“We have heard it publicly said of late, oftener than formerly, Whosoever sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed. This is plainly, gentlemen, a general rule, which like all others of the kind must have its exceptions—a rule, which if taken in its strict literal latitude, would imply, that a man killing another in self-defence, would incur the pains of death—a doctrine that certainly never prevailed under the Mosaical institution; for we find the Jews had their six cities of refuge, to which the man-slayer might flee from the avenger of blood.” Let it be observed en passant, that it was ordained that the man-slayer should abide in the city of refuge till the death of the high-priests, so every person to escape such confinement and restraint, would be extremely careful lest he should prove the casual occasion of another’s death; and would not venture upon gratifying a settled or sudden evil disposition, by needlessly slaying a fellow-creature, because it would pass for chance-medly. But to go on in company with Mr. Quincy. “And so, that the MURDERER shall flee to the pit, comes under the same consideration. And when we hear it asked, as it very lately has been,” Who DARE stay him? “I answer, if the laws of our country stay him, you ought to do likewise; and every good subject dares to do what the law allows. But the very position is begging the question; for the question now in issue is, whether either of the prisoners is a murderer in the sense of our laws, what is murder and what not, is a question of law arising upon facts stated and allowed.”

“Again, you shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death.” Here again is a begging the question; and moreover the words guilty of death, if rightly considered, must be one of those general rules which always have their exceptions. But in the margin of our great bible, we find them rendered faulty to die. Against a position of this kind we have no objection. If we have committed a fault, on which our laws inflict the punishment of death, we must suffer. But what fault we have committed, you are to inquire; or rather you, gentlemen, are to find the facts proved in court against us, and the judges are to see and consider what the law pronounces touching our offence, and what punishment is thereby inflicted as a penalty.”

Mr. John Adams, in his pleadings, produces from the best authorities, those rules of law which must govern all cases of homicide, and particularly that which is before the court; and then considers the evidence, to see whether any thing has occurred that may be compared to the rules of law. He enters into a minute consideration of every witness produced on the crown side; and endeavours to show from the evidence on that side, that the assault upon the party was sufficiently dangerous to justify the prisoners; at least that it was sufficiently provoking to reduce to manslaughter the crime even of the two, who are supposed to be proved guilty of having killed. He then proceeds to consider the testimonies of the witnesses for the prisoners; and concludes with—“I will enlarge no more on the evidence, but submit to you, gentlemen.—Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact. If an assault was made to endanger their lives the law is clear, they had a right to kill in their own defence. If it was not so severe as to endanger their lives, yet if they were assaulted at all, struck and abused by blows of any sort, by snow-balls, oyster-shells, cinders, clubs, or sticks of any kind, this was a provocation for which the law reduces the offence of killing down to manslaughter, in consideration to those passions in our nature which cannot be eradicated.—To your candor and justice I submit the prisoners and their cause.”

“The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions, or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations, and wanton tempers of men. To use the words of a great and worthy man, a patriot, and an hero, an enlightened friend of mankind, and martyr to liberty, I mean Algernon Sidney, who from his earliest infancy sought a tranquil retirement under the shadow of the tree of liberty, with his tongue, his pen, and his sword. “The law (says he) no passion can disturb. ’Tis void of desire and fear, lust and anger. ’Tis mens sine affectu; written reason; retaining some measure of the divine perfection. It does not enjoin that which pleases a weak, frail man, but without any regard to persons, commands that which is good, and punishes evil in all, whether rich or poor, high or low. ’Tis deaf, inexorable, inflexible.” On the one hand it is inexorable to the cries and lamentations of the prisoners; on the other it is deaf, deaf as an adder to the clamors of the populace.”

