[169] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,456; Sabin, viii. no. 32,966; Cooke Catalogue, no. 1,202. It was reprinted in London in 1766, at the instigation of the Rhode Island agent, as The Grievances of the American Colonies carefully examined (Sparks, no. 1,272; Cooke, no. 1,203). There is a reprint in the R. I. Col. Records, vi. 416. The London text is followed in Selim H. Peabody's American Patriotism (N. Y., 1880). The original edition of all was published by order of the R. I. Assembly in 1764, but no copy is known. Cf. Wm. E. Foster's Stephen Hopkins, a Rhode Island Statesman; study in the political history of the eighteenth century (Providence, 1884,—no. 19 of R. I. Hist. Tracts), who examines (ii. p. 227) the claims of Hopkins to its authorship, for the tract was printed anonymously. Cf. Frothingham's Rise of the Republic, p. 172; Palfrey's New England (Compend. ed.), iv. 369. Hopkins's tract was controverted in a Letter from a gentleman at Halifax (Newport, 1765,—Sabin, x. 40,281); and James Otis replied in a Vindication of the British Colonies against the aspersions of the Halifax gentleman (Boston, 1765; Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,480); and this in turn was followed by a Defence of the Letter, etc. (Newport, 1765), and Brief Remarks (Brinley, i. nos. 190, 198). A tract usually cited by a similar title, but which was called at length Coloniæ Anglicanæ illustratæ: or the Acquest of dominion and the plantation of Colonies made by the English in America, with the rights of the Colonists examined, stated, and illustrated. Part I. (London, 1762; Sabin, ii. 6,209; Carter-Brown, iii. 1,314) was never completed, and was mostly occupied with irrelevant matter. Its author was William Bollan, who was dismissed as the Massachusetts agent during that same year, and John Adams (x. 355) says he scarce ever knew a book so utterly despised. Otis (Tudor, p. 114) expressed his contempt for it (Sabin, ii. p. 265-6).
[170] Reasons why the Brit. Colonies in America should not be charged with internal taxes, etc. (New Haven, 1764). It is reprinted in Conn. Col. Records, vol. xii. Cf. Pitkin's United States, i. 165, and Ingersoll's Letters, p. 2.
[171] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,427. John Adams's Works, iv. 129; x. 292. Palfrey, iv. 349. Thacher died in 1765, aged 45 years.
[172] Mayhew had early sounded the alarm, and Thornton begins his Pulpit of the Revolution with a reprint of Mayhew's sermon in 1750 on Unlimited submission and non-resistance to the higher powers (Boston, 1750; again, 1818; Brinley, no. 1,529). The controversy with Apthorpe, who was settled over Christ Church in Cambridge, as representative of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, began with his Considerations on the institution and conduct of the Society, etc. (Boston, 1763), to which Mayhew responded in his Observations on the charter and conduct of the Society, etc., designed to show their non-conformity to each other (Boston, 1763; London, 1763; Stevens's Hist. Coll., i. no. 383; Haven, p. 564). Dr. Caner, of King's Chapel, Boston, replied in A Candid Examination of Dr. Mayhew's Observations, etc. (Boston, 1763). Another Answer (London, 1764) was perhaps by Apthorpe. Mayhew published A Defence of his Observations (Boston, 1763), and a second defence, called Remarks, etc. (Boston, 1764; London, 1765), which was followed by a Review by Apthorpe (London, 1765). These and other tracts of the controversy are recorded in Stevens's Hist. Coll., i. nos. 378-391; in Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 1,433, 1,465; in Haven's list, pp. 562, 564, 565.
A later controversy, between Thomas Bradbury Chandler and Charles Chauncy, produced other tracts printed in New York, Philad., and Boston (1767-68). Cf. Brinley, iv. nos. 6, 127-31, and Haven's list; and for these religious controversies, Thornton's Pulpit, p. 109; Lecky, iii. 435; Palfrey's New England (Compend. ed., iv. 324); E. H. Gillett in Hist. Mag., Oct., 1870; Perry's Amer. Episc. Church, i. 395; Gambrall's Church life in Colonial Maryland (1885); O. S. Straus's Origin of Repub. form of gov't in the U. S. (1885), ch. 3 and 7; Doc. Hist. N. Y., iv. 198, 202.
[173] Cf. Bancroft (original ed., ii. 353; vi. 9); Adams's Works (x. 236); Dawson's Sons of Liberty in N. Y. (p. 42); Barry's Mass. (ii. 252-255); Scott's Development of Constitutional Liberty (pp. 189-214). In 1764 courts of vice-admiralty for British America had been established (Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., xvii. 291), and the sugar act passed, placing a duty on molasses, etc.,—a modification of the act of 1733. "I know not", wrote John Adams in 1818, "why we should blush to confess that molasses was an essential ingredient in American independence." John Adams's Works, x. 345.
[174] Ames's Almanac for 1766 has this notice: "Price before the Stamp Act takes place, half-a-dollar per dozen, and six coppers single; after the act takes place, more than double that price." The act was called, Anno regni Georgii III. regis Magnæ Britanniæ, Franciæ, & Hiberniæ, quinto. 1765. An act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties in the British colonies and plantations in America, towards defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same [etc.]. It was reprinted at once in Boston, New London, New York, and Philadelphia, and will be found in the official records and in various modern books like Spencer's Hist. U. S. (i. 274), etc. The stamps are found in various cabinets (Catal. Mass. Hist. Soc. Cab., pp. 104, 118, 123, 125), and cuts of the stamp are found in Mem. Hist. Boston (iii. 12), Thornton's Pulpit of the Rev., etc.
[175] Cf. Bancroft, orig. ed., v. 151. There was a proposition for a colonial stamp act in a tract published in London in 1755, called A Miscellaneous Essay concerning the courses pursued by Great Britain in the affairs of the Colonies (London, 1755).
[176] Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Cent. (iii. 324). Mahon (v. 86) quotes Burke's speech of 1774 as proving the small interest in the debate of 1765, and thinks that Walpole's failure to mention the debate in his letters proves the truth of Burke's recollections. Adolphus had earlier relied on Burke. Mahon even intimates that Barré's famous speech was an interpolation in the later accounts; but the Letters printed by Jared Ingersoll show that it was delivered. (Cf. Palfrey's Review of Mahon.) The Parliamentary History says that Barré's speech was in reply to Grenville; but Ingersoll says Charles Townshend was the speaker who provoked it. Cf. Frothingham's Rise of the Republic (p. 175); Ryerson's Loyalists (i. 294); H. F. Elliot on "Barré and his Times" in Macmillan's Mag., xxxv. 109 (Dec., 1876); and Hist. MSS. Com. Report, viii. pp. 189, 190.