University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository

Doctoral Dissertations Student Scholarship

Spring 1987

TOWN AND PROVINCE IN REVOLUTIONARY NEW HAMPSHIRE: A STABLE POLITICAL CULTURE CONFRONTS CHANGE, 1765--1776

MARILYN MULZER ROBBERT University of New Hampshire, Durham

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation

Recommended Citation ROBBERT, MARILYN MULZER, "TOWN AND PROVINCE IN REVOLUTIONARY NEW HAMPSHIRE: A STABLE POLITICAL CULTURE CONFRONTS CHANGE, 1765--1776" (1987). Doctoral Dissertations. 1514. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/1514

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS

While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. For example:

• Manuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such cases, the best available copy has been filmed.

• Manuscripts may not always be complete. In such cases, a note will indicate that it is not possible to obtain missing pages.

• Copyrighted material may have been removed from the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or as a 17”x 23” black and white photographic print.

Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or microfiche but lack the clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, 35mm slides of 6”x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography. Order Number 8722438

Town and province in revolutionary New Hampshire: A stable political culture confronts change, 1765—1776

Robbert, Marilyn Mulzer, Ph.D.

University of New Hampshire, 1987

Copyright ©1987 by Robbert, Marilyn Mulzer. All rights reserved.

U MI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .

1. Glossy photographs or pages _____

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______

3. Photographs with dark background_____

4. Illustrations are poor copy______

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy ______

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g______e 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages ^ 8. Print exceeds margin requirements______

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______

11. Page(s)______lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.

12. Page(s)______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages num bered . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages______

15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed a s received______

16. Other______

University Microfilms International TOWN AND PROUINCE IN REUOLUTIONARY NEW HAMPSHIRE: A STABLE POLITICAL CULTURE CONFRONTS CHANGE, 1765-1776

By

MARILYN MULZER ROBBERT B.A. Northern Michigan University, 1365 M.A. Ohio University, 1967

DISSERTATION

Submitted to the University of Nbuj Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For ths Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

History

May, 1SB7 ALL RIGHTS RESERUED c 1907 Marilyn Mulzer Robbert This dissertation has been examined and approved. n

Dissertation director, Dr. Charles E. Clark, Professor of History

D r . Robert C. Gilmore, Professor of History

______Dr . William Harris, Assistant Professor of History

______Dr . narc L . Schwar^T Associate Professor of History

S.DrV Jere DaniBll, Professor of story, Dartmouth College ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation could not have been completed without the help of others. I am particularly grateful for hBlp from historians and librarians at New Hampshire’s major research institutions: Dr. Steven Cox and Mr. William CoplBy at ths New Hampshire Historical Society; Dr Frank flevers and Mr Andrew Taylor at the New

Hampshire State Archives; and Mrs. Shirley Adamovich at the New Hampshire StatB Library. A Dissertation Fellowship from thB University of New Hampshire enabled me to spend a semester using their materials.

I appreciate also the help I received from my professors: Dr. Robert Gilmore, Dr. J. William Harris, Dr. Darrett B. Rutman, and Dr Marc L. Schwarz, who guided my research efforts and helped me formulate my ideas. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Charles E. Clark, my advisor, who patiently listened to me talk through thorny research problems. My special thanks go to Mr Martin Dolan of Northern Michigan University, who read and criticized this dissertation and to my husband, who helped with typing and editing.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... iii

LIST OF TABLES...... vi

LIST OF FIGURES...... vii

ABSTRACT...... viii

CHAPTER PAGE

INTRODUCTION...... 1

I. THE LEGISLATURE AND ITS LEADERS...... 13

11 . TOWNS BECOME AWARE OF THE PROBLEM...... 45

III. TOWNS CONSIDER THEIR OPTIONS...... 33

IU. CONGRESS ACCEPTS RELUCTANTLY THE BURDENS OF GOUERNMENT...... 13G

U. TOWNS ESTABLISH RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR NEW GOUERNMENT...... 174

UI. THE REUOLUTIONARY GOUERNMENTS: FAMILIAR PATTERNS CONTINUE...... 220

CONCLUSION...... 248

APPENDICES...... 252

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 2G1

v LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table I ...... 54

Table II...... 56

Table III...... 33

Table IU...... 38

Table.... U ...... 555

Table UI...... 558

Table.. UII...... 533

Table UII I ...... 53B

Table... IX...... 541

vi LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 1 ...... 2B

Figure 2 ...... 31

vii ABSTRACT

TOWN AND PRGUINCE IN REUOLUTIDNARY NEUJ HAMPSHIRE: A STABLE POLITICAL CULTURE CONFRONTS CHANGE, 1755-1776

by

Marilyn Mulzer Robbert University of New Hampshire, May, 13B7

This study analyzes the relationship oF the towns to the provincial government between 1765 and 1776 to understand the underlying process of the coming of the Revolution in New Hampshire. The Focus is on the towns, and the main sources are unpublished town records. For one part oF the study, I developed a system to identiFy legislative leaders Ca modiFication of Jack

Greene’s method!, used Gini scores to compare the General Assemblies with the Provincial Congresses and the 1776 House oF Representatives, and constructed a composite biography For the E96 men who served during the period.

viii A comparison oF the characteristics of the men who served in the three types of legislative bodies shows that there were no major changes From the beginning oF the pBriod to the Bnd in either ths typB oF man elected, or in the type who rose to leadership. The analysis oF the relationship oF the towns to the central government shows that New Hampshire residents became concerned about the threat to their rights as Englishmen earlier than previously thought, but they balanced that concern with a concern For law and order. Towns hesitantly engaged in revolutionary activities. The Provincial Congresses, New Hampshire’s revolutionary bodies, reluctantly assumed control oF the colony, and the new state government eFFectively used its authority to crush town proposals that would have given the people more control over their government.

ix INTRODUCTION

I am Bxtremelg happy in thB universal esteem of all this province, who emulate Bach ether in obliging me and endeavoring to make my administration as easy and profitable as thBy can. Whatever surmises may have arisen, or disgust taken place, against the other provinces, New Hampshire is not in the least involved in it. They are obedient, faithful subjects, and ready to exert their utmost to support and defend the British Government.^

In these words, in August 17B7, John Wentworth described to a friend his satisfaction with his new position as Royal Governor of New Hampshire and his firm belief that the people of the colony were equally pleased with King George Ill’s selection. Governor Wentworth was correct, for the moment, in his assessment of the colony’s temperament and of thB residents’ feelings towards him. Yet seven years later, in August 1775, the popular Governor abandoned his colony for the comforts of Boston, leaving it under the titular control of the Fourth Provincial Congress, an extralegal body which had no definite plans for the assumption of authority. On January 5, 177S, the Fifth Provincial Congress voted to "takB up Civil Government’’ and adapted America’s first statB constitution s

Historians trying to understand the advent oF the Revolution in New Hampshire grope for explanations For the spectacular Fall From power oF a personally popular native-born Governor, They search For reasons For the First attack on a British Fort, Castle William and Mary in 1774, and For the FiFth Provincial Congress’s assumption oF government in early 177B. A cursory examination would suggest that New Hampshire was in the vanguard oF the revolutionary movement. In actuality, the colony can be described best as parochial and apolitical until 1774.

For over 150 years, historians have been grappling with these contradictions. OF the many books and articles written about revolutionary New Hampshire, Five historians stand out For their interpretations oF New Hampshire’s role in the war. ThBy are Jeremy Belknap, Richard Upton, Jackson T. Ilain, James K. Martin, and Jere

Daniel1 As a group, thBse historians Focus their attention on the colonial leadership and the colony’s response at the provincial level to the crisis with Great Britain. Their discussion oF local events in contrast is generally limited to those activities which resulted in a document— a petition or pamphlBt— or to events reported in thB colony’s newspapers, the New Hampshire Gazette. thB Portsmouth Mercuru. or the Freeman’s Journal. Jeremy Belknap creatBd the standard For New 3

Hampshire historians. BBlknap, the Congregational minister in Dover, New Hampshire, From 1767 to 1776, published his seminal Historu oF New Hampshire between LL 1704 and 1702. As minister and town resident, he was a participant in many oF the revolutionary activities hB

later chronicled. Yet when he wrote his history, hB chose to discuss the Revolution in an imperial context. Like

his Massachusetts contemporary, Mercy Otis Uarren, Belknap believBd that the American Revolution was the result of a conspiracy by King and Parliament to deprive American colonists oF thBir rights as Englishmen. As a result, Belknap Focused his attention on British actions and the response to them in New Hampshire by Governor Wentworth, the General Assemblies and the Provincial Congresses. By doing so, he underestimated the importance oF the town events he himselF had participated in.5

Belknap, who Founded the Massachusetts Historical SociBty, was well known For collecting documents relating to the early history oF New Hampshire. His conception oF what was signiFicant, however, limited the scape oF his collection. While, as a private individual, Belknap had much to say about town events, he actively solicited From high public oFFicials only those documents relating to colony or state aFFairs; hB did not contact town oFFicials with a similar request. PBter ForcB, compiler oF American Archives. and the various editors oF the 4

Documents and Records Relating_to Nb w Hampshire, mined Belknap’s collection For their works. Until the mid- 1930’s Belknap’s Historu and collections, along with Peter ForcB and the Documents and Records. Formed the bases For all the histories oF New Hampshire. As a result, no additional information on local activities surfaced.5 In 1936, Richard F. Upton presented a different interpretation of revolutionary activities in his

Revolutionary New Hampshire.7 A product of the progressive school of American history, Upton believed that the American Revolution was both a war for independence from Great Britain and a struggle for control of the government between contending Factions within each colony. Influenced by thB works of Carl L. BBcker and J. Franklin Jameson, Upton tBsted the p Progressives’ theory in Nbw Hampshire. His conceptual frame work detracted From the enduring quality of his work. Intent on a search For class conflict between revolutionaries and loyalists, Upton divided the two groups on the basis of socio-economic characteristics and political philosophy. Based on the diFfBrBncBS between the two groups, as w b II as post-revolutionary "advances in liberal ideas”— education, communication, religious toleration, and anti-slavery sentiment— Upton concluded that in New Hampshire the paramount conflict oF the q period was over who should rule at home. 5

Upton wrote a good account of New Hampshire’s Bntry into the war, based on published and manuscript sources.