The judges when summing up the evidence to the jury, and giving their opinions of the constructions of law upon the evidence apply themselves to the removing of those bad impressions, which may possibly have been made upon the jury by the misconstruction of scripture passages. Says one of them—“In the course of this year you doubtless have heard much of the law given to the Jews respecting homicide, as well as of the precept given to Noah, that whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Whence it has been inferred, that whosoever voluntarily kills another, whatever the inducement or provocation may be, is a murderer, and as such ought to be put to death.—But surely not only the avenger of blood, and he who killed a thief breaking up a house in the night, were exceptions to that general precept, but also he who killed another in his own defence. Even the Jewish doctors allowed this, and that justly; because the right of self defence is founded in the law of nature.” It appears upon the trial, that the facts related above, under the fifth of March are well attested. There are no less than thirty-eight witnesses to prove a design to attack the soldiers. Six of whom the council for the king have produced. Nigh thirty witnesses have sworn to words of provocation uttered against the prisoners, as daring them to fire, and threatening to kill them; and twenty-five have witnessed to ice, snow-balls, sticks, &c. being thrown at them, ten, of whom are witnesses for the crown.—There is evidence that Patrick Carr, one of the deceased, repeatedly declared and confirmed the same but a few hours before he died—that he went with a design against the soldiers; that he thought they were abused and would have fired before; that he forgave and did not blame the man, whoever he was that shot him; that he blamed himself for going to the riot, and might have known better, for he had seen soldiers called to quell riots, but never saw any bear half so much before. The jury withdrew for about two hours and a half. Upon comparing the evidence, they cannot be convinced that the soldiers were not too hasty in firing. Was there evidence of all having fired, they would convict all of manslaughter; but it is agreed on all hands, that no more than seven guns were fired, consequently one is innocent, and they choose that the guilty shall escape rather than one innocent person be convicted.^[106] They return into court and agree, that as to Wemms, Hartegan, M‘Cauley, White, Warren, and Carrol, they are not guilty, on which they are immediately discharged. As to Killroy and Montgomery, they agree that they are not guilty of murder, but of manslaughter. Both pray the benefit of clergy, which is allowed; each is burnt in the hand in open court, and discharged. [Dec. 5.] The trial has been long, but the issue of it, as well as of that of the captain’s, may be brought in proof of the integrity of Boston juries, venturing to give upright verdicts in defiance of popular opinions.

[Dec. 12.] Edward Manwaring, esq. John Munroe, gentleman, Hammond Green, boat-builder, and Thomas Greenwood, labourer, were tried for being present, aiding, assisting, &c. William Warran in the murder of Crispus Attucks. The whole evidence consisted in one witness’s declaring that he saw two flashes from the custom-house, one from the balcony, the other from a chamber window, and a person in the balcony with a gun or pistol in his hand; and in the testimony of a French boy, servant to Mr. Manwaring, who swore to his being at the custom-house when the soldiers fired, and to a story of persons firing out of the chamber window. The falsehood of the whole evidence was immediately detected by a number of the most creditable witnesses, so that the jury acquitted the prisoners without going from their seats.

In the pleadings upon the trials, (of the soldiers especially) Mr. John Adams discussed the subject of homicide so largely, and showed so fully by what a variety of circumstances it was reduced to manslaughter, that the popular leaders perceived the necessity of altering their plan of opposition to the military, and from thence forward promoted a particular attention to the militia and the manual exercise, that the country might be qualified for repelling arms by arms, whenever the same should be requisite for the preservation of their liberties.

The ferment occasioned by the minesterial measures did not subside in the New-York colony any more than in the Massachusetts.

About the middle of January, and at night, the liberty-pole was cut down by the soldiery, which enraged the inhabitants, and produced much disturbance and riot afterward between them and the troops. The soldiers posted up papers about the city against the sons of liberty which occasioned a considerable affray.—The opposition soon expressed their determination to preserve, by erecting a new liberty-pole, strongly secured with iron, to prevent its being demolished. The May-poles in different parts of the continent had changed their names, or given place to liberty-pole, after the exhibition upon the liberty tree at Boston during the stamp act. The conduct of the soldiers was probably owing to the measures which had been taken the preceding month, in order to prevent the assembly’s granting money for the support of the troops. The assembly had in their former session, voted to supply his majesty’s troops quartered in the colony, which gave great umbrage. To quiet the people they made a unanimous declaration, that it should be the last supply they would ever grant, until their grievances were redressed, and it gave satisfaction. But the house in the present session, passed a vote for a further supply of £.2000 which greatly inflamed the minds of the inhabitants. Two papers were published upon the occasion: the one addressed to the betrayed inhabitants of the city and colony of New-York, and signed A Son of Liberty: the other signed Legion, desiring the inhabitants to meet in the fields. The papers were voted false, seditious, and infamous libels by the assembly, who desired the lieutenant governor to issue out proclamations, offering a reward for the discovery of the authors, £.100 for the first, and £.50 for the last A stripling who had been journeyman to the printer of the first, but discharged for bad behavior, allured by the proffered reward, lodged a complaint against his late master, who was terrified into a discovery of Mr. M‘Dougall as the publisher. Mr. M‘Dougall was by the chief justice’s warrant brought before him, and upon refusing to give bail was committed to jail. [Feb. 8.] In consequence of the second paper, about 1400 inhabitants met, and appointed Mr. John Lamb to propound questions relative to the vote of the assembly. After explaining it, the question was put, “Do you approve of the vote?” No was the answer. He proceeded, “Are you for giving money to the troops, on any consideration whatsoever?” It was again No. There were but about half a dozen for the affirmative upon either of the questions. He then asked, “Will you appoint a committee to communicate the whole of this transaction to your members?” Yes was the word. They then appointed for the committee, Messrs. Isaac Sears, Casper Wister, Alexander M‘Dougall, Jacobus Van Zandt, Samuel Broome, jun. Erasmus Williams, and James Van Vaurk.—The meeting in the fields, and the transactions at it, were several weeks before the discovery and commitment of Mr. M‘Dougall. Mr. Lamb was called before the house to answer for his conduct; but in the mean time the committee wrote to the speaker, acknowledging themselves, in every respect parties with him, and answerable for each step that had been taken, and ready to defend their conduct in a constitutional manner. When Mr. Lamb appeared before the assembly, he told them that he had assembled with the rest of his fellow-citizens, and had proposed questions, which as a citizen, a freeman, and an Englishman, he had a right to do, and was surprised to hear it controverted. The house finding that they had to do with the men of sens and resolution, who were determined upon supporting the rights of their countrymen and fellow citizens, gave up the point and dismissed them. Their vote of £.2000 for the troops soon passed into a law: but the deficiency demanded by the lieutenant governor as arrears amounted to upward of £.1000 was left unpaid. Had there been a provision for the arrears; the compliance of the mutiny act would have been formal and complete. The matters were carried so far must be attributed to an extraordinary and sudden coalition in the assembly between politicians, who had long been at mortal variance.

