintenance of that liberty which our renowned forefathers sought out and found under trees and in the wilderness.  May it long flourish, and may the sons of liberty often repair hither to confirm and strengthen each other; when they look toward this sacred elm may they be penetrated with- a sense of their duty to themselves and their posterity; and may they, like the house of David, grow stronger and stronger, while their enemies, like the house of Saul, shall grow weaker and weaker.  Amen.

But of late a new system of politics has been adopted in Great Britain, and the common people there claim a sovereignty over us although they be only fellow subjects. It is now an established principle in Great Britain that we are subject to the people of that country, in the same manner as they are subject to the Crown.  The language of every paltry scribbler, even of those who pretend friendship for us in some things is after this lordly style--our colonies, our western dominions, our plantations, our islands, our subjects in America, our authority, our government, with many more like imperious expressions.  Strange doctrine that we should be thus subjects of subjects, and liable to be controlled at their will. It is enough to break every measure of patience that fellow subjects should thus assume such power over us. If the King was an absolute monarch and ruled us according to his absolute will and pleasure, as some Kings in Europe do their subjects, it would not be in any degree so humiliating and debasing, as to he governed by one part of the King's subjects who are but equals.

A standing army in time of profound peace is cantoned and quartered about the country to awe and intimidate the people.  Men-of-war and cutters are in every port, to the great distress of trade.  Unless we exert ourselves . . . . sentry boxes will be set up in all streets and passages, and none of us will be able to pass without being brought to by a soldier with his fixed bayonet, and giving him a satisfactory account of ourselves and business.  Perhaps it will be ordered that we shall put out fire and candle at eight of the clock at night, for fear of conspiracy.  For such fearful calamities may the God of our fathers defend us.  Wherefore, dearly beloved, let us with unconquerable resolutions maintain and defend that liberty wherewith God hath made us free.  Let nothing discourage us from this duty to ourselves and our posterity.  Our fathers fought and found freedom in the wilderness; they crop themselves with the skins of wild beasts, and lodged under trees and among bushes; but in that state they were happy because they were free.  Should these, our noble ancestors, arise from the dead, and find their posterity truckling away that liberty which they purchased for so dear a rate, for the mean trifles and frivolous merchandise of Great Britain, they would return to the grave with a holy indignation against us. Let us, therefore, in justice to ourselves and our children break off a trade so pernicious to our interest, and which is likely to swallow up both our estates and our liberties.  We cannot, we will not, betray the trust reposed in us by our ancestors; we will be free men or we will die.

251
The colony of Rhode Island itself participated in the boycott; thus, in June, 1770, the General Assembly requested Moses Brown "to import from England for the use of this colony seven boxes of Bristol or Newcastle crown sash glass, to wit: Three boxes of twelve by sixteen, three of eleven by fifteen, and one of twelve by seventeen; to contain seven hundred feet in the whole; that the same be shipped as soon as conveniently may be, after the duty on glass ceases, and the other governments generally import that article." Agreements to boycott English goods were regarded as binding in honor, but not in law.  A Massachusetts merchant who violated an agreement not to sell, and whose goods were taken from him and burned, sued in the courts of Rhode Island members of the committee appointed to enforce the agreement; the jury's verdict for the plaintiff was sustained by the court.  Parliament repealed the Townshend tariff, except on tea, in 1770.  A motion to include the tax on tea in the repeal was rejected, lest it be construed as a surrender of the alleged right to tax the colonies.

Only the tariff had been repealed, and that in part.  The English ministry was persistent in pursuing its policy of maintaining an army in America and in enforcing the trade and navigation acts.  Hillsborough, in December, 1770, announced an augmentation to the King's forces, consisting of an additional light company to every battalion, and of twenty men to every company . . . . and it being of great importance in the present situation that the several battalions now serving in America should be completed as soon as possible," urged the Governor to assist in raising "such a number of recruits as shall be sufficient for that purpose.  Early in 1771, General Gage, commanding the British forces in America, requested the Governor to provide quarters for his majesty's Sixty-fourth Regiment.  The General Assembly deferred action, authorizing the Governor to call a special session should occasion arise.  At the May session, 1772, the Assembly approved and ordered paid a bill for the expense of billeting a detachment of British soldiers passing through the colony.  A suggestion of revival of the old controversy concerning control of the colony militia appeared in a letter from Governor Hutchinson of Massachusetts under date of September 2, 1771, announcing his commission as "captain-general and commander-in-chief of the militia, and of all our forces by sea and land within the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and the Narragansett Country, or King's Province in New England, and of the forts and places of strength within the same."