He discussBd some town actions, but downplayed their significance by couching them in terms of class conflict. Revolutionary New Hampshire was republished in 1971. Upton did not change the text, but wrote a new introduction. In it he acknowledged Bernard Bailyn’s

contribution in Ihg Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. published in 1967. As a result of Bailyn’s

work, Upton admitted that his revolutionaries may havB been motivated by ideology, and not simply by the struggle for political power.^

Later Jackson T. Plain and James K. Martin, both neo~ ProgressivBS, seized upon class conflict— the most dated element in Upton’s study— and used that themB as the

Focus of thBir works. Both men analyzed the revolution

at thB provincial level. Main, in a series of books and articles, concluded that the American Revolution was indeed a "democratic movement.’ 1 1 His New Hampshire evidence seemed to support his theory. Main categorized representatives to the General Assemblies and Provincial

Congresses according to his modBl for determining social class developed in his The Social Structure of 1 P Revolutionary America. He concluded that the differences in socio-economic characteristics, especially WBalth and occupation, between New Hampshire representatives to the General Assemblies and to the B

Provincial Congresses were so great, that the change could be described as ’’radical," Furthermore, he argued, the change uas a deliberate attempt by the masses to gain control of the government. This trend mas reversed by a conservative reaction in the Fifth Provincial Congress, which rBsolvBd itsBlf into the First Ho u s b of

Representatives.1 3 Main’s examination of the Neui Hampshire Council led

him to similar conclusions. The neui Council selected in 177B was democratic not only because men of "middling sort” uiere selected, but also because seats on the

Council WBre distributed according to a formula based on population per county. This resulted in a dispersion of power away from the seacoast area. 1 *4 James K. Martin used political prosopography to compare the last colonial rulers with the first group of top state officials. He concluded that Neui Hampshire’s new state officials were leaders at the community level and had been representatives to the General Assembly. Frustrated by their inability to achieve higher office, these lesser officials, all able men, took advantage of thB conflict with Great Britain, joined the patriot cause, and deliberately set out to create a new, more open government. In the process, the upwardly mobile lesser officials reserved thB top positions for themselves.^

Only one full length study of revolutionary N b w 7

Hampshire has appeared since Upton’s work. Jere □aniell’s Experiment in Republicanism, published in 1970, 1 fi was directly influenced by the work pf Bernard Bailyn. Daniell, a neo-UJhig historian, analyzed the revolution in Neui Hampshire within an imperial context. His focus was to show the relationship of ideas to actions. Through an examination of public and private writings— letters, pamphlets, public pronouncements, newspaper articles— he concluded that in New Hampshire revolutionaries uiere fighting to preserve what they felt were the rights of Englishmen. They were acting in the Republican tradition of James Trenchard, Thomas Gordon, and other "commonwealthmen” identified by Bailyn as key sources of revolutionary thought. Loyalists were fighting to preserve thB existing relationship with Great Britain, although many of them privately felt that the imperial system needed reform. To Daniell, the Revolutionary War was a constitutional struggle between the colonies and Great Britain. Divisions of opinion basBd on class or section, as well as democratic reforms, were incidental to thB main focus of the constitutional struggle. ^ Daniell’s Experiment is perhaps the most balanced view of New Hampshire’s involvement in the Revolution produced to date. However, his concentration on ideas

and their implementation necessarily limited his focus to verbal behavior. Daniell neglected town actions which did not result in public documents because they did not B fit his approach.

By focusing on Nbw Hampshire’s response to the Revolution at the provincial level, Belknap, Upton, Main, tlartin, and Daniell failed to analyze the local bases of the Revolution. For them, the significant events of revolutionary New Hampshire occurred in Portsmouth and Exeter. They analyzed the decisions Df men they identified as leaders, but they did not describe the relationship between those men and the towns they represented. Consequently their readers miss an important facet of the Revolution in New Hampshire. As early as 1910 James 0. Lyford, in an address at the eighty-eighth annual meeting of the New Hampshire Historical Society, called for an investigation of the local bases of the state’s history. To date, LyFord’s challenge has not been met. Still unknown is the process that explained how towns and local people transferred their allegiance from their beloved Governor John Wentworth to a revolutionary organization; the process that explained how the revolutionary government was crBatBd; or the process that explained why a particular man became a leadBr.1® To understand that process, I started, as others had done, at the top, and worked down. Borrowing approaches from Robert Zemsky and Jack Greene, I developed a method to identify leaders within New Hampshire legislative bodies. This method also enabled me to trace a man’s 9

rise to a position aF leadership. As a result of this investigation, several men emerged as leaders who have

generally been overlooked by other historians. Following James K. nartin and the classical work of Lewis Namier, I developed a composite biography For thB 295 representatives who served from 1755 through 1776.20 With this approach I was able to make comparisons between groups oF men and to determine characteristics towns felt their representatives should possess. Finally, I plunged into the town records, looking for references in town meetings to revolutionary activities. My reading of the town records raised new questions--questions about the towns’ expectations From their government. This study, then, is an attempt to put the pieces together to assemble a new mosaic, to understand the process of the coming aF the Revolution in New Hampshire by analyzing the relationship of the towns to the General Assemblies and Provincial Congresses. The new mosaic contains the Familiar elements oF the old, but what emerges is a picture of a colony that hesitantly entered into revolutionary activities, of a revolutionary government that reluctantly assumed power, and of a statB government that effectively crushed proposals that would have eliminated property qualifications For office holders and would have allowed each town at lsast one delegate in thB new House of Representatives. 1 0

1. John Wentworth to Stephen Aptharp, August IB, 1767, quoted in Lawrence Shaw tlayo, John Wentworth. Governor of New Hampshire. 1767-1775 (Cambridge, Mass., 1321), p. 119.

S. Nathaniel Bouton, et al., e d s . , Documents and Records Relating to Hsu Hampshire. 1653-1800. 40 vols. (Concord and Manchester, N.H. 1067-1943), 0:2-3, ChereaFter cited as NH5F) .

3. ThB works of three other historians should be noted. Although they do not cover the period of the Revolution, they round out the study of New Hampshire through thB Constitution. ThBy are William H. Fry, New Hampshire as a Roual Province. Columbia University Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, vol. 29 (New York, 1900); Charles E. Clark, ThB Eastern Frontier: The Settlement oF Northern New England. 1610-1763 CNew York, 1970); and Lynn W. Turner, Hie Ninth State; New Hampshire's Formativs Years CChapel Hill, 1903).

4. Jeremy Belknap, Historu of bias! Hampshire. 3 vols. (Dover, N.H. 1B12; reprint ed., 2 vols. New York, 1970).

5. Ibid., chaps. 24 and 25, passim; Mercy Otis Warren, Hietgru a£__ £hfi Rise.__Progress find Termination oF the American Revolution. 3 vols. (Boston, 1B05).

6. Peter Force, comp. American Archives: Fourth Series. Containing a PocumBntaru Historu of thB English Colonies in— North America. From the Kino’s Message to Parliament. a£ March __ 1774. to thB Declaration oF Independence bu the United States. 6 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1B43; reprint ed., Nsw York, 1972).

7. Richard F. Upton, Revolutionary New Hampshire: An ftCCPUnt of the Social and Political Forces UndBrluino the Transition T.rgns Rgual Province to American Commonwealth (Hanover, 1936; reprint ed., New York, 1971).

0. Carl L. Becker, The Historu oF Political Parties in thfi Province of Nb w York. 1760-1776 (Madison, 1909); J. 11

Franklin Jameson, The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement (Princeton, 19263 ,

9. Upton, Revolutionary Neui Hampshire, pp. 49, 207-210.

10. Bernard Bailyn, ThB Ideclooical Origins oF the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 19673; Upton, Revolutionaru Neui Hampshire, p. viii.

11. Jackson T. Main, The Upper House in Revolutionaru America. 1763-17B0 (Madison, 19653; The Soverinn States. 1775-17B3 (New York: New Uiewpoints, 19733; ’’Social Origins of a Political Elite: The Upper House in Revolutionary America,” Huntington Libraru Quarterlu 27 (February 19643: 147-15B; ’’Government by the PeoplB: The American Revolution and the Democratization of the Legislatures," William and Maru Quarterlu. 3rd sers. 23 (July 19663:391-407.

12. Jackson T. Main, J£a Social Structure___ g£. Revolutionaru America (Princeton, 19653.

13. Main, ’’Government by the People,” p. 404.

14. Main, The Upper House in Revolutionaru America, pp. 60-67, 174-1B0, 20B.

15. James K. Martin, "A Model For the Coming of thB American Revolution: The Birth and Death oF the Wentworth Oligarchy in New Hampshire, 1741-1776,” Journal oF Social Historu 4 (Fall 19703:41-60; Men in Rebellion: Higher Governmental Leaders and the Coming g£ fctlB ftiperican Revolution (New Brunswick, N. J., 1973; New York, 19763.

16. Jere R. Daniell, Experiment in Republicanism: New Hampshire Politics and the American Revolution. 1741-1794 (Cambridge, Mass., 19703; Bernard Bailyn, The Origins oF American Politics (New York, 19693.

17. DaniBll, Experiment in Republicanism, chaps. 5 and 6 passim.

18. James 0. LyFord, ’’Town Histories,” Proceedings oF the New Hampshire Historical Societu 5 (19083:262-270. 19. Robert Zemsky, Merchants. Farmers— and River Bods: fin Essay on Eighteenth Centuru American Politics (Boston, 19715; Zemsky, "Power, Influence, and Status: Leadership Patterns in the Massachusetts Assembly," Uilliam and Maru □uarterlu. 3rd ser. SB (October 19695.- 50S-5SO; Jack P. Greene, Hig— B yast £bE PgMer i IllS LouiBr Housbs of the flggembiy----- in-ths SBUttiBEI] Rouai Colonies. 15B9-177G (Chapel Hill, 19635; Greene, "Foundations of Political PoujBr in the Uirginia House of Burgesses, 1750-1776,” Ulilliam and Maru Quarterlu. 3rd sers. 16 (October 19595:4BS-506.

SO. Sir Lewis Namier, I£tg Structure of Politics at thB Accession of George III. 5nd e d . (London, 19675. CHAPTER I

THE LEGISLATURE AND ITS LEADERS

Historians of revolutionary New Hampshire, JBremy Belknap, Richard F. Upton, Jackson T. Hain, James K . Hartin, and jBre Daniell all agree that members of the General Assemblies and the Provincial Congresses engineered the attack against royal authority. Furthermore, they identify specific men responsible for the challenge. Any subsequent discussion then of the process of the Revolution in New Hampshire must begin with an analysis of the structure, operating procedure, and leadership of the General Assembly and its counterpart, thB Provincial Congress. Though created by the Crown, the Assembly was the creature of the towns. At a time when news traveled only as fast and far as a man could travel, townsmen expected their representatives to structure and articulate their concerns, and to present their views to the world beyond their borders. ThBy relied upon their representatives for information about events or actions affecting the towns and the colony. They elected their local leaders to represent them and they accepted as leaders men that 14 other towns had elected. Even those towns that were not entitled to representation looked to the Assembly for guidance and counsel . The New Hampshire legislature met every three years as a result of thB Triennial Act passed in 17EB. Lika the British Parliament it was bicameral. When the legislature sat, the New Hampshire Council, which also functioned as thB governor’s advisory board, acted as the upper house of the Assembly, The Council in New Hampshire, like that in many other colonies, was appointed by thB King, upon the recommendation of the governor.* The Governor, backed by the King’s special instructions of June 13, 174B, claimed the right to determine which towns could be represented in the Assembly . The Assembly never agreed that selecting towns was thB governor’s prerogative, although after 175E it chose not to question him. However, it reopened the debate in 1775 to challenge the supposed prerogative^ When it was time to call an Assembly, the Governor notified the sheriff to issue writs of election to the selectmen of the authorized towns. The selectmen in turn called the town meetings. Those qualified to vote elected a moderator to conduct the proceedings. Polling was Bither by secret ballot or publicly, by a show of hands. After the election was completed, thB selectmen returned the writ to the sheriff, listing the names of 15 the successful candidates. The sheriff passed the uirits along to the Assembly.3

The members of the House of Representatives claimed the right to review election proceedings to determine whether a man was properly elected. The House could ask a town for an explanation, ordBr an investigation, or call a neui election. The Governor’s last challenge to

Li. these rights occurred in 1735. □nee the representatives had taken the oath of office, they elected the Speaker of the House. The speaker’s position was vBry important. As the presiding officer of the House, hB recognized men who wanted to speak, directed the flow of debate, and cast the deciding vote in case of a tie. Hb appointed representatives to committees, but New Hampshire’s surviving records do not record that action.^

