For notes on the condition of Boston during the operation of the act, see the Andrews letters in the Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., July, 1865, p. 330; Timothy Newell's diary, Ibid., Feb., 1859; Thomas Newell's, Ibid., Oct., 1877, p. 335; M. H. Soc. Coll., xxxi.; Bowdoin's letter to Franklin in Franklin's Works, viii. 127; letter of Ellis Gray in M. H. Soc. Proc., xiv. 315; Charles Chauncy's Letter to a friend ... on the sufferings of the town of Boston (Boston, 1774); Review of the rise, progress, services, and sufferings of New England, humbly submitted to the consideration of both houses of Parliament (London, 1774); A very short and candid appeal to free born Britons, by an American, i. e. Carolinian (London, 1774). For a general treatment of the effect of the Port Bill, see, among modern writers, Bancroft; Frothingham's Rise of the Republic, 319, and Life of Warren, ch. 10; Tudor's Otis; Wells's S. Adams (ii. 170); Reed's Joseph Reed (i. ch. 3); lives of John Adams, Josiah Quincy, Jr.; A. C. Goodell's Address at Salem in Essex Inst. Hist. Coll., xiii. p. 1; Pitkin's United States (i. App. 15); Grahame (iv. 358); Sargent's Dealings with the Dead (i. 152); and the histories of Boston. On the British side, see Parliamentary History, xvii. 1163; Annual Register, xvii. 1159; Donne's Corresp. of Geo. III. and North, i. 174; Protests of the lords, ed. by Rogers, ii. 141; Adolphus, ii. 59; Massey, ii.; Pict. Hist. Eng. Geo. III., i. 159; Smyth's Lectures; Mahon (vi. 3); Ryerson's Loyalists (i. 358); Russell's Life and Times of Fox, ch. 5; Life of Shelburne, ii. 302; Chatham Corresp., iv. 342; Rockingham Memoirs, ii. 238; Macknight's Burke, ii. 50. The London limners made several caricatures out of the hungry Bostonians.
[265] Cf. letter from Portsmouth, N. H., in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., 2d ser., ii. 481; Hollister's Connecticut, ii. ch. 6; lives of Jay by Jay and by Flanders, and documents in Force, for the effect in New York; Minutes of the Prov. Congress of New Jersey, p. 3; New Jersey Archives, x. 457, etc. A paper by Joseph Reed on the action in Pennsylvania (N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., 1878, p. 269) was controverted by Thomson (Ibid., p. 274), who held that Reed had no intimate knowledge in the matter. Cf. Chas. Thomson's letter to Wm. H. Drayton in the Penna. Mag. of Hist. (ii. 411), from the Sparks MSS., and his letter in the N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc. (1878, p. 218); Niles's Principles and Acts (1876), p. 203; Dickinson's Polit. Works, i. 285-416. The resolutions of Delaware are in the Life of George Read, pp. 88, 101. For the Maryland action, see Niles (p.258) and McSherry's Maryland. For Virginia, see Rives's Madison (i. 60); Niles (p. 272); Life of R. H. Lee (i. 97); Randall's Jefferson (i. 85); Parton's Jefferson (p. 130). For North Carolina, McRee's Iredell.
[266] The covenant was printed in the Mass. Gazette, June 23, 1774, and is reprinted in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc. (xii. 45), where is also (Ibid., xi. 392; also see xii. 46) the protest against the covenant, and the loyalist signers of the protest (given in Mass. Gazette, July 7, 1774). This drew out a proclamation from Gage, pointing out the error of illegal combinations (Mass. Gazette, June 30, 1774, and Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., xii. 47). It was turned into verse in ridicule (Moore's Songs and Ballads of the Rev., p. 65). Dr. Belknap gave his reasons for not entering such a combination (Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., 2nd ser., ii. 484). Cf. Frothingham's Rise of the Republic, 336. Timothy Ruggles soon organized a counter-association of loyalists.