The enforcement of the trade and navigation acts involved more substantial difficulty and was made particularly vexatious by reason of the officiousness of customs officers and naval officers.  The former were frequently in conflict with the colony officers; the latter ignored the laws of the colony on an assumption of  higher authority.  Both kept a steady stream of complaints moving toward England, some of which were disregarded by the English government as trivial, although occasionally an outburst of indignation was indicated by exchanges of curt correspondence with colonial officers.  The situation was difficult and fraught with danger.  The dissatisfaction with an unjust law that appears to warrant disregarding or breaking it tends to breed contempt for other law and sometimes for all law.  For England it had been unfortunate that so much of legislation as affected America had been interpreted as violating dearly cherished rights of Americans.  The ultimate effect was the disposition in America to regard all English officers as agents for tyranny.  Coincidentally the almost utter disregard by English officers of colonial laws and of colonial officers left the latter in an embarrassing situation.  Occasionally, however, it served the purpose of absolving the colonial government from responsibility.  Thus, in July, 1771, Hillsborough complained of certain outrages committed on customs officers and "the neglect of the governors and civil magistrates in giving their assistance and protection," and particularly "that some of the most violent of these outrages have been committed at Newport, in Rhode Island, particularly in April last, when the collector of his majesty's customs at that port, was, in the execution of his duty, assaulted and grossly ill-treated, even to the danger of his life, by a number of the inhabitants, without any protection being given him; that, in general, the officers of the customs have received no support or countenance from that government, and have in vain applied to the superior court for writs of assistance in cases where such writs were adjudged necessary."

252
Hillsborough suggested that it would be well "to consider what must be the consequences, if, after such repeated admonition, the laws of this kingdom are suffered to be trampled upon, and violences and outrages of so reprehensible a nature are committed with impunity." Governor Wanton answered "that Mr. Dudley, collector of the customs at Newport, in April last, in the dead time of the night, singly and alone, went on board a vessel lying at one of the wharves in Newport, where he met with a number of persons, supposed to be drunken sailors, and was cruelly and scandalously abused by them; that Mr. Dudley never applied to any civil authority for protection or assistance until after the abuse had happened; . . . . and that Mr. Dudley, or any other persons, never afterward made any application to any of the authority in this colony for apprehending those persons who had thus abused him." Governor Wanton asserted that the civil courts were open for justice, and that he believed the assault had been "wholly perpetrated by a company of lawless seamen." He also declared that no application for a writ of assistance had been made to any court in Rhode Island, and that the justices declared "that when any application should be made to them by the custom house officers, for writs of assistance or other protection, that they would readily and cheerfully give them every assistance in the execution of their duty which the law puts in the power of the superior court to give.  The Governor complained of the customs officers "for their abusing and misrepresenting the colony of Rhode Island and its officers," and hoped that his lordship would transfer his "reprehensions from the innocent colony of Rhode Island to those guilty officers who have so shamefully misinformed you." Governor Wanton refused in 1775 to take the definite step that involved separation from England; but he was throughout the critical period in which the revolution impended wanting in no effort to sustain the Charter and the rights of Rhode Island.  In this respect he upheld the tradition of his family, which had given three other Governors to colonial Rhode Island.

BURNING OF THE "GASPEE"--The "Gaspee," armed sloop, appeared in Narragansett Bay in March, 1772, and almost immediately began to harass shipping.  Deputy-Governor Sessions, on March 21 wrote to Governor Wanton from Providence:

The inhabitants of this town have of late been very much disquieted in their minds by repeated advices being brought of a schooner, which for some time past hath cruised in Narragansett Bay, and much disturbed our navigation.  She suffers no vessel to pass, not even packet boats, or others of an inferior kind, without a strict examination; and where any sort of unwillingness is discovered, they are compelled to submit by an armed force.  Who he is, and by what authority he assumes such a conduct, it is thought needs some inquiry; and I am requested by a number of gentlemen of this town, on their behalf, to acquaint your honor therewith, and that you would take the matter under consideration; and if the commander of that schooner has not yet made proper application, and been duly authorized, to bring him to account. It is suspected he has no legal authority to justify his conduct; and his commission, if he has any, is some antiquated paper, more of a fiction than anything else, and this seems to be confirmed by Mr. Thomas Greene, who says he saw it, and believes it to be no other than the commission the famous Reed had, who lost his sloop at Newport, or something else of no validity.  In consequence of the above-mentioned application, I have consulted with Chief Justice Hopkins thereon, who is of opinion that no commander of any vessel has any right to use any authority in the body of the colony without previously applying to the Governor, and showing his warrant for so doing, and also being sworn to a due exercise of his office; and this, he informs me, has been the common custom in this colony.