The governor had to approve the choice of the speaker. No business could be considered without one. The Governor and the Assembly quarreled in 1749 aver whether the governor’s approval was a formality or an actual right. ThB issue remained unsBttlBd, but the Governor never disapproved another speaker, although on occasion, he approved with reservations.® The representatives also chose a clerk who had the responsibility of keeping a journal of the proceedings of the House. In 1749, the representatives elected Meshech Wears, a member of the House to this past. This 16 set a precedent; in succeeding years, the clBrk was always a member of the Assembly.7 Each new Assembly adopted a set of rules to govern its conduct. The rules ensured that debates would proceed in an orderly fashion and guaranteed each representative an opportunity to state his opinions. The speaker was obligated to enforce the rules. Hb could reprimand legislators who spoke out of turn, insultBd g another member, or were absent without leave ThB Assembly received most of its business from two sources, namely requests from the governor and petitions From citizens and towns. The requests from the governor did not vary much from session to session. As a result of his commission and special instructions, the governor was required to request bills in a few routine areas: his salary, currency, taxes, defense, and maintenance of g Castle Uilliam and nary. The petitions received from citizens and towns were more varied. ThBy ranged from private matters, such as requests For a divorce or a Judgment on the ownership of a cow, to such public issues as a request for the Formation of a new parish to a petition for incorporation as a town. Towns also directed petitions to the governor, For example, petitions to have a Justice of the Peace or to be represented in the Assembly. With the collapse of royal government, these petitions were directed to the Provincial Congresses and later to thB 17 new House oF Representatives. 1 fl “

As thB population of the colony increased, so did the work oF the Assembly. In the colonial period, the legislature, with a maximum oF thirty-Four members, was never an unwiBldy body. Gradually, however, the committee method was introduced to Facilitate the task oF legislating. By Governor Banning Wentworth’s adminis­ tration almost all oF the important work oF the Assembly was done by committees, either House committees alone or joint committees oF both the House and Council. Committees met separately From the main group and reported the results oF their work to the whole body. IF the committee was created to draFt a bill, the entire Assembly voted on the committee’s proposal. OFten times, however, committees had authority to make binding decisions. Until 1773 all committees wBre ad hoc— that is they were established For a spBciFic purpose. ThB committee ceased to exist when that Function was completed or when the Assembly was adjourned or dissolved. Gn nay RB, 1773, the Assembly created its First standing committee— a Committee oF Correspondence. A standing committee had more than one charge, Functioned between sessions oF an Assembly, and could meet between the time one Assembly was dissolved and another was convened. The Fourth Provincial Congress created another type oF committee— the Committee oF the Whole. CommittBBS oF the Whole were is the entire Congress or it could be representatives from one geographic area of the colony meeting together to 11 decide a particular matter— usually military matters. Assemblymen were paid for their services. The amount paid mas split between their town which provided a stipend and the Assembly which paid a ner diem, a daily allowance to cover living expenses away from home. The per diem was taken out of the colony’s tax revenue. Because the towns initiated most of the Assembly’s business and directly or indirectly paid the representatives, citizens felt they had the right to question publicly thB conduct of legislators. A month after Governor John Wentworth convened his first session of the Assembly, an anonymous writer posed the following query in the New Hampshire SazettB. ’’Whether every Gentleman who is chosBn, and accepts that Trayl CTrialU, ought not to prefer, and attend the public Service for which he was chosen, before his private Affairs, when they interfer?” Such criticism reminded legislators that they served at the will of their town. The members’ 12 primary responsibility was to their constituency. Royal government in New Hampshire essentially ended in August 1775 when Governor John Wentworth lBft the colony. By January 1776, the colony had a new government, which both in form and function, was virtually indistinguishable from the old, with one conspicuous exception. It consisted of a House of 19

Representatives and a Council, but it lacked a governor. The new government was created out of the Fifth Provincial Congress. The Provincial Congresses, New Hampshire’s revolutionary legislatures, were conscious duplications of the General Assemblies. The process for participation was basically the same. Now the Committee of Correspondence sent notices to the town selectmen who held local elections. Once convened, the delegates chose

a president, another name for speaker, to conduct thB meetings. By the Fourth Provincial CongrBss, delegates chose a secretary, another name for clerk. They also adopted a set of rules,reviewed the credentials of delegates, and after Governor Wentworth left thB colony, voted to pay thBmselvBS for thBir services.^ The Committee of Correspondence called the first threB Provincial Congresses for specific purposes— to Blect delegates to thB First Continental Congress, to elect delegates once more to the Second Continental Congress, and to devise defensive measures in reaction to the outbreak of conflict in Lexington and Concord. The representatives primarily discussed only those issues and thBir meetings were short, lasting From one to several days. The Fourth Provincial Congress, which began in May 1775, was quite different. It met For six months, overlapping the meetings of Governor Wentworth’s last General Assembly. Some men attended both meetings. 2 0

Since the Assembly and the Governor were deadlocked ovBr thB admission of delegates from three previously unrepresented towns, the Assembly refused to discuss any other issues. Towns that had problems or concerns had nowhere to turn, other than to the Fourth Provincial Congress. Gradually, the Congress acted upon same town 14 requests. The Fourth Provincial Congress developed a plan for representation for the Fifth Provincial Congress. By the time the latter group met in December 1775, it was obvious that royal government had ended in New Hampshire. The Congress was now indisputably in charge. The entire transition from colony to statB had taken twenty-four months and was accomplished in an orderly Fashion. The Congresses’ deliberate attempt to keep a familiar structure, procedure, and Function made it easiBr for townsmen to accept the change. Traditionally, historians have had a difficult time identifying legislative leaders. Ideally one would hope to find manuscript sources in which various representatives recorded that they had been influenced by a speech, argument, or favor from another legislator. If such evidence exists for New Hampshire, it has not been Found. Most historians, therefore, have narrowed their definition of leadership to include only those who held the top government offices. A few, when appropriate, have borrowed techniques For identifying 21

leaders From sister disciplines.

Otib such technique is called by political scientists "structural analysis.” It begins with the assumption that men who were appointed to committees uiere more likely to be leaders than men who were not. Not all committee assignments are equal; one can make Finer distinctions among legislators by analyzing the Functions of committees.

Structural analysis is not a perFect way oF

identiFying political leaders. It can not tBll us what ’’leadership” meant to societies or individuals. Nor can it tell us why a man was appointed to a committee. It can tell us that a particular group of men were very active, and would be recognized by name and Face by other

members of the legislature. Since the majority oF thB work oF the Assembly was conducted by committees, we do know that committeemen had a greater opportunity to influence, persuade, and to exercise authority than non- committeeman. 1J 5 Jack Greens and Robert Zemsky uBre among the first historians to apply structural analysis to colonial American legislative committees. Both recognized the defects oF the system. Armed with their caveats, I approached the records of the New Hampshire General 1R Assemblies and Provincial Congresses. Two questions had to be asked to decide if structural analysis was a viable option to study 25

leadership in New Hampshire. The First uias, "Were committeB assignments rotated so that each man received the same number oF assignments.?” The ansujBr mas an emphatic no. Many mBn attended Assemblies and Congresses ujithout receiving a single assignment, except possibly i 7 participating on a Committee oF thB Whole.

The second question was, ’’Were committees created For all types oF legislative business?” The answer was yes. Both the General Assemblies and Provincial Congresses created committees which discussed issues important only to a single town, as well as those which had inter-colony signiFicancB. A sample oF EbBnezer

Thompson’s assignments illustrates the diversity oF committees. Thompson was elected to thB Assembly in 17GG to replace the rBCBntly deceased Joseph Smith. He served in the Assembly until the end oF royal government and simultaneously represented Durham in the Provincial Congresses. Thompson served on a committee to draw the dividing line between the Did and new parish in Hampton Falls, a committee to prepare a bill providing For the creation oF roads From the interior oF the colony to the seacoast, a committee to instruct delegates to the Continental Congress, and a committee oF the whole to elect area military oFFicers. He was appointed to the Committee oF Correspondence and as part oF that committee wrotB a lettBr to the Continental Congress analyzing the general condition oF the colony, and issued the call For 23 a new Provincial Congress. He was appointed secretary of the Fifth Provincial Congress and elected a councilor by the first House of Representatives. Thompson later 1 R represented New Hampshire in the Continental Congress. ° Thompson’s assignments indicate the typical business coming before the Assemblies and Congresses. They ranged From the routine, such as the parish border in Hampton Falls, to the extra-ordinary, such as calling a session of the Provincial Congress.

On thB basis of thB answers to my preliminary questions, I decided to apply structural analysis to the New Hampshire Assemblies and Congresses. ThB first task was to rank the committees according to importance. Because the southern colonies had standing committees prior to the Revolution, Jack Greene’s method of ranking mas net appropriate For New Hampshire. I modified his method and developed a ten point scale for New Hampshire committees. Table I presents a list of Ebenezer Thompson’s assignments and illustrates thB ranking method. The first column lists Thompson’s assignments; column two lists the points assigned for the assignment; column three, an adaptation of Greene’s scale, gives thB broad category that covers the assignment.

Using my modified Greene scale, I analyzed thB committee assignments for the 235 men who served in any of the General Assemblies and Provincial Congresses 24

Table I

RANKING OF EBENEZER THOMPSON’S APPOINTMENTS USING STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Committee Assignment Rank Category Or Other Appointment -to select area military 1 Committee of the Whole - officers. whole group or one area meets to discuss one subject.

-to draw a dividing line 2 Routine Matters - local issues, between old and new parish ownership of property, all in Hampton Falls. delivering or messages.

-to prepare a bill providing 3 Major Committee - for the creation or roads committees which deal from the interior of the with issues affecting all colony to the coast. of N.H., but which do not set policy or deal with finances.

-to instruct delegates to the 4 Extraordinary Comittee - Continental Congress. broad policy on internal affairs of N.H. and N.H. and other colonies and N. H. and England.

-Committee of Safety writes 5 Minor action of a Standing to Continental Congress Connittee - broad policy analyzing conditions in on internal affairs, etc. colony. (same as 4). Given a higher number because fewer people are given the author­ ity to make the decision.

-Committee of Safety calls a 6 Major action of a Standing session of the Provincial Connittee - call a provin­ Congress. cial congress.

-Appointed to the Committee 7 Extrasessionary Committee- N.H. or Safety. standing' committee that may operate petween sessions.

-Secretary of the Provincial 8 N.H. House officer. Congress.

-Delegate to Continental 9 Delegate to the Continental Congress. Congress.

-Councilor. 10 N.H. Councilor. 55 convened between 1765 and 1776 and assigned Bach delegate a total score For Bach session he attended. The total scorb was the sum oF the representative's individual committee scores. The total scores For all men who served in each particular session, For example Benning Wentworth's Final Assembly, were then arranged in ascending order. The procedure resulted in a ranking on the session list which reFlected a man’s potential inFluence in relationship to other’s attending the same session.13 Table II, the session list For Benning Wentworth’s last Assembly, which met between Nay 51, 1765, and Narch

54, 176B, illustrates the procedure. Thirty-Four delegates attended. Joseph Smith, a Burham Farmer, died on July 16, 1765, before receiving any assignments. ThB least active representatives were Jonathan Church From Barrington and Howard Henderson From Dover. Each served on only one committee— both luere appointed to deliver a message to the Governor. Neshech Weare, a Hampton Falls lawyer who was First elected to the Assembly in 1745, perFormBd the most work. In the 1765 Assembly he replaced Andrew Clarkson as clerk aFter Clarkson died. He served on several committees to prepare bills to divide the colony into counties, a joint committee to write to King GeorgB III thanking him For repealing the Stamp Act, and other committees dealing with colony Finances including one on SB

Table II

SESSION LIST FOR BENNING WENTWORTH ’S LAST ASSEMBLY

Legislator’s Name Scare

J . Smith 0 J . Church 5 H. Henderson 2 T. Bell 4 J. Burley 4 J . Underuiood 4 J. Chamberlain B J . Webster B R. Jenness 7 J . Carletcn B J. Knowles 8 J. Moulton B J. Hale 10 E. Thompson 12 A. Wiggin 13 R. □owning 14 E. Merrill IB J. Wright 17 S. Barr IS E. Worthen 21 C. March 22 A. Clarkson 26 C. Toppan 27 J. Wentworth 28 J . SherburnB 31 J.Bartlett 32 J . Goffe 36 H. Sherburne 39 T . Waldron 39 J. Sheafe 42 J . Giddings 44 P. Gilman 65 lit. Parker 67 M. Wears 143

Summary: Legislators - 34. Ualue of Assignments " 852.