[April.] The grand jury found a bill against captain M‘Dougall, but the trial was put off; and he was bailed out of jail.—When he house met again toward the close of the year, he was ordered to attend at their bar. The speaker asked him whether he was the author or publisher of the address, &c. He declined answering, and assigned his reasons. It was resolved, that in his reply he denied the authority of the house, and was therefore guilty of a high contempt. On his refusing to ask pardon of the house, he was ordered into custody, and the speaker issued his warrant to the jail-keeper of the city to receive and keep him prisoner until he should be discharged by due course of law. He remained in jail till the assembly was prorogued on the 25th of the following February 1771, when he was enlarged after a confinment of near three months. It was not till March the 27th that he was discharged from his recognizance, by the supreme court then sitting at New-York, (without having been brought to a trial) after having been under bonds for near twelve months, and suffered twenty and three weeks actual imprisonment. He was the first sufferer for liberty after the commencement of the united efforts of the American sons to frustrate the ministerial plans for encroaching upon, and eventually subverting their long claimed and enjoyed rights and privileges. This honor belongs to a gentleman born in Scotland, and who is indeed, what he signed himself, A son of Liberty. He bore his imprisonment with fortitude; but the disagreeableness of it was much lessened, and the disgrace of it wholly removed, as the citizens of the highest and best characters ladies and gentlemen resorted to the place of his confinement. His character as well as his case was good; so that the most virtuous espousers of the latter were neither afraid nor ashamed, by their repeated visits, to afford him their public countenance.

The Massachusetts again demands your attention.

[May 31.] The new general court met at Cambridge; the house remonstrated against being held there, or at any other place than Boston; and by a majority of 69 out of 102, voted it to be a very great grievance, and resolved not to do business out of Boston; on which the lieutenant governor prorogued them.

[July 25.] They met again, but the assembly refused to do business; and in their message to Mr. Hutchinson, insited upon the right of people to appeal to heaven in disputes between them and persons in power, when there is an abuse of power; but they softened what they advanced, by saying “We would, however, by no means be understood to suggest, that this people have occasion at present to proceed to such extremity”; and yet they afterward added, “these and other grievances and cruelties, too many to be here enumerated, and too melancholy to be much longer borne by this people, we have seen brought upon us by the devices of the ministers of state.” They were prorogued afresh.

[Sept. 26.] They met a third time. The lieutenant governor told them that the garrison at the castle in the pay of the province was to be withdrawn by order of his majesty, and the fortress to be garrisoned by regular forces. His orders were to deliver the possession of the fort to such officer as general Gage should direct to take the command of it. The information excited a suspicion in the assembly, who despaired of obtaing a removal to Boston by persisting in a refusal to do business; the leaders therefore procured this vote: [Sept. 29.] “Rosolved, that the next Wednesday [Oct. 3.] be observed by the two houses as a day of prayer, to seek the Lord for his direction and blessing,” which went up to the council, and was unanimously concurred. Men of profane cast are too prone to ridicule religion, because of its being made a stalking-horse to serve the purposes of politicians. Would they confine their wit and satire to the parties offending, the correction would be proper. But let not the well-intentioned and undesigning children of devotion, be charged with hypocritical canting, because they are imposed upon and duped by the subtelty of guides, who, like most thorough-paced politicians, can change themselves into angels of light, that they may perfect their devices.