Lieutenant Dudingston reported his correspondence with Governor Wanton to Admiral Montagu at Boston; the latter wrote to Governor Wanton early in April, asserting that the "Gaspee" had been sent to Rhode Island "to protect your province from pirates, and to give the trade all the assistance he can, and to endeavor, as much as lays in his power, to protect the revenue, and to prevent (if possible) the illicit trade that is carrying on at Rhode Island." The Admiral continued: "He, sir, has done his duty, and behaved like an officer; and it is your duty as a governor to give him your assistance, and not to distress the King's officers from strictly complying with my order.  I shall give them directions that, in case they receive any molestation in the execution of their duty, they shall send every man so taken in molesting them, to me.  I am also informed the people of Newport talk of fitting out an armed vessel to rescue any vessel the King's schooners may take carrying on an illicit trade.  Let them be cautious what they do, for, as soon as they attempt it, and any of them are taken, I will hang them as pirates. I shall report your two insolent letters to my officer, to his majesty's secretaries of state, and leave them to determine what right you have to demand a sight of all orders I shall give to all officers of my squadron; and I would advise you not to send your sheriff on board the King's ship again, on such ridiculous errands.  The captain and lieutenant have all my orders, to give you assistance whenever you demand it, but further, you have no business with them; and, be assured, it is not their duty to show you any part of my orders or instructions to them."

The Governor's answer was worthy of a Wanton: "Lieutenant Dudingston has done well in transmitting my letters to you, which I sent him; but I am sorry to be informed there is anything contained in them that should be construed as a design of giving offence, when no such thing was intended ' But Mr. Dudingston has not behaved so well, in asserting to you 'he waited on me, and showed me the admiralty and your orders for his proceedings, which agreeably_to his instructions, he is so to do; but in that he has altogether misinformed you; for he at no time ever showed me any orders from the admiralty or from you; and positively denied that he derived any authority either from you or the commissioner; therefore, it was altogether out of my power to know, whether he came hither to protect us from pirates, or was a pirate himself.  You say 'he has done his duty, and behaved like an officer.' In this I apprehend you must be mistaken; for I can never believe it is the duty of an officer to give false information to his superiors.  As to your attempt to point out what was my duty as Governor, please be informed that I do not receive instructions for the administration of my government from the King's admiral stationed in America....

254
The information you have received 'that the people of Newport talked of fitting out an armed vessel to rescue any vessel the King's schooner might take carrying on an illicit trade,' you may be assured is without any foundation, and a scandalous imposition; for, upon inquiring into this matter I cannot find that any such design was ever conceived, or so much as talked of; and, therefore, I hope you will not hang any of his majesty's subjects belonging to his colony upon such false information.  I am greatly obliged for the promise of transmitting my letter to the secretaries of state. I am, however, a little shocked at your impolite expression, made use of upon that occasion.  In return for this good office I shall also transmit your letter to the secretary of state, and leave to the King and his ministers to determine on which side the charge of insolence lies.  As to your advice not to send the sheriff on board any of your squadron, please to know that I will send the sheriff of this colony at any time, and to an place within the body of it, as I shall think fit.  In the last paragraph of your letter, you are pleased flatly to contradict what you wrote in the beginning; for there you assert that Dudingston, by his instructions, was directed to show me the admiralty and your orders to him; and here you assert that I have no business with them; and assure me that it is not his duty to show me them, or any part thereof."

Governor Wanton, in conformity with a vote of the General Assembly, transmitted the correspondence to London in May, with a letter relating the circumstances, and an additional cause for complaint: "It is now my turn to complain of Mr. Dudingston's illegal proceedings in carrying a quantity of rum he had seized on board a small boat, lying within the county of Kent, in this colony, to Boston, for trial; notwithstanding, by the Eighth of his majesty, it is expressly declared that all forfeitures of this kind shall be tried in that colony where the offence is committed." Dudingston in a letter to Montagu referred to this seizure of twelve hogsheads of rum as "a bait the inhabitants of this government would willingly put in my way if that could fix the schooner," adding, "I could expect no quarter from people of that stamp.  On the 20th the sloop was condemned.  I have taken the liberty to enclose my letter to the commissioners for your perusal, open; as it was the intention of the people here, to have the sloop sold in the manner they have been used to, and which always falls into the old owner's hands, without opposition."

The Governor's letter to Hillsborough continued: "To recite every particular of his unwarrantable procedure would, my lord, be too tedious.  Let it then suffice, that since the 'Gaspee' and 'Beaver' have been stationed in this colony the inhabitants have been insulted without any just cause, with the most abusive and contumelious language; and I am sorry that I have reason to say that the principal officers belonging to said vessels have exercised that power with which they are vested, in a wanton and arbitrary manner, to the great injury and disturbance of this colony.  I have, my lord, constantly afforded the King's officers all the assistance in my power in the legal discharge of their trust; but if any of them, through prejudice, ignorance of their duty, or youthful indiscretion, insult this colony, it is my duty as his majesty's Governor to remonstrate against it."