Source: NH5P . 27 the Governor's salary. In addition, he uias on several committees to deliver oral messages to thB Governor and

Council. His largB score, 143, reflects not only the importance of the committee assignments he held, but also thB number of assignments he held. No other delegate uias pn as busy as Wears. The distribution pattern for committee assignments evident in Benning UJBntuiorth ’ s last Assembly uias normalfor the period. In each of thB other legislative sessions, a very feui men performed most of the work. Statisticians have developed a number of tests to measure the degreB of "equality” of a distribution. One simplB graphic representation is a Lorenz Curve. Figure 1, for example, is a graph of the Lorenz Curve for Benning Wentworth’s last legislative session. In Figure 1, the horizontal axis indicates thB accumulated percentage of members; thB vertical axis on the right hand side of the grid, indicates the accumulated percentage of assignments. The points on the graph are obtained from information on the session list. The first point at the bottom lBft represents Joseph Smith. Smith made up 2.S4 percent of thB total membership of the session Cl ; 34 * 1003. He received 0 percent of the assignments CO t B22 * 1003. The second point includes not only Smith, but also information for Jonathan Church. Church and Smith together represent 5.BB percent of the membership C5.945J for Smith + 2.345s SB

Figure 1

Lorenz Curve For Benning UlBntuiorth ’ s Last Legislative Session

Wears

90-

80-

70-

Line of i Perfect' [j rt oi

i Equality; cl

50-

40- Smitfr, Cliurch Hejidersbn

Smit! /jwnitH i •■ Church 3 3 q i* in it i .v it it ] g 0 10 SO 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 s Accumulated *£ of Members

Source: NH5P 59

for ChurchD and .54 percent of the assignments C05: For Smith + .545: For Church] . The third point culminates

data For Smith, Church, and Howard Henderson. A H three represent 8.B5 percent oF the membership C5.945: For Smith + 5.945: For Church + 5 . 945: For Henderson] and .4B percent oF the assignments E05: For Smith + .545: For Church + .545:

For Henderson]. ThB process continues in this wag until the last point, where data For fleshech Uleare is added to

the plot. With Uleare added, the graph shows 100 percent oF the membership and 100 percent oF the assignments. The broken linB on the graph denotes the Line oF Perfect Equality. IF the committee assignments had been rotated equally among the members oF BBnning Wentworth’s last Assembly, the resulting curve would have Fallen on the LinB oF PerFect Equality. For example, 50 percent of the members would have received 50 percent of the assignments; 50 percent of the members would have received 50 percent of the assignments. The area between the curve constructed From the WBntworth session list and thB Line of PerFect Equality is a visual representation

of how unequally assignments actually were distributed. □ne way to compare sessions is to construct individual Lorenz Curves and place them on top of each other. The same results can be achieved by calculating a Gini Index and comparing the scores. A Gini Index is a mathematical measure: thB ratio of the area beneath the actual curve to the area beneath the Line of PerFect 30

Equality. Had the assignments in Banning Wentworth’s last Assembly been distributed equally, the Gini snore would havB been 0.0. The actual score was .507. Once we have constructed Lorenz Curves, we can begin to make some conclusions about leadership. Again statisticians come to our aid. Using the concept oF "minimal majority," defined as "the smallest numbBr of individuals uiho takBn together control at least one-half of the value being distributed,” we can identify legislative leaders. The decision to use minimal majority as a controlling factor is an admittedly arbitrary, though widely accepted, measure. It provides a common-sense way of identifying leaders that can be applied to any legislative group using committees. It is unbiased and flexible in that it does not define in advance the size of the leadership group, but lets the 31 records speak for themselves. Figure E illustrates how the concept of minimal majority works. The figure shows the Lorenz Curve for Benning Wentworth’s last Assembly with leaders, sub­ leaders, and backbenchers indicated. To get the minimal majority, find the 50 percent mark on the vertical axis on the right hand side of the grid, move lBft to the curve and then down to the horizontal axis. Seven mBn controlled 50 percent of the assignments. These are designated the leaders for this session. They were Henry Sherburne, Thomas W. Waldron, Jacob Sheafe, John 31

Figure E

Lorenz Curve For Benning Ulentuiorth ’ s Last Legislative Session

A c 100

80--

ne of Perfect 50- Equkl-ittjj. c O C - C 0 e p 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 SO 90 100 Accumulated 5s of Members

Source: NHSP

Gini Index “ .507 3 2

Giddings, Pater Gilman, UJilliam Parker CFrom Portsmouth), and Meshech Uleare. Sub-leaders were thosB men who received the next 25 percent of the assignments, and were identified by starting at the 25 percent point on thB vertical axis on the right hand side of the grid. ThBy were Andrew Clarkson, Christopher Toppan, John Wentworth, John Sherburne, Josiah Bartlett, and John GoFFe. Backbenchers were the remainder of the group, those listed From John Smith through Clement March on the Session List in Table II.

How does this measure of leadership compare with leaders identified in more traditional ways? At this point, we are Forced to compare only revolutionary leaders, as no one has Focused much attention on those Assembly leaders who become neither Patriots nor activB Tories. Table III lists the revolutionary leaders identified through structural analysis and compares them with those leaders identified by Belknap, Upton, Martin, and □aniBll. These historians have Focused on those men who secured the highest positions in the new government created in 177B. The lists are quite similar. The similarity gives us confidence in structural analysis as a valid way of identifying leaders. Those names which appear only on the structural analysis list are men who served in the Third, Fourth and Fifth Provincial Congresses and the first House of Representatives. 33

Table III

MAJOR REUOLUTIONARY LEADERS IN NEW h a m p s h :

Structural Belknap, NairiB Analysis DaniBll,

M. Uleare XX XX J. Ulentutorth XX X S. Cutts XX X J. Bartlett XX XX N. Folsom XX X E. Thompson XX XX n. Thornton XX XX w. Whipple X XX p. White XX p . Long X X i . Morey X X j . Moulton X X W. Claggett X XX J . Dudley X X T . Walker, Jr XX N . Gilman X X J. McClary X J . Langdon w X J. Sullivan m X S. Livermore X X S. Ashley X B. Giles X L. Hubbard X J. Blanchard X J. Hurd XX T. Sparhauik X S. Webster X N. Emery X M. Patten X L. □earburne X □ . Gilman X S. Sherburne X J. Smith X N . Baldutin X J . Loveuell X N. PrentiCB X J . McGregor X J. Giddinge X

Code: xx - most important leaders; x “ leader; * - delegates to the Continental Congress, in sessions with incomplete delegate lists. 3 4

Turnover in these groups was high as some men abandoned legislative careers to serve in the army and some towns were Forced to combine with others to elect one delegate. The results of the structural analysis conFirms Belknap’s, Upton’s, Daniell’s, and Martin’s Focus on Meshech Uleare, Josiah Bartlett, Ebenezer Thompson, Nathaniel Folsom, and MatthBw Thornton as protagonists oF the Revolution, but they should have classiFied two other men as major revolutionary leaders. The results also enable us to trace the development oF all revolutionary leaders. In addition, structural analysis Bnables us to identiFy men as leaders who have previously been ignored by other historians. The two men who should bB added to New Hampshire’s list oF most signiFicant revolutionary leaders are John Wentworth, the Governor’s cousin, and Samuel Cutts. In the critical months between the passage oF thB Tea Act and Governor Wentworth’s departure From thB colony, John Wentworth directed New Hampshire’s response to all inter- colony and international events. Wentworth, a merchant, was elected to the Assembly in 1749. The Assembly which convened on May 22, 1771, elected him speaker. His career as an opposition leader began in this session. In the spring d F 1773, John Wentworth received two letters calling For the creation oF a Committee oF Correspondence in all colonies. ThB House established a Committee oF Correspondence and John 35

Wentworth was a member. ^ The next Assembly, which convened on April 7, 1774, unanimously elected John Wentworth speaker, and it created a new Committee of Correspondence. Again Wentworth was a member, and as chairman of the Committee, Wentworth issued thB calls For the First Four Provincial Congresses. He chaired all but the Fourth which hB was too ill to attend.^

Members oF Governor UlBntworth’s last Assembly, convened on May 5, 1775, again elected John Wentworth speaker. During this brieF session, Wentworth was on a committee to meet with the Governor to ask For an adjournment. This appears to be an unimportant assignment. However the reason For the adjournment was to allow representatives who had also been elected to the Fourth Provincial Congress the time to travel to Exeter pu to attend the meeting. Wentworth also served on a committee to prepare an answer to the Governor’s opening address. This too was a mattsr requiring grBat tact. ThB Governor had appealed to the Assembly as ’’the only constitutional and legal Representatives oF the People” and urged a ’’Restoration oF our Harmony with Great Britain.” The committee’s response to the Governor was not encouraging. While acknowledging the colonies’ deep ties with England, the committee blamed the mother country For the diFFiculties. When the FiFth Provincial Congress 36

resolved itself into the first Ho u s b of Representatives, it elected John Wentworth a councilor.^ Samuel Cutts, is another leader whose influence has been underestimated by historians. Cutts, a Portsmouth merchant involved in the West Indies trade, was first Blected to the April 7, 1774, Assembly, Governor Wentworth’s third. Shortly after his election, Cutts received a long list of instructions passed at a touin meeting. The first urged . . a Correspondence bB carefully kept up, between colonies, the better to promote & strengthen a general union. . . .” It is impossible to know how seriously Cutts took the instructions, but he was appointed to thB Nb w Hampshire Committee of Correspondence.®® Cutts was reappointed to the Committee of Correspondence by the representatives to the Second Provincial Congress. In thB Fourth Provincial Congress, Cutts was appointed to a new standing committee, the Committee of Supplies. He spent most of his time securing provisions for war. In the Fifth Provincial Congress, which became thB first House of Representatives, Cutts routinely substituted For absent House officers. At the end of thB session, he was p*7 appointed to the Committee of Safety. It is possible to use the lists of legislators generated by structural analysis to trace a delegate’s rise to leadership. Considering the entire period of the 37 challenge to royal authority, launched in 1765 and concluded by the end of 1775, ujb can rank the importance of the major revolutionary leaders in this order: Meshech Uleare, John Ulentworth, Samuel Cutts, Josiah Bartlett and Nathaniel Folsom, Ebenezer Thompson, and Matthau Thornton.