[Oct 9.] The house resolved to proceed to business from absolute necessity, protesting against the restraint the general court was held under to do it out of Boston. A few days after, they sent to the lieutenant governor to know whether he held the command at the Castle. “If the custody and government of that fortress,” said they, “is now lodged with the military power, independent of the supreme civil magistrate within this jurisdiction, it is so essential an alteration of the constitution as must justly alarm a free people.” His answer was so worded, as to leave the assembly, in general, ground for concluding that the military in the castle were dependent upon himself the same as were the provincials. When he delivered it up, he repaired thither, sent for the keys, and upon colonel Dalrymple’s coming into the state room with his officers, gave them to him, and lodged with him the custody and government of the fort; but retained some trifling appearances of superior command. He soon learnt, however, that he could not come at a flag when in want of it, or even oars for a boat, without applying to general Gage.

[Nov. 6.] The representatives resolved, that the merchants having receded from their non-importation agreement, &c. they would discourage prodigality, extravagance, and the use of foreign superfluities; and promote industry, frugality, and their own manufactures in the several towns they represented.

[7.] They appointed a committee of correspondence to communicate intelligence to the agents and others in Great-Britain, and to the speakers of their several assemblies through the continent, or such committees as they have appointed or may appoint.

Before the lieutenant governor prorogued them, he observed to them, that since they had discovered a resolution to remove unnecessary obstacles, they had done more business, notwithstanding all the inconveniencies from the place of holding the court, which they had insisted upon, than he remembered to have been done in the like space of time since he had shared in public affairs.

[April 3, 1771.] The following spring-session produced nothing very material, but afforded him the pleasing opportunity of acquainting the general court, in form, of his being appointed captain-general and commander in chief over the province. The council presented a congratulatory address, and expressed their satisfaction at his appointment. Upon the question in the house of assembly, whether to appoint a committee to prepare an address, their was a negative. The house, however, afterward requested the removal of the general court to Boston which was not granted.

[May 29.] They met, as the year before, at Cambridge. In three weeks the assembly protested against his excellency’s convening them there, and afterward appointed a committee of correspondence.

[July 4.] The governor informed the house, that by his majesty’s instruction, he was forbidden giving his consent to such an act as subjects the officers of the crown to be taxed, by the assessors in the towns where they reside, for the profits which they receive from their commissions, although their offices have no relation to the province, so that the tax-bill must be qualified.

[5.] The house, by message, expressed their surprise and alarm at the reason assigned for his not assenting to the tax-bill, and said, “We know of no commissioners of his majesty’s customs, nor of any revenue his majesty has a right to establish in North-America. We know and feel a tribute levied and extorted from those, who, if they have property, have a right to the absolute disposal of it.”

Had it been known, how insignificant the taxes were which the officers of the crown were required to pay, it is hard to conceive how wisdom could have dictated such instruction, and have ventured to give a fresh disgust to those, who were already too much irritated. However, the governor’s instructions did not oblige him to confine the general court to Cambridge, and he might have removed them to Boston; but by showing a firmness in opposing their desires, while they protested against the restrant they were under, he meant to recommend himself to the ministry. By the same intention he was induced, in a great measure, to refuse his consent to the grants made to Mr. Bollan and Mr. De Berdt’s executors by this assembly, as he had done in respect to those made by the preceding. These refusals served to keep up the animosity.

The disposition to import goods into the Massachusetts, in defiance of the laws of revenue and trade, and to support such practices by open violences upon the officers, whose duty it was to carry the laws into execution, broke out upon many occasions; and, as usual, the magistrates declined giving their assistance and support, being in principle opposed to such laws, as fundamentally defective in point of rectitude. The like disposition to import goods prevailed in the other colonies; but there was no call to go into the like open violences.

[Dec. 3.] Mr. Otis, jun. was carried off in a post-chaise, bound hand and foot, his reasoning powers being wholly deranged. This calamity, which somewhat lessens the weight of opposition to ministerial measures, is to be imputed, not to any effects of the affray with Mr. Robinson, but rather to the high tone given to his animal frame by the strength of his passions, and a failure in the point of temperance. The sons of liberty would have sustained an excessive loss, had this event taken place in the early stage of the opposition; but the times had brought so many able persons of similar sentiments into the general court, who had been training for four years, and were conversant with the political management of public business, that the plans of the Massachusetts anti-governmental party suffered no derangement.

An opportunity now offers of mentioning, that Sir Alexander Gilmour, baronet, and George Dempster, esq. were the gentlemen who so nobly distinguished themselves by voting for the repeal of the stamp act, while all the other Scotch members present voted against it.

After what has been written and transmitted, you will judge yourself under an obligation to return me speedy information of all that is doing in Great-Britain relative to the American colonies.