The "Gaspee" continued to harass Rhode Island commerce; so far as it was possible to do so, it overhauled, boarded and searched for contraband every vessel entering or leaving any Rhode Island harbor, particularly Providence vessels and small boats plying between Newport and places up the bay and rivers.  Relatively the results were meager in captures and confiscations.  While there was smuggling in Rhode Island waters unquestionably, most of the traffic was lawful and regular. Besides that, Rhode Island captains were resourceful sailors, and soon learned methods of avoiding or escaping the "Gaspee." Decoys were used to draw the "Gaspee" off on merry chases, while other vessels took advantage of the distraction to sail without molestation.  The English officers and their crew were overbearing and insulting in their demeanor; the delays incident to searches were vexatious, and interfered seriously with the regular sailing of packets, planned to take full advantage of favoring winds and tides.

255
Newport seethed with the wrath at the prospect of a summer of discontent; in Providence the townspeople were welded into a solidarity of hatred, easily stirred to determined action should occasion arise--as it did.  Dudingston and the "Gaspee" were exactly the irritants needed to keep alive in Rhode Island the opposition to the English policy of taxing the colonies.  Dudingston himself very wisely ventured not ashore; had he escaped the summary reprisals visited upon other upstart and unpopular English naval officers, he would have been arrested in civil actions for damages arising from his illegal and wholly unwarranted interference with perfectly legitimate shipping.  The exchange of correspondence between him and Governor Wanton, and between the latter and Admiral Montagu indicated that little alleviation of the nuisance could be expected through the ordinary channels of official action.

The day of reckoning for Dudingston and the "Gaspee" came early in June.  On the eighth the "Hannah," Providence sloop, Captain Benjamin Lindsey, from New York, sailed into Newport harbor, was entered at the custom house, and cleared to sail for Providence.  On the following day, the ninth, about noon, Captain Lindsey beat out of Newport harbor, and was followed shortly after by the "Gaspee." Within a short time it became certain that Dudingston purposed overhauling the "Hannah." The latter was a good sailor, built on the lines that had given Rhode Island vessels a reputation for speed, and Captain Lindsey had, no intention of submitting to search while it was possible to outwit Dudingston and outsail the "Gaspee." Perhaps he planned exactly what happened later. After assuring himself that the "Hannah" was more than a match for the "Gaspee," he permitted the latter to draw nearer, always avoiding the risk of a shot from the "Gaspee's" cannon.  Besides the advantage of speed, the "Hannah," being of lighter draft than the "Gaspee," could reach longer and farther into shoal water as she tacked up the bay against a fresh wind blowing from the north.  Captain Lindsey soon observed that the "Gaspee" was following the "Hannah" almost recklessly, her pilot depending apparently upon Captain Lindsey's knowledge of the water rather than soundings or other observation.  At Namquit Point, since known as Gaspee Point, Captain Lindsey hove the "Hannah," which had been pointing east, sharply to the west, seemingly to elude the "Gaspee," which was then in close pursuit.  Captain Lindsey warily avoided shoal water and cleared the spit adroitly, but succeeding in enticing the "Gaspee," following heedlessly, so that the latter ran hard aground on the sand bar.  The tide was then about two hours ebb and falling fast; the "Gaspee" was caught securely, with no prospect of escape short of returning high water some eight hours later, perhaps ten hours later because of the strong suction of the sand as the vessel settled. Taking care not to expose the "Hannah" to the broadside of the "Gaspee," Captain Lindsey continued on to Providence, where he hastened to report to John Brown, owner of the "Hannah," the mishap of the "Gaspee." It was then near dusk of the late June afternoon, and John Brown calculated that the "Gaspee" could not be moved earlier than midnight, perhaps three o'clock in the morning.  John Brown, merchant, immediately became leader in an enterprise planning the destruction of the "Gaspee." Associated with him were Captain Abraham Whipple, Captain John B. Hopkins, son of Esek Hopkins, and nephew of Stephen Hopkins, and others of the merchants and mariners and professional men of the town, including among the latter John Mawney, a surgeon, who, although enlisted in his professional capacity, appears to have taken his part manfully in the hard, decisive combat on the "Gaspee." Drummers were sent through the principal streets of the town, announcing the grounding of the "Gaspee," and calling for volunteers in an expedition against her, to meet at the tavern kept by James Sabin, at what is now the northeast corner of South Main and Planet Streets.  Meanwhile John Brown had sent messengers to borrow or commandeer eight five-oared longboats, and gather them at Fenner's Wharf, near the tavern.