[267] An account of this interview by Hutchinson himself was first published at length in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., xv. p. 326, Oct., 1877. Cf. Ibid., April, 1884, p. 164; P. O. Hutchinson, i. 158, and ii. preface; Donne's Corresp. of Geo. III. and North, i. 194.
[268] There are in the Mass. Hist. Soc. cabinet two early, apparently official copies of the act for regulating the government. Cf. Ramsay's Revolution in South Carolina (i. 204); Frothingham's Rise of the Republic, p.347, where are various references. Hutchinson wrote from London that he was opposed to these acts (Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., Jan., 1862, p. 301). A letter from Jos. Wood, in London, April 18, 1774, makes note of the efforts of the Americans in London to prevent Parliament committing itself so hastily to the Regulating Act (Penna. Mag. of Hist., x. 265). Something of the spirit of these protests can be seen in Bishop Shipley's Speech intended to have been spoken on the bill for altering the charters of the colony of Massachusetts Bay (London, 1774). Cf. in reply A speech never intended to be spoken in answer to a speech intended, etc. (London, 1774). Cf., on Shipley, Franklin's Works, viii. 40. The bishop's views are also expressed in his Sermon before the Soc. for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts (London, 1773; Norwich, Conn., 1773). There is a portrait of Shipley in the European Mag., April, 1788.
For the debate in Parliament, see Force, 4th series, i. 65; Niles's Principles, etc. (1876 ed.), pp. 414, 419.
[269] Westchester County, N. Y., during the Amer. Rev. (Morrisania, 1886), pp. 84, 87.
[270] J. C. Hamilton's Repub. of the U. S., i. 55; Shea's Hamilton, ch. 7; Lossing's Schuyler, vol. i.; Life of Peter Van Schaack; Jones's N. Y. during the Rev., i. 477, 490, etc. John Adams (Works, ix. 407, 411) believed that New York held back. Dawson (Westchester, 9) thinks that ignorance or neglect is at the bottom of the usual view of the New York sluggishness, held to by writers, but he admits that Gouverneur Morris was doubtful for a while (p. 12; cf. Sparks's Life of Morris); he sets forth the great ability of the Tory organ, Rivington's Gazetteer (p. 127); he gives a fuller account than Hinman or Beardsley of the arrest of Samuel Seabury, the "Westchester Farmer", by Isaac Sears (pp. 127, 136; and on Sears, Jones, ii. 337, 622). Much can be gleaned from Tryon and Colden's letters to Dartmouth in N. Y. Col. Docs., viii.
[271] Beside the general histories, see, for Pennsylvania, the resolutions of Northampton County in Hist. Mag., ix. 49 (also see Penna. Archives, iii. 543); for Virginia, Jefferson's resolutions, a Summary view of the rights of British America (Williamsburg, London, and Philadelphia, 1774); the Fairfax County resolutions (Sparks's Washington, ii. 488), and Irving's Washington (vol. i. ch. 1); for North Carolina, E. F. Rockwell on Rowan County, in Hist. Mag. (xv. 118), and letters in N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg. (xiii. 329); for South Carolina, Hist. Mag., ix. 341, and xxii. 90; and Southern Quarterly, xi. 468; xiv. 37. In a more general way, for movements in the South, see, for South Carolina, Ramsay, Moultrie, Drayton, R. W. Gibbs; for North Carolina, Cooke, Jones, Foote, Martin, Caruthers's Caldwell; for Virginia, C. Campbell's Bland Papers, Wirt's P. Henry, Randall's Jefferson, Parton's Jefferson, Rives's Madison; and for Maryland, Purviance's Baltimore. For Southern sentiment of a Tory cast, see Jonathan Boucher's Views of the Amer. Revolution.
[272] Force's Amer. Archives, 4th ser., i. 333; Dawson's Westchester County, 18; Arnold's Rhode Island, ii. 334; W. E. Foster's Stephen Hopkins, ii. p. 232.