Table IU shows the sessions the seven major leaders attended and classifies them as leader, sub-leader, backbencher, or councilor. An examination shous that Uleare uas a leader in every session he attended. As previously noted, John Ulentuorth assumed a leadership role in Governor John Ulentuorth’s second Assembly. The controversial issues then mere the Tea Act and thB creation of the first Committee of Correspondence. Samuel Cutts joined Meshech Uleare and John UJentuorth as a lBader in Governor UlBntuorth’s third Assembly. Again the main source of controversy uas the selection of a new Committee of Correspondence. Josiah Bartlett and Nathaniel Folsom Joined the leadership circle at the First Provincial Congress. Both had been members of the Assembly the Governor had dissolved. Presumably they could have attended the meeting to plan the First Provincial Congress. The Congress elected Folsom to represent New Hampshire at the Continental Congress; Bartlett uas on thB committee to uritB Folsom’s instructions. At the Second Provincial Congress, Ebenezer Thompson 38

Table IV LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS 1765-1776

Weare Wentworth Cutts Bartlett Poison Thonpson Thornton May 21. 1765 ! B. Wentworth ! L i s n s i n ! B i N i May 17. 1768 ! J. Wentworth ! L I B N : s ! N ! B i n ! May 21, 1771 : J. Wentworth ! n : s N ! s : n : b I n : April 7, 1774 i J. Wentworth ! l : L L : s 1 B : b : n : July 21, 1774 1 Prov. Cong. 1 l* : L* A ! L* : l* ! A i N ! Jan. 25, 1775 Prov. Cong. ! L* ! L* L* ! L* ! L* i l * i n : Apr. 21, 1775 1 «1 i ti Prov. Cong. ! s ! S N I L i l : l : l : May 4, 1775 ! J. Wentworth L i L N ! S 1 B 1 L i N i May 17, 1775 1 Prov. Cong. ! L i N l : L : l ! L ! l : Dec. 21, 1775 ! 1 Prov. Cong. ! c : C l C i c : c i c i

Code: L : Leader L : Received assignments in session. Records incomplete. S : Sub-leader B : Backbencher C : Councilor N : Did not attend A : Attended, no assignment

Portsmouth Town Records, v.2, pt.2, p.303A Durham Town Records, v.2, p.78 33 received a major assignment. He was appointed to the New Hampshire Committee of Correspondence. Ail of the major leaders, except Matthew Thornton, were present at this Congress; all received assignments. Thornton, a physician, was the last to Join the leadership group. He represented Londonderry in the Third Provincial Congress and had not held legislative office since 175B, when he served one term in the

Assembly. Thornton joined the Congress latB and received an assignment on thB day he arrived— a place on thB committee to answer Massachusetts Bay’s request For aid. □n May 2, the Congress elected Thornton president pro tempore to replace John Wentworth who was ill. Only two other men besides Uleare, Wentworth, Bartlett, Folsom, Thompson, and Thornton obtained a leadership position in this session. By thB end oF the Third Provincial Congress, the core revolutionary group was completed. These seven mBn, sharing power among themsBlves and with others, continued their leadership role in New Hampshire’s next three legislative sessions— one Assembly and two Congresses. They were influential in all decisions which helped create the structure of New p a Hampshire’s new government. Structural analysis as a technique For identifying leaders is especially valuable when applied to thB Third and Fourth Provincial Congresses and the First House q F Representatives. These groups experienced a very high turnover. Men served, made a signiFicant contribution in 1 0

one or two sessions, and disappeared— g e n e r a l l y into the army. Their assistance in the critical years oF 177S and 1776 is now Forgotten. Consider, For example, the careers oF Nathaniel Prentice and Nahum Baldwin. Nathaniel Prentice’s First legislative experience was as a delegate to the Fourth Provincial Congress. A Farmer From Alstead, he was his t o w n ’s First representative. In the Fourth Provincial Congress, he was a backbencher, but he served on one oF three committees to develop a plan For representation at the FiFth Provincial Congress. In the First House oF Representatives, Prentice secured a position on the Ways and Means Committee and was added to the Committee of SaFety. Military arrangements occupied most oF his time, but he was also on a committee to try a group oF Tories. Later Prentice was appointed to the nBw Committee oF SaFety, but his legislative career was cut short when he accepted a commission in the army. In the House Prentice ranked second in leadership score only to the leading member, Timothy Walker, Jr.^®

Nahum Baldwin’s career paralleled Prentice’s. Baldwin, a Farmer representing Amherst, had no legislative experience when he was Blectsd to the FiFth Provincial Congress. His only town experience was as a selectman in 1769. Baldwin received his First assignment on January 10, 1776, whBn he was appointed to a committee to decide thB wages oF the House and Council. ThereaFter, hB served on several committees dealing with 41

Finances. Hb delivered money to ths army and investigated an outbreak of smallpox in Exeter. By NovBmbBr 177B, Baldwin was in the army.3*3 Baldwin too was classified as a leader in the Fifth Provincial Congress. He and Prentice were typical of many of the men who served during thB war. The turnover made legislating more difficult, but it did not prevent men with recognized ability from achieving top positions and making significant contributions. Using structural analysis to examine committee assignments has a distinct advantage for one interested in the process of the Revolution. The procedure identifies all the leaders of the period, not just the revolutionary leaders. By analyzing the changes in the leadership group, we can make some initial conclusions about the timB and issues which divided Patriots from Tories or neutrals. Uiewed from this perspective, the legislative careers of Woodbury Langdon, Jacob Sheaf a,

John Sherburne, and others assume nBui importance. Regardless of their political views or aspirations, all representatives had one characteristic in common. Their political base was their town. There they received their education in the business of politics. There they first practiced what they lBarned. By examining the relationship of legislators to their towns, we can begin to profile the process of the Revolution in New Hampshire. 42

Chapter Nates

1. The best description of the operation of Neui Hampshire’s government during the royal period is William Fry, New Hampshire as a Roual Province. Columbia University Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, vol. 29 CNew York, 1900). The description of the legislature which fallows is based upon Chapter 3 of Fry’s work.

2. NHSP. 6:02, and 7:373.

3. For examples of these practices, see Somersworth Town Records, vol. 1, p. 245, Concord, N.H., New Hampshire State Library, (hereafter cited as NHSL), and New Castle Town Records, Bex labeled New Castle to New Hampton, Concord, N.H., Division of Records and Archives, thereafter cited as NHA) .

4. Fry, Roual Province, pp. 140-151.

5. See NHSP. 7:292 for the duties of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

6. NHSP. 6:001-002. Governor John UlBntworth reaffirmed the governor’s control over the selection of the speaker in a report he made to the government in 1774. In an essay written to answer the question ’’Ulhat is the Constitution of the Government?’’, he wrote "Those being convened Cthe Assembly! choose a Speaker subject to the Govr or Com1" in Chief.” See Minutes of My (John Wentworth’s) Reply to Questions Proposed by Gov^ Nov.- Dec. C?) 1774. Concord, New Hampshire, New Hampshire Historical Association, thereafter cited as NHHS) .

7. Fry, Roual Province, pp. 142-143.

8. See NHSP. 7:292 for an example of House rules.

9. For BxamplB see ’’Commission oF Governor John Wentworth" in Henry H. Metcalf, e d ., Laws of Nbw Hampshire 4 vols. CBristol, N.H., 1916), 3:411-471. 43

10. To gain a Flavor of touin and individual petitions to their government, see Legislative Petitions, Record Group III, NHA.

11. NHSP. 7:335, 575.

12. Fry, Roual Province. p. 134; New Hampshire Gazette. June 10, 17BB.

13. NHSP. 7:445, 453, 470, 471, 57B-579.

14. See, For example, NHSP. 7:535, 549.

15. For an explanation of legislative leadership From the perspective of political scientists see Eugene J. Kolb, A Framework For Political Analusis CEnglewood CliFFs, N.J., 197B3, pp. H19-5B1 passim.

16. Jack P. Greene, "The Roles of the Lower Houses of Assembly in Eighteenth-Century Politics,” Journal oF Sourthern Historu. 37 CNovember 19613:451-474, and The Quest For Power:__ Thg__Lower House oF AssBmblu in the Southern Roual Colonies.___ 1689-1753 CChapal Hill, 19633, and "Foundations of Political Power in the Uirginia House oF Burgesses, 1750-1776,” Uilliam and naru Duarterlu. 3rd. ser. 16 COctober 19593: 4B5-506; Robert Zemsky, Herchentg.__Farmers. filler__Gods : an Essau in Eighteenth CBTlfcruu American__ Politics CBoston, 19713, and "Power, Influence, and Status: Leadership Patterns in the Massachusetts Assembly, ” Ulilliam and flaru Quarterlu. 3rd. ser. 56 COctober 19693:505-550.

17. Since I wanted any results I might obtain to be comparable to those For other colonies, I followed as precisely as possible Greene’s and Zemsky's research design. My initial questions and the order in which I proceeded were a deliberate duplication of Zemsky’s method. The explanation of my procedure is a close paraphrase of ZBmsky’s found in his "Statistical Appendix" to Merchants. Farmers, and River Gods, pp. SB5- 300.

IB. NHSP. 7:163, 576, 470, 477, 506, 575 and 8:969. 4 4

19. fi Factor not accounted for in my method of identifying leaders is a m a n ’s record of attendance. Consistant data could not b B found for all sessions, This uas especially true for the Provincial Congresses. When records mere available, the number of days a man attended uias recorded, but not the specific days.

50. NH5P. 7:53-165 passim.

51. Sb b Zemsky, Merchants. Farmers. and River Bods, p. EBB. For a good discussion of the concept oF minimal majority.

SS. NHSP. 7:5B6, 33S.

23. Ibid., 7:360, 356, 407, 445, 553; For the calls far the First, Second, and Fourth Provincial Congress, s b b Somersworth Town Records, vol. 1, p. 53S, 240, 245, 249

NHSL; For the call For the Third Provincial Congress, s b b Concord Tautn Records, vol. 2, p. 241, NHSL.

24. NHSP. 7:373.

25. Ibid., 7:372, 373. Quotation from p. 372.

25. Portsmouth Tomn Records, vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 2BBA-20BB; NHSP. 7:331-332.

27. NHSP. 7: 442, 47B and B: 7, 154, 344.

2B. Ibid., 7:461.

29. Ibid, 7:657,706 and 9:57.

30. Ibid, B :10, 94, 109, 151, 334; Daniel F. SBComb, Historu of the Town of ftmherst. Hillsborough Countu. Neui Hampshire CConcord, N.H., 1BB33, passim. CHAPTER II

TOWNS BECOME AWARE OF THE PROBLEM

. . The People of the Province oF New-Hampshire are well known to have supported the character of loyal Subjects of his Majesty, and havB been distinguished for their Obedience to all Subordinate Officers, without carefully attending to the present papular Patriotism of this Country. So far from pushing themselves into the Front on the present unhappy Disputes, they have bBBn blamed for falling far in the Rear.... December S3, 1774

The opinion of ”A Lover of Order,” published in the New Hampshire Gazette ninB days aftBr the attacks on Castle William and Mary in December 1774, summarizes the dilemma historians face when thBy try to explain New Hampshire’s entry into the revolutionary fray. Until that month, Nb w Hampshire had scarcely been touched by revolutionary activities. Here was a colony that had refused to send a representative to the Stamp Act Congress, and only mildly protested thB arrival of the tax stamps in Portsmouth. Here was a colony whose many merchants continued to import goods from England during the time of the Townshend duties. Here was a colony whose members of thB Council, the Assembly and the Portsmouth 46

Committee of Correspondence marked together to prevent violence mhen East India Company tea arrived. Strange, then, that here the First attack on a British Fortification occurred. On tmo ccnsBcutivB BVBnings, some 500 seacoast men raided Castle Ulilliam and flary and stripped the fort of ammunition and arms. The munitions merB then hidden in several towns, and some of the gun

powder was to be used later at Bunker Hill.^ From a cursory examination of New Hampshire’s

revolutionary activities, it appears that the raid on Castle William and Mary occurred in a vacuum. It was as if 500 men awoke onB morning imbued with patriotic zeal and channelled that spirit into an attack on thB fort. On the surface no obvious course of events led to this attack. Yet there had to bB an underlying process at work that made people aware of the problems with Great Britain and defined for towns an acceptable mode of reacting to those problems. However, because it has all the elements of a good story,historians tend to focus on the raid on Castle William and nary, ignoring the process that enabled it to occur. This process begins with the creation of the First New Hampshire Committee of Correspondence on flay SB, 1773. The committee formed the basis for the development of a revolutionary movement. ThB provincial committee served as a model for local committees of correspondence. The local committees developed relationships with both 47

the provincial committee and the Portsmouth committee, riembers of local committees of correspondence who were also legislators w b t b instrumental in creating New Hampshire’s second Committee of Correspondence in May 1774. It was the second committee which defied thB Governor and arranged a meeting to elect New Hampshire's delegates to the First Continental Congress. In March 1773 Peyton Randolph, Speaker of the Uirginia House of Burgesses, wrote to Speaker John Wentworth suggesting that each colony establish a standing

Committee of Correspondence. The committees would share information on measures implemented by the British government to enforce its imperial policy. The House was not in session when Wentworth received the lettBr, but it was in session two months latBr when he received a similar letter from the Rhode Island Speaker of thB House of p Representatives. Speaker Wentworth had to make a decision. He knew that the Assembly was concerned with the colony’s relationship to Great Britain. In January the Assembly heard a report outlining the difficulties between the colonies and the mother country, and a motion was made that the Assembly send a letter to Lord Dartmouth regarding the American situation. ThB motion passed and Wentworth was on the Assembly’s committee charged to write to Dartmouth. The resulting letter was innocuous. After congratulating Dartmouth on his recsnt appointment as 40

"Secretary of StatB For his Majesty’s Colonies in flinBrica, ” thB writers continued

Wb would not presume to intrudB on your Lordship’s time with a Disquisition of American AFFairs, but while we deprecate its DisquiBtudBS us also do the causes thereoF and are morally sure on the removal oF one the other would immediately cease.

■a The letter listed no speciFic grievances.

Wentworth also knBW that he could not allow personal Feelings to interFere with Assembly business. His predecessor, Speaker Peter Gilman From Exeter, had gotten into diFFiculty with his town and the Assembly For that reason when he had held a letter From the House addressed to King George III, which criticized the Townshend duties, For almost two years before the Assembly Forced him to

LI post it. After carBful consideration, Speaker Wentworth made his decision. He brought the letters he had received to the attention of thB House on May 20, 1773. The Ho u s b approved of the views contained in the letters and authorized thB formation of a Committee of Correspondence. John Wentworth appointed William Parker, John Sherburne, Jacob Sheafs, John Giddinge, and Simeon Alcott to prepare answers to the Uirginia and Rhode Island letters. The committee quickly completed their work, drafted a response, and sent the same letter to both colonies, dated May 20. That same day Wentworth appointed thB Committee of Correspondence. It consisted of himself, 4 9

SherburnB, Parker, Biddinge, Sheafe, Christopher Toppan, and John Pickering. Four of the committee constituted a quorum. ThBy uiere charged to obtain the most early & authentic Intelligence of all such acts 8 Resolutions oF the British Parliament or proceedings of Administration as may relate to or aFFect the British Colonies in America, & to keep up 8 maintain a Correspondence 8 Communication with any sistBr Colonies. . . .6

The next day Governor John Wentworth, having recently

received his £700 salary For the year, recessed the House. By tradition, House committees ceasBd to exist when the Assembly recessed; this First Committee oF Correspondence apparently Followed tradition. There is no record that it met while the Assembly was adjourned. During the summer Speaker Wentworth received subsequent letters From Massachusetts Bay, Maryland, and Connecticut. These were not answered until February 11,

1774, when the House was back in session.6 An analysis oF the proceedings oF the Assembly suggests that the House intended that the Committee aF Correspondence bB a working committee, and that it was surprised when Governor Wentworth adjourned the Assembly. ThB men who served on the committee were among the most respected men in the colony. They were well established in thBir proFessions and occupations, respected within their towns, and well regarded within the Assembly. Governor Wentworth knew many oF thBm personally, or knew oF them. He had appointed all oF them to Judicial 50

positions. They were msn uiho could be expected to act rationally in any situation. They were not hotheads. William Parker, John Sherburne, and Jacob Sheafe ware From Portsmouth. Parker was a lawyer; the others, along with Christopher Toppan From Hampton, werb merchants involved in the West Indies trade. All had a long record oF public service. ShBaFB’s Father and both his grandFathers had been councilors. Sherburne’s Father had also been a councilor and his mother was a Wentworth. Parker was on a retainer For the Masonian proprietors. One oF his daughters married Christopher Toppan. John Wentworth, From Somersworth, was the Governor’s cousin. A wealthy landowner, his Father and uncle had been representatives, and his son had read law under William Parker.7

John GiddingB From Exeter was trained as a physician, but he was also a very successFul merchant involved in lumbering, shipbuilding, Fishing, and the West IndiBS trade. His FathBr had been a representative. Giddinge was married to flehetabel Gilman, daughter oF Councilor PBter Gilman who was related through marriage to the Governor. Simeon Alcott, on the letter writing committee, graduated From Yale in 1761. A Connecticut native, he moved to Charlestown where he practiced law and was active Q in town aFFairs. Alcott was a First term assemblyman. ThB Fact that SimBon Alcott was leFt oFF the Committee oF Correspondence and John Pickering included 51

supports the view that the committee was intended to be a working committee. Alcott lived over 100 miles From Portsmouth. It would be difficult For him to meet quickly in case of an emergency. Pickering, a Portsmouth lawyer, was not and never had been a member of the Assembly. He graduated from Harvard College in 1761 and was married to Abigale Sheafe, the daughter of Jacob Sheafe. With both Pickering and Parker living in Portsmouth, presumably at least one lawyer would be available to constitute a quorum Q if the committee had to meet.

While a majority of ths men involved with the first Committee of Correspondence remained loyal to the King, this does not mean that in 1773 they did not have real concerns about colonial administration, concerns thBy hoped could be resolved by petition and persuasion. This sure tactic had worked in thB past, why not again? Parker and Sheafe had bBen members of thB committee charged to write to George III outlining New Hampshire’s objections to the Townshend Acts. Shsafe and Sherburne had signed petitions to request town meetings to deal with merchants who imported and sold British goods in Portsmouth. Both had served on a committee to draw up non-importation t b s o I v b s . As a result of this type of activity throughout the thirteen colonies, Parliament repealed the Townshend duties, except For a tax on tea.*^ With the Assembly adjourned between flay 2S, 1773, and January 11, 1774, New Hampshire citizens had no unified 5 2

mBans to express their reaction to the next crisis in Anglo-American relations— the Tea Act. The act, passed in hay 1773, utas Lord North’s attempt to assist the Financially strapped East India Company. By allowing the company to avoid export duties in London, the company could ship tea directly to the colonies and sell it at a lower price than that charged by a colonial merchant.

Many Americans were heavy tea drinkers. Tea rivaled cidsr and beer as a predominate beverage with meals, and it was thought to have medicinal uses, especially For women. Portsmouth merchants imparted large quantities oF tea. Most issues oF the New Hampshire Gazette carried ads For "Fine bohea teas.” Colonial merchants who made their living by imparting and selling tea Feared a loss oF income and Jobs iF Americans were given thB option oF purchasing quality tea at a lower price.^ Six months beFore any East India Company tea reached New Hampshire, the colony was agitated, but because oF the recess, the Assembly and the Committee oF Correspondence could not takB any action. This did not prevent individual legislators From expressing their own views. In Portsmouth Jacob SheaFe, a member oF the provincial Committee oF Correspondence, signed a petition requesting a town meeting ”, . .to know what method the Inhabitants oF said Portsmouth will adopt & pursue touching the Preventing the importation or Sale oF any Teas. . . by the east India Company. . . . S3

In signing a petition to request a town meeting on tea, Jacob Sheafe assumed thB role of an educator. In a public forum, he proposed to instruct his fBlloui townsmen on how this latest British act fit into Parliament’s scheme to deprive American colonists of their rights. The meeting was held on December IS, 1773, coincidentally on thB same night as the Boston Tea Party.

Portsmouth voters were divided an the purpose of the meeting. The first item of business was a vote on whether to continue the meeting. Ulhen the vote passed in the affirmative, the group in attendance adopted resolves pledging to ’’use every necessary method” to prevsnt tea from being landed in Portsmouth and called anyone who assisted the East India Company or who imparted any tea an Enemy to America.' 13

ThB argument against the Tea Act did not focus on thB potential economic hardships to merchants. The unnamed framers of the resolves equated the duty the East India Company had to pay in the colonies with the other import duties of the Townshend Acts. Thus the Tea Act became another attempt by Parliament to tax the colonies without thBir consent. At the same meeting the town elected a local CommittBB of Correspondence to publish the resolves and to send copies to "every considerable Town in this Government.” Jacob Sheafe was a member of the committee. He was joined by John Sherburne, another of Portsmouth’s 5*i

representatives. John Pickering mas elected, but he refused to serve. He did not, however, dissent against the proceedings of thB entire meeting as did six prominent Portsmouth residents. 1 *4 ^ The Portsmouth Resolves uiBre printed in the Neui Hampshire Gazette on December 5“±. In December, January, and February, Exeter, New Castle, Dover, Greenland, Rochester, Somersworth, Stratham, Barrington, Haverhill, and Hampton held special town meetings to consider similar action on the Tea Act. These meetings were held at the request of the Portsmouth Committee of Correspondence. The towns adapted Tea Resolves, not unlikB those of Portsmouth, and also elected their own local Committees of Correspondence. The minutes of these meetings were published in the New Hampshire OazettB along with the names of the members of the committees. 1 G The published tea resolves outlined for Gazette readers the perceived ministerial conspiracy to deprive British Americans of their rights as Englishmen. While acknowledging the sovereignty of King George III, the writers noted that no contract had been made between their ancestors and thB British Parliament that allowed that body to tax the colonists. Instead the settlers had been given charters which established colonial assemblies. ThBse miniaturB American parliaments alone, the colonists asserted, had the right to tax Americans. The English Parliament’s attempt to tax the colonists was a knowing 55

violation of the British constitution which guaranteed that there would he no taxation without representation. Parliament’s taxes outraged men From the town of Rochester who Felt that the money would to used . . t o raise a Revenue to support a Number oF Hungary Placemen, of what Denomination soever, that distress peaceable Subjects, and are a Pest to Society. . . .” Rochester and other towns pledged that they would abstain From the use oF tea and do their best to prevent the distribution oF East India Company tea in the colony . Hampton residents went Further, promising . . iF ever Necessity requires it, we will be ready in Conjunction with our oppress’d American Brethren to risque our Lives and Interest in support oF those Rights, Liberties, and Friviledges, which our Supreme Lawgiver, and our happy Constitution have entitled us to.16

Residents oF Barrington summarized the temper oF the colony best when they stated in the introduction to their resolves the Consumption oF that detestable barb is inconsidiable Cinconsiderable] here when Compared with poplos Cpopulous3 Towns, yet as many mites make a Considerable Quality so by theire contributing theire mite tward the General Association against the use oF it CteaD they might in some small degree 17 Strengthned the Cause oF Liberty. . . .

Same towns were still in the process oF holding their special Tea meetings when Governor Wentworth reconvened the Assembly on January 11, 1774. During the adjournment 56

Assembly members Jacob Sheafe and Jchn ShBrburne, Portsmouth; Thomas Bell, New Castle; Otis Baker, Dover; Clement March, Greenland; Samuel Brewster, Barrington; John Phillips and John Giddinge, Exeter; and Josiah Moulton, Hampton, had been elected to their local Committees of Correspondence. These men provided a vital link between the Assembly and the towns. As legislators

they disseminated information, instructed townsmen, and shaped public opinion. As members of local committees,

they presented to thB Assembly the concerns and reactions of their constituents. The provincial Committee of Correspondence resumed its functions when the House was brought back into session. On February 5, Speaker Wentworth appointed Simeon Alcott, Jacob ShBafe, and John SherburnB to a committee to answer the letters he had received from Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and Maryland. The answers all pledged New Hampshire's support for the common cause and noted particularly that New Hampshire had appointed a Committee of Correspondence the year before. Governor UiBntworth’s reaction to continued inter— colonial correspondence was to recess the Assembly. In March, abiding by the provisions set down in the Triennial Act, he dissolved it.10 When Governor Wentworth dissolved the Assembly, the first Committee of Correspondence ceased to exist. Its importance, however, should not be underrated. The 57

provincial committee’s mere existence created a climate which Fostered the Free discussion oF imperial issues. During its briBF liFe, it spawned at least eleven local committees oF correspondence. ThBy continued to exist aFter the Assembly was dissolved. Together the provincial and thB local committees nurtured the idea oF cooperation and collective action as a remedy For injustices. The legacy oF the First Committee oF Correspondence was a more politicized New Hampshire. New Hampshire residents demonstrated their political awakening in the controversies surrounding the 1774 Assembly election. The cry oF "no taxation without representation” become rooted in the minds oF disenFranchised citizens. Eight towns--Concord, DunstablB CNashua}, Hanover, Hopkinton, Nottingham, GrFord, Pembroke, and Plymouth— petitioned Governor UJentworth For representation in thB upcoming Assembly. In December, New Ipswich joined the petitioners and ’’CallCedJ upon . . . adjacent Towns to adopt the likB Measures.” Their arguments reFlected those used against the Tbs Act.1® At the height oF the Tea debates, the New Hampshire Gazette published a long article titlBd "Taxation Without Representation Is Subversive oF our Constitutional Liberty.” ’’Publicus, ” the anonymous author, noted that many towns in New Hampshire were taxed, but denied the right oF representation in the Assembly. ”Is not this . acting counter to our express Declarations, and the 5 B

solBmn Resolves of every assembly on the Continent in our present grand Controversy with the Parliament of GrBat- Britain?” he asked. ’’There is no drawing a Line of Representation, Every Freeholder in the most distant Part of thB Province has an equal Right thBrBto, with those of the Metropolis. . . .” ’’Publicus” concluded with a plea for annual elections, and public galleries in the assembly room of the State House so that ”... every Individual who inclines, may hear the Debates, and see for themselves, who are the Friends of the People.”50 The arguments equating taxation with representation were not h b w . They werB the samB ones used earlier against the Stamp Act. However, some people and their elected representatives were utilizing these arguments in a new way. Certainly the publication of the Tea Resolves, accompanied by the names of notable town and colony officials, caused residents to consider seriously the validity of the arguments. In one town meeting, for example, Dunstable voters agreed that if the Governor would not grant them representation, they should be excused from paying taxes, because without representation in the Assembly, the town could never make its wishBS known to the Governor. Unfortunately, Governor Wentworth never learned how thB town felt. Jonathan Lo v b w b II, thB author of Dunstable’s petition for representation, did not mention a threatened tax revolt. Nottingham, the town used as an example by 59

"Publicus,” succinctly summarized his whole argument in its petition far representation. ThB 350 families had been "Constantly Taxed” . . . and . . always freely and cheerfully Paid . . . tho they have Never Enjoy’d the Inestimable Darling Privilege and Liberty of Being Represented in the House of Commons hBrB. . . .” ThBy pleaded with the Governor to consider whether their "... Lives Liberties and Propertys. . . ought to bs takBn from them without their Consent to the Law. . . .” They prayed for a representative so that they ”... may no Longer be Uirtually But Really Represented By a Person of their own Electing. . . . ” Governor UJentwarth ignored the petitions and issued no new election writs. The Governor expected some new faces in thB 1774

Assembly. He had appointed John Sherburne to the Council, leaving a vacancy in Portsmouth. There was no incumbent in Stratham— Andrew Wiggin diBd. When thB Assembly met, it contained nine nBw representatives, plus two representatives with previous experience, but who had not served in thB last Assembly Uoters in Stratham chose Stephen Boardman, a member of their local Committee of Correspondence. In Portsmouth Jacob Sheafe was re-elected; he was joined by Samuel Cutts and Woodbury Langdon. With Langdon’s election, the factionalism of Portsmouth town politics was carried to the provincial level. Sheafe and Cutts were members of the Portsmouth Committee of Correspondence. Langdon had 60

dissBnted From thB Portsmouth Tea Resolves and ha continued to impart tea and other British goads in spite of non-impartation agreements. With Langdon’s election, Governor Wentworth gained a powerFul supporter in the House Uoters in Exeter, Charlestown, and Winchester turned out men who by 1776 would be considered Loyalists or

neutrals. They chose instead Nathaniel Folsom, a merchant and business partner of Councilor PBter Gilman; Samuel Hunt, a military man who had Fought at Crown Point and who would later Fight at Bennington and Saratoga; and Samuel pu Ashley, a Farmer and FuturB councilor.

ThB remaining changes in thB Assembly wBre the result oF normal town electoral practices. Some towns routinely rotated dBlsgates. Kensington’s EzBkiel UJorthen was an examplB oF this practice. He served in thB Assembly in 1762, 17ES, and 1774, skipping the 1765, 1771, and 1775 sessions.^ The controversy surrounding the 1774 election becamB Assembly business when the return oF Four successFul candidates was challenged. There had been election challenges in thB past, but this time it appeared that the selectmen had conspired to kBep some groups From casting their votes, perhaps Feeling that more liberal men would be electBd. In Londonderry, there was a dispute over who was qualiFied to call the election meeting. A large group oF voters boycotted the election and protested the 61

results. In Chester, the selectmen held the election without posting the warrant in Raymond and Candia. The three towns were classed together for the selection of one representative. Barrington’s election meeting moderator declared his son the winner before all eligible men had an opportunity to vDte. The Assembly reviewed the situation surrounding the election of Stephen Holland, John Webster, and Joshua Foss, Jr. and ordered the towns to hold new elections. The towns did so and all three men were returned. ThB 1774 Assembly also considered a petition from some voters from the classed towns of Plaistow, Atkinson, and Hampstead who were dissatisfied with the results of their election. Atkinson’s Dr. Nathaniel Peabody had mountBd a campaign to unseat Jonathan Carleton. In the final days before the election, one of Peabody’s supporters analyzed his chances and urged Peabody to ensure his success by giving the voters ’’something to □rink so they Go u p . . . .” Peabody, who would later represent New Hampshire in the Continental Congress, lost the election by seven votes. The Assembly denied the petition for a new election. r**7'

When the membership in the Assembly stabilized, it consisted of thirty-four delegates, eight of wham served on their towns’ committees of correspondence. They wbcb Caleb Hodgdon of Dover, Josiah Moulton of Hampton, Stephen Boardman of Stratham, Henry Prescott of New Castle, 62

ClemBnt March of Greenland, John Giddinge of Exeter, and Jacob Sheafe and Samuel Cutts of Portsmouth. In addition to having a large number of new delegates, the 1774 Assembly was different from previous Assemblies in two other ways, both indicative of thB unsettled political climate. For the first time since 1765 a majority of the delegates did not receive any committee assignments. Eight men or 24 percent of the group controlled 75 percent of all the committee business of the House. ThB 1774 Assembly was also unique in that delegates from Durham, Portsmouth, and Stratham carried with them written instructions. This too would subsequently became mare common. Portsmouth had provided written instructions to its representatives before, but it was rare for other towns to do so. Portsmouth’s and Stratham’s instructions survived. While Portsmouth's were more detailed, both mirrored the arguments against thB Tea Act as well as the positions taken by "Publicus.” Despite the wishes of the towns, the Assembly approved committees to discuss only two of the items listed in the instructions— public galleries and a Committee of Correspondence. Samuel Cutts and Woodbury Langdon from Portsmouth, Christopher Toppan from Hampton, Nathaniel Folsom from Exeter, and Samuel Jennes from Rye were appointed to investigate the feasibility of building the galleries. Stratham’s neophyte legislator Stephen Boardman did not win a place 63

on the committee, even though Stratham’s voters werB

I particularly interested in galleries. On May 28, 1774, the Assembly voted to establish a second Committee of Correspondence. The committee was charged to ”... correspond as occasion may require with the Comtees that are or may be appointed by the several Houses of Representatives in our sister Colonies. . . .” Speaker John Wentworth appointed the committee. It consisted of himself, Samuel Cutts, John Biddinge, Clement March, Josiah Bartlstt, Henry Prescott, and John Pickering. The House Further ’’Resolved and voted that the Speaker of this House be directed to answer such letters From time to time as he may receive From any of the Houses oF our sister Colonies Relative to thB aforesd difficulties. . . .” By this statement the House authorized the Committee of Correspondence to meet and make decisions outside the confines of regularly scheduled Assembly sessions. Had this measure been taken in May 1773, the first Committee of Correspondence would have •an continued to function when the Assembly recessed. The creation of the Committee of Correspondence was a victory For the group that supported cooperation and collective action against British policies it deemed offensive. ThB debatB took place as representatives werB evaluating the possible effects of the recent Boston Port Act. Jacob Sheafe and Samuel Cutts, as > ambers of the Portsmouth Committee of Correspondence, had already bBen 64

in communication with the Boston committee. The Portsmouth

Committee of Correspondence had promised . . uie mill exert ourselves to carry any plan into effect which may be concerted by the Colonies for the general relief.” The Friday before the debate, the New Hampshire Gazette printed the complete text of the Port Act. The representatives realized that the British government would retaliate for acts of violence. They understood the risks involved in collective action considered unsuitable and illegal by representatives of the crown. 31 UJoodbury Langdon, the Portsmouth merchant who had opposed resistance to the Tawnshend Acts and thB Tea Act, led the fight in the Assembly against creating the Committee of Correspondence. A motion was made on Friday, May B7, to create the committee. It carried by two votes. Saturday morning the issue was brought up again, and this timB passed by a single v o te.^ □nly after it had created the Committee of Correspondence did the Assembly pass the Supply Bill. As soon as Governor Wentworth received his annual salary, he recessed the Assembly until May 30. WhBn the representatives convened on the 30th, they were told that the Assembly was recessed again. They received the same message when they mBt on June 3 and 5. On June 6 Governor Wentworth dissolved the Assembly saying I look upon the measures entered upon by the House to be inconsistent with his Majesty’s service 65

and the good oF this Government, it is my Duty . . . to prevent any Detriment that might arise from such Proceedings. . . .33

Governor UJBntuiorth dissolved the Assembly befarB the Committee oF Correspondence could takB any action. However, the Governor heard that there were two letters in Portsmouth addressed to Speaker Wentworth containing plans For the First Continental Congress. The Governor was

convinced that by dissolving the Assembly he would prevent New Hampshire From participating in the proposed Congress. With no Assembly, Somersworth’s John Wentworth became a privatB citizen with no authority to act on the request. The Governor also Felt that within a Few weeks "those persons . . . Cwhol contrivB undesirable measures qu . . .” would come to their senses.

Historians have emphasized the patriotic nature d F the 177H Assembly. However, iF the delegates represented their t o w n s ’ views when they cast their vote on the Committee of Correspondence, one could easily conclude that New Hampshire was divided almost equally on what actions to take in response to the imperial crisis. The representatives’ choice was made more difficult because Governor Wentworth was still personally popular and respected. Even Former Speaker Wentworth privately Feared that the colony would accept the policies advocated by

Woodbury Langdon. Three days aFter thB Assembly was dissolved, Wentworth wrote to the Massachusetts Bay 66

Committee oF Correspondence asking to continue to receive ”. . . notices on the present critical situation of America Cwhether I am or am not a member oF the next assembly!. . . .1,35 The second Committee oF Correspondence, like the First, consisted oF men who were well placed and connected They were signiFicant leaders within their towns and belonged to the leading Families oF the colony. UJhile Firmly convinced that Parliament's actions were wrong, they were temperate men. By treating members of both Committees oF Correspondence as iF thBy were not to bB trusted, Governor UJentworth may have radicalized them. Almost certainly, he alienated them. The new Committee oF Correspondence contained onB First term assemblyman— Samuel Cutts. Cutts, whose grandFather had been a councilor, was married to Anne Holyoke, daughter oF the president oF Harvard College. His Family had been prominent merchants in the colony since the mid-1650’s. As a merchant involved in the UJest Indies trade, Cutts had vehemently opposed British measures that aFFected mercantile interests. He had worked closely with Jacob SheaFs in apposition to the Stamp Act, TownshBnd duties, and the Tea Act. And like

SheaFB he supported non-importation agreements.®® The other new appointees to the committee were Clement March, Josiah Bartlett, and Henry Prescott. March, From Greenland, was a physician and land 67

speculator. He uias one of the Masonian proprietors, and as a result owned large tracts of land in many New Hampshire towns. He was first elected to the Assembly in

1745. March had been active on the provincial Ib v b I during the Stamp Act crisis. He signed for New Hampshire the petition the Stamp Act Congress sent to George III, and he was on the committee to write to the King thanking him for its repeal. He also investigated the claims filed against the colony by George IlesBrve, the Stamp Tax

• 3 7 collector. Dr. Josiah Bartlett from Kingston was first elected to the Assembly in 1755. He was born and raised in Amesbury, Massachusetts. Kingston voters frequently elected Bartlett selectman. At the provincial level, he had served on several committees to divide the colony into counties. Bartlett was well known throughout the colonies and in Europe for his use of quinine CPeruvian Bark5 and for his thBory that cool liquids lowered fevers. Both qp Bartlett and March held Judicial appointments. The third new appointment was Henry Prescott, a

merchant from New Castle. Prescott’s stepmother was Mary Pepperell of thB Kittery, MainB, Pepperell family, and hB was married to Mary Newmarch, whose father had been a member of the Council under Banning Ulentworth. UJhBn Newmarch died in 1755, Prescott was elected to all the local offices his father-in-law had held. In February 1774, voters from Rye and New Castle elected Prescott to SB

Fill the unexpired term of their deceased representative, Thomas Bell. Prescott had served only three days when q q Governor Wentworth recessed the Assembly." Governor Wentworth’s tiff with the Assembly over creating the Committee of Correspondence did not prevent him from working with Former representatives, John Giddinge, Samuel Cutts, and Jacob Sheafe, to prevent riots when tea finally arrived in Portsmouth. On June 27, thB town learned that merchant Edmund Perry had received twenty-seven chests of tea. What they did not know was that Governor Wentworth had arranged far the tea to be unloaded and stored in the custom house. There would be no tea parties in Portsmouth! The Governor then proceeded to work with a town committee to persuade Perry to ship the tea to a port of his choice. The town paid a special watch to guard Perry’s tea until it could be moved. What could have been an explosive situation ended with all segments of society working together to preserve peace and tin good order in Portsmouth. Governor Wentworth’s success in working with two members of the second Committee oF Correspondence, Pickering and Cutts, did not cause the committee to adopt the Governor’s views. The committee continued to act as if it had a mandate to consider requests For collective action from other colonies. Eventually Former Speaker

John Wentworth received hi3 two letters giving the details of the First Continental Congress scheduled for 69

SBptembBr 1, 1774, in Philadelphia. The Committee of Correspondence met on June 51, at Tilton’s tavern in Portsmouth, to decide what to do.1** □n July 6 a group of Former legislators, apparently convened by the Committee of Correspondence, met in the assembly room of the State House to choose New Hampshire’s representatives to the Continental Congress. Upon hearing of the meeting Governor Wentworth called together the

Council, and thegroup, along with the sheriFF oF Rockingham County, entered the assembly room. The

Governor in a Formal speech accused thB Committee oF Correspondence oF usurping his authority to call an Assembly and declared the meeting illegal. He ordered the delegates to disband or Face the consequences— possible arrest.45 The Former assemblymen, recognizing the truth in the Governor’s statement, moved to a public tavern and continued their extra-legal meeting. They decided to issue an open invitation to all towns to SBnd representatives to a congress in Exeter to select New Hampshire's delegates to thB Continental Congress. An open meeting attended an a voluntary basis would avoid the illegalities oF the meeting in the assembly room. The Committees oF Correspondence could not be accused oF convening a session oF the Assembly, a right that bBlongBd ix to the Governor alone.

The invitations to the open meeting were printed and 70

dated July E. Towns were requested to send one or more representatives to a July 51st meeting. In addition each town was assessed a portion oF the estimated travel expenses For the two delegates to Philadelphia. The town's assessment, based on its share oF the province tax, was handwritten on the printed notice Followed by "The utility oF which measure is so apparent we doubt not your 44 ready compliance with this proposal,’

Former Speaker John Wentworth signed each invitation and used "Chairman” as his title. He did not, however, indicate what he was chairman oF, nor did he mention the

Committee oF Correspondence. Hb used as his authority For calling the meeting , . the Members oF the latB House oF Representatives For the Province, now met. ...” He did not indicate when the meeting was held or how many representatives attended. He did say that ” . . . thB Members oF the late House oF Representatives . . . are unanimously oF Opinion, that it is expedient and UC necessary, . . . to Jain said Congress . . . Whether the ambiguities in the invitation were deliberate or the result oF hasty preparation is not known. Governor Wentworth Felt that the call was intentionally vague. According to his reports to Lord Dartmouth only some representatives attended the May 6 meeting in the assembly room. He Further reported The committee appear conscious that their powers CiF any they ever had) ceased with the Assembly that 71

sleeted them, for they do not date the day oF the month, because it succeeded the dissolution; it is certain they had not acted, nor even met together beFore that.

Regardless oF the Committee oF Correspondence’s intent, the towns that sent delegates to the First Provincial Congress treated the call as a genuine request by a legitimate authority . Throughout the colony towns held special meetings to consider Former Speaker

Wentworth’s request. As Governor Wentworth Feared, thBre was widespread confusion over who was calling the meeting. Only Amherst’s selectmen correctly identiFied the Committee oF Correspondence as the source oF the invitation. The other election warrants variously listed ’’John Wentworth, Speaker oF the House oF Representatives,” and ’’members oF the Late House of Representatives.” Same even included the phrase ”In His Majesty’s Name.” Several towns posted Chairman John Wentworth’s letter in lieu oF a standard warrant. Uoters in Dover, Hampton, Kensington, New Market, Somersworth and Stratham were Forced to judge For themselves who was calling the meeting. 47 In Amherst, Newington, and Sandown, a Few men questioned the legality oF the whole procedure. Their objections were duly noted in the records oF the meetings. In general, towns voted on whether to attend the meeting, chose representatives, and determined how they were to pay their share oF the expenses. Some towns took the money From the town treasury, some diverted Funds From designated accounts--!ike preaching and schooling, 72

same taxed themselves, and same raised the maney by ua subscription. The warrant in Lyndeborough, Hillsborough County, illustrated the Feelings of many towns. After explaining thB purpose of the meeting, the selectmen added to thB warrant ”As timB is short we would desire everyone that hath money by him would bring it to the meeting with him.” Trusting that they mere doing the right thing, towns pledged time and money to the cause of collective action.

On July 21, 1774, eighty-five mBn met in Exeter. No official records of the proceedings have survived; however, the New Hampshire Gazette published a report of the meeting. Former Speaker John Wentworth chaired the meeting. The first order of business was to decide if New Hampshire should attend the Continental Congress.

According to the Gazette. the delegates unanimously voted to participate. Josiah Bartlett and John Pickering were first chosen to represent the colony. When they declined, the delegates elected Nathaniel Folsom and John Sullivan. Sullivan was a lawyer from Durham; he had never been a member of the Assembly. Folsom’s and Sullivan’s instructions were written by Wentworth, Bartlett, Pickering, Neshech Weare, and Christopher Toppan. The dBlegatBS also BlectBd John Giddinge Treasurer of thB group. It was his job to collect the assessments from the 73

towns . ^

The Nb w Hampshire Gazette did not publish the names of the delegates to the First Provincial Congress. The list of representatives has been partially reconstructed; seventy-thrBB man representing forty-two towns have bBen identified. Ulhile it is risky to draui any conclusions from an incomplete delegate list, it appears that voters in Londonderry, Winchester, KeenB, Charlestown, Nottingham West and Litchfield decided not to participate. We know that those in Kensington voted not to attend. All of these towns were entitled to representation in the Assembly. The names of all the members of the Committee of Correspondence appear on the list, with thB exception of New Castle’s Henry Prescott’s. However, the town’s records are so fragmented, that it is impossible to draw any conclusions from thBm.5 1 South Hampton, Plaistow, Hollis, Barrington, and

Amherst sent men to thB First Provincial Congress who were not thBir representatives in the 177H Assembly. The remaining towns included in their delegation thBir former representatives. If the Gazette was accurate when it reported that the vote to participate in the Continental Congress was unanimous, then Portsmouth’s Woodbury Langdon and Jacob Sheafe, and ExBter’s John Phillips must have cast their vote in the affirmative. While Sheafe and Phillips may have hoped that participating in an inter­ colonial meeting similar to the Stamp Act Congress would 74

producs beneFicial results, it is unlikely that Langdon mould havB held similar views. Langdon had opposed the establishment of thB second Committee of Correspondence and he mas clearly opposed to non-importation agreements. Yet, by the time the First Provincial Congress meet, many New Hampshire residents were discussing the possibility oF a ban on British imports. Two weeks aFter the meeting, For example, ’’Camillus" mrote to the New Hampshire GazattB

” . . it is earnestly hoped that the DELEGATES at the approaching CONGRESS will recommend a total stagnation oF commerce with them CGreat Britain!, even of those articles that have been thought nBcessaru. ^

BeFore adjourning, the delegates unanimously votBd to ’’recommend to their respective towns” that they consider some Form oF aid For the poor oF Boston, who were Feeling thB eFFects oF the British blockade oF their port. Massachusetts towns began sending food and monBy to Boston in June