256
The early evening hours were spent in the tavern, planning carefully the details of the enterprise, while some of the party gathered in the kitchen, melting lead and casting bullets. At ten the party, including men who were described by Dudingston later as well-dressed gentlemen, with ruffled shirts and hair tied back and powdered in the prevailing fashion, embarked with sturdy sailors at the oars, and a sea captain at the steering oar of each of the longboats.  No disguises were worn, but the members of the expedition were sworn to secrecy.  John Brown had planned the enterprise and was a member of the party; Captain Abraham Whipple was immediately in command.  With oars and thole pins muffled, the long, hard pull down the river against the rising tide was undertaken without lights, and with silence enjoined on all.

Nearing the "Gaspee," care was taken to assemble the longboats in order for the attack, which was bows on against the bow of the "Gaspee," thus to avoid a broadside from the batteries of four guns on each side. Sixty yards away, the bow watch on the "Gaspee" challenged the Providence party but was not answered, as the flotilla moved closer. A second challenge, also unanswered, brought Lieutenant Dudingston on deck without his coat.  Again the call, "Who comes there?" and Captain Whipple answered: "I want to come on board." "Stand off, you can't come on board," shouted Dudingston, and Whipple thundered back, "I am the sheriff of the county of Kent.  I, am come for the commander of this vessel, and have him I will, dead or alive; men, spring to your oars!" Shots were fired from the "Gaspee, " and answered from the boats.  Dudingston, marked by his white shirt as he fought to repel boarders, fell to the deck with wounds in the groin and arm, from a musket fired by Joseph Bucklin.  Thus was the first British blood shed in the Revolution, on the morning of June 10, 1772, in the waters of Rhode Island.  The attack had been well planned, and the Providence men were courageous.  The onset was vigorous, the boarders were quickly away and soon clambering over the bows and gunwales.  With fists, clubs, stones and handstaves, principally, they quickly swept the deck and drove the crew of the "Gaspee" below deck.  There was little recourse to firearms after the first exchange of shots, because of the danger to friends battling foes in hand-to-hand combat.  Lieutenant Dudingston was carried to his cabin, and the members of his crew were securely tied.

There was no formal surrender; the "Gaspee" had been taken by force.  Dr. Mawney, tearing his own shirt into strips to make the first bandage, dressed Dudingston's wounds and staunched the flow of blood.  Dudingston was landed at Pawtuxet and taken to the home of Joseph Rhodes.  His crew, after gathering clothing and other belongings, were landed on the Warwick shore.  The "Gaspee" was then set on fire, and burned to the water's edge after her shotted guns had fired their last salvo, as the flames licked their sides, heated the barrels and exploded the charges.  Lieutenant Dudingston heard the cannon from the shore.  The Providence men rowed home and dispersed silently.  A tradition persists in Bristol that a boat from that town, commanded by Simeon Potter, redoubtable captain of the "Prince Charles of Lorraine," privateer, joined the "Gaspee" party.  While the distance between Providence and Bristol, and the lateness of the hour at which the "Hannah" reached Providence, preclude the probability that John Brown dispatched a message to Simeon Potter requesting assistance by Bristol men, Simeon Potter was a resourceful mariner and might have been present, nevertheless.

Immediately upon receiving news of the burning of the "Gaspee," Deputy-Governor Sessions visited Lieutenant Dudingston at Pawtuxet, to offer assistance and to get "a declaration from his own mouth" respecting the affair.  Dudingston seemed to have lost the haughtiness and overbearing disposition that had added insult to injury in his treatment of Rhode Island captains and crews previously.  He refused to talk, both because of his serious illness and because of his duty to report first to his commanding officer.  He anticipated court-martial because of losing his vessel; on his return to England a court-martial acquitted him.

257
The Deputy-Governor obtained affidavits from two of the crew of the "Gaspee"; they were unable to identify any of the attacking party.  On June 12, Governor Wanton offered a reward of £100 sterling to any person or persons "who shall discover the perpetrators of the villainy." Admiral Montagu examined Midshipman Dickinson of the "Gaspee," and sent to Governor Wanton a long affidavit signed by Dickinson.  Captain Linzee of the "Beaver," sloop, obtained the. statement of a mulatto slave, Aaron Briggs, in which the latter named John Brown and Joseph Brown, of Providence, Simeon Potter of Bristol, Doctor Weeks of Warwick, and (probably Barzillai) Richmond of Providence.  When a copy of this affidavit was sent to Governor Wanton he took steps to investigate, and obtained affidavits discrediting the slave's statement and to prove that the latter, far from being near the "Gaspee," was actually in bed on Prudence Island, when the attack occurred. Governor Wanton also requested Captain Linzee to send the slave ashore for examination by the civil authority as a basis for indictments, but Linzee refused to deliver the slave to the deputy sheriff who served a warrant, and treated the deputy sheriff in an insulting and abusive way.  The testimony of the slave was thoroughly discredited by the evidence collected by Governor Wanton.  Subsequently the slave confessed that he had taken advantage of an opportunity to board the "Beaver" while the latter lay near Island on the day following the burning of the "Gaspee", that he hoped thus to escape from slavery; that he had been threatened by Captain Linzee with hanging from the yard arm of the "Beaver" unless he told all he knew about the "Gaspee"; and that he had made the deposition under duress.  Lieutenant Dudingston himself was sued in a civil action for damages for sending one of his captures to Boston for trial, in defiance of an act of Parliament requiring condemnation proceedings in the nearest admiralty court; the judgment was entered against him.

The destruction of the "Gaspee" has been referred to as the Lexington of the sea, in the sense that it was a demonstration in arms by irregularly organized colonial forces against the organized naval force of his majesty.  As such it was the turning point in the critical period.  From June 10, 1772, the trend in America was distinctly toward what appeared to be an inevitable recourse to war.  The liberty party in America found in the "Gaspee" affair a vindication of the freeman's right to resist tyranny, and drew from it a renewed devotion; loyalists made the destruction of the "Gaspee" a pretext for fresh effort to induce England to resort to force of arms to quell the American movement, and particularly for an attack upon Charter government.  Governor Hutchinson of Massachusetts urged revocation of the Charter of Rhode Island.  "The persons who were immediate actors," he wrote of the "Gaspee" affair, "are men of estate and property in the colony. A prosecution is impossible.  If ever the government of that colony is to be reformed, this seems to be the time; and it would have a happy effect in the colonies which adjoin it." In another letter he wrote: "So daring an insult as burning the King's schooner by people who are as well known as any who were concerned in this last rebellion, and yet cannot be prosecuted, will certainly rouse the British lion, which has been asleep these four or five years." The British lion had been aroused, and extraordinary measures were prepared as the means whereby to discover those who had burned the "Gaspee" and to punish them.  The King, on August 26, 1772, offered a reward of £500 for the discovery of the persons concerned in the "Gaspee" affair; an additional reward of £500 for the discover of the persons "who acted as or called themselves, or were called by their accomplices, the head sheriff or the captain"; and an additional £500 for any member of the expedition except the two leaders, who should discover their companions.  Neither this offer nor the reward offered earlier by Governor Wanton elicited any response, although, because there had been no concealment or disguise, the members of the "Gaspee" party were well known in Providence, but not to all its citizens.

258
Moses Brown did not know for years afterward that his brother, John Brown, had been the leader or even a member of the "Gaspee" party.

A special commission, consisting of Governor Wanton, the Chief justices of New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, and the judge of the vice admiralty court at Boston, was appointed to inquire into and report "all the circumstances relative to the attacking, plundering and burning of the 'Gaspee,' schooner." It was ordered that the persons concerned should be taken to England for trial, after first being delivered into the custody of Admiral Montagu.  The accused were to be allowed to procure witnesses; these witnesses, "together with all such as may be proper to support the charges against them, will be received and sent hither with the prisoners." The commission was to be supported, should occasion arise, by General Gage and the British army then in America, and by Admiral Montagu and the fleet.  The commission met at Newport on January 5, 1773, and continued to hold daily sessions, Sundays excepted, until, January 22.  It reassembled on May 26, and in June submitted a record of the testimony taken by it to the justice of the Superior Court of Rhode Island.  The justices discredited the testimony of the slave, Aaron Briggs as contradicted, and as obtained in the first instance by Captain Linzee's threat of "hanging him at the yard arm if he would not discover who the persons were that destroyed the 'Gaspee." The justices found: "Upon the whole we are of opinion that the several matters and things contained in said depositions do not induce a probable suspicion that the persons mentioned therein, or either or any of them, are guilty of the crime aforesaid." The commission reported to the King its inability to discover any tangible evidence that would justify an indictment or support a prosecution.  Indeed, there was nothing finer connected with the "Gaspee' affair than the fact that no one was found who could be induced by the liberal rewards offered to testify against the leaders and other members of the expedition.  The episode was most remarkable for this magnificent demonstration of loyalty.  The commissioners, in spite of their failure to elicit testimony, found nothing of which to complain in the attitude or conduct of Rhode Island's Governor or other officers, including the Deputy Governor, and the members of the judiciary.  In its report the commission emphasized, as provocation for the "Gaspee" affair, the high-handed conduct, abusive insolence and a behavior of Dudingston in all his relations with the people of Rhode Island; and the overbearing and insulting attitude of English officers in dealing with Americans, as reasons for exasperation.  'The commissioners' report was revealing in this respect of the for unrest in America arising from the disposition of English officers to disregard utterly the legal rights of American colonial officers and inhabitants, and from their unveiled contempt for law and for officers attempting to enforce law.  Had wise counsels prevailed in England, the King's ministers could have read in the dignified report of the commission a lesson in diplomacy and statesmanship that the ministry sadly needed to learn, but appeared to be incapable of understanding.  Perhaps it was personal loyalty to a King, whose sanity was doubtful, and whose obsession to rule approached madness, which blindfolded his ministers at a time when clear vision was the pressing need of the moment.

EFFECT ELSEWHERE--If the "Gaspee" affair awakened patriots to enthusiasm by the boldness of the stroke at tyranny and oppression, the appointment of the commission, and the procedure outlined for sending to England suspects and witnesses as prisoners aroused them to fury.  The commission was the match needed to light a conflagration from Maine to Georgia.  A writer in the "Providence Gazette" of December 26, 1772, signing himself "Americanus," said: "A court of inquisition, more horrid than that of Spain or Portugal, is established within this colony to inquire into the circumstances of destroying the 'Gaspee,' schooner; and the persons who are the commissioners of this newfangled court, are vested with most exorbitant and unconstitutional powers.  They are directed to summon witnesses, apprehend persons not only impeached, but even suspected! and them, and every of them, to deliver to Admiral Montagu, who is ordered to have a ship in readiness to carry them to England, where they are to be tried.....

259
Is there an American in whose breast there glows the smallest spark of public virtue, but who must be fired with indignation and resentment against a measure so replete with the ruin of our free constitutions......... My countrymen, it behooves you, it is your indispensable duty to stand forth in the glorious cause of freedom, the dearest of all your earthly enjoyments; and, with a truly Roman spirit of liberty, either prevent the fastening of the infernal chains now forging for you, and your posterity, or nobly perish in the attempt.  To live a life of rational beings is to live free; to live a life of slaves is to die by inches.  Ten thousand deaths by the halter or the axe are infinitely preferable to a miserable life of slavery in chains, under a pack of worse than Egyptian tyrants, whose avarice nothing less than your whole substance and income will satisfy; and who, if they can't extort that, will glory in making a sacrifice of you and your posterity, to gratify their master, the devil, who is a tyrant, and the father of tyrants and liars."

The "Gazette" of the period printed much of a similar strain in the form of extracts from alleged letters--a favored form of editorial writing in a period in which danger lurked in prosecution for treasonable utterance and criminal libel.  The drastic, unconstitutional methods resorted to in England to silence Wilkes had not failed to teach Americans lessons in procedure which they used to good advantage in avoiding responsibility for direct assertion, which could be made with almost equal effect through indirect relation, The towns of Dorchester and Ipswich, Massachusetts, adopted resolutions in town meeting condemning the royal commission as "destructive of the main pillars of the British constitution," and "an infringement upon the liberty of the subject, and of the most dangerous consequence, as the constitution has already provided a method for the trial of these and all other offenders." In the frequent reference to a constitution embodying principles of law paramount to the legislative authority of Parliament may be traced the steady development of an idea that bore fruit in America in the adoption of state and federal constitutions.  The idea was very old in Rhode Island; it had been enunciated in the very first instance in which Rhode Island asserted a right existing under the Charter that was paramount to other authority; it had been maintained for a century previous to 1776 in relations with the English government.

VIRGINIA AND RHODE ISLAND RESOLUTIONS PROPOSE UNION--The appointment of the "Gaspee" commission was the occasion for revival of the committees of correspondence, and for the adoption of resolutions by colonial assemblies that marked a nearer advance to union and independence.  On March 12, 1773, the House of Burgesses of Virginia adopted resolutions creating a standing committee of correspondence, including Peyton Randolph, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and seven others, "to obtain the most early and authentic intelligence of all such acts and resolutions of the British Parliament, or proceedings of the administration, as may relate to or affect the British colonies in America; and to keep up and maintain a correspondence and communication with our sister colonies respecting these important considerations; and the results of such their proceedings, from time to time, to lay before this house." It was further "resolved to instruct the committee, without delay, to inform themselves particularly of the principles and authority on which was constructed a court of inquiry, said to have been lately held in Rhode Island, with powers to transport persons accused of offences committed in America to places beyond the seas to be tried." These resolutions were sent to Rhode Island by Peyton Randolph, Speaker of the Virginia House of Burgesses, and laid before the General Assembly at the May session.  The Assembly adopted resolutions (1) creating a standing committee of correspondence, including Stephen Hopkins, Metcalfe Bowler, Moses Brown , John Cole, William Bradford, Henry Marchant and Henry Ward, and (2) requesting the Governor to deliver to the committee a copy of his commission as one of the members of the court of inquiry and of other papers relating to the investigation of the "Gaspee" affair.

260
The Virginia and Rhode Island resolutions, and a report of the proceedings of the "Gaspee" commission. were sent to other popular assemblies, which in turn ratified and adopted the joint resolutions and appointed committees of, correspondence.  New Hampshire and Massachusetts joined Virginia and Rhode Island in May; Connecticut acted in June; South Carolina, in July; Georgia, in September; Maryland and Delaware, in October; North Carolina, in December; New York, in January; New Jersey, in February; Pennsylvania was last of the thirteen, in July.  The order of ratification is related to the time of assembly sessions rather than to willingness or reluctance to join in the common cause.  The fact that is significant for Rhode Island is that it was the daring exploit of some of her citizens in the destruction of the "Gaspee" that had started this movement, which had produced a complete organization for defence preliminary to a union for aggressive action.  The letter written by Metcalfe Bowler, Speaker of the Rhode Island House of Deputies, to accompany the copy of the Rhode Island resolutions sent to Virginia and other colonies, reported the Rhode Island House of Deputies as "persuaded that nothing less than a firm and close union of the colonies in the most spirited, prudent and coherent measures can defeat the designs of those who are aiming to deprive them of their inestimable rights and privileges." Massachusetts echoed the proposal for union in a resolution that "it has, for many years, been the policy of the administration to disunite, in order to govern the colonies; and this house is well assured that had the firm and lasting union now in prospect taken place early in the controversy, Great Britain and the colonies would at this day have harmonized most happily together." The Speaker of the South Carolina House wrote: "As a close and firm union of the colonies is most certainly necessary for the general welfare, so ought the general endeavors of the whole to be exerted in averting the dangers threatened to any part." Maryland reported its house as "sensible of the great utility of a perfect union among the colonies." North Carolina favored "united efforts and most strenuous endeavors to preserve the just rights and liberties of the American colonies." By the time that Pennsylvania incorporated in its resolution one favoring a congress of the colonies, other events had occurred to help make straight the way for union.

THE TAX ON TEA AND BOSTON PORT BILL--England's persistent retention of the tax on tea as a precedent to support the theory of an imperial parliament was equalled by American resistance, which avoided the tax by refusal to import tea.  In the battle for principle between a nation with a reputation for stubbornness and colonies that had inherited much of the same characteristic from the mother country, the East India Company was the actual sufferer, through loss of a most profitable market. Action to relieve warehouses, bulging with tea intended for sale in America, was necessary, and Parliament, with the twofold purpose of overcoming American opposition and of assisting the East India Company, adjusted its trade policy so that tea, while still subject to the import duty of three pennies a pound, could be sold in America at price concessions that should, tinder ordinary circumstances, stimulate the trade.  Large shipments to America were planned.  Citizens of Philadelphia, selected as a port for entry of tea, protested and adopted resolutions. Of Rhode Island towns, Newport, Providence, Warren, Westerly, Little Compton, Middletown, South Kingstown, Jamestown, Hopkinton, Bristol, Richmond, New Shoreham, Cumberland and Barrington, perhaps others, each in town meeting, adopted resolutions between, January and March, 1774.  The resolutions, while various in form, agreed generally in sustaining one proposition, to wit, that all persons concerned with importing, buying, selling, distributing or using taxed tea were enemies of their country." Several of the towns appointed committees of correspondence, thus participating in a movement rapidly extending at the period and forming the nuclei for the community revolutionary committees of later days.  Boston expressed its disapproval of taxed tea through the tea party of December 16, 1773, and Parliament answered Boston by closing the port to commerce after June 1, 1774.

261
This fresh threat to America was promptly recognized and appraised in Rhode Island; Newport, on May 20, adopted resolutions, including the following: "That we consider this attack upon them as utterly subversive of American liberty, for the same power may at pleasure destroy the trade, and shut up the ports of every colony in its turn, so that there will be a total end of all prosperity." Other towns joined with Newport in resolutions condemning the port bill, and as privation stared the people of Boston in the face and many in the Massachusetts town were reduced to starvation, Rhode Island towns did more than pass resolutions of sympathy; Scituate, Glocester, Smithfield, Johnston, East Greenwich, Tiverton, South Kingstown, Providence, Newport, Cranston, North Kingstown, Warwick, Bristol, North Providence and Little Compton sent assistance totalling £447 in money, besides 816 sheep and 13 oxen.  In addition, large individual contributions of money were made by generous Rhode Islanders.

The Boston port bill was followed by other measures planned to punish Boston and overawe America; thus, General Gage was appointed Governor of Massachusetts; charter government was suspended in Massachusetts and power was centralized in the Governor; town meetings, except annual meetings to elect municipal officers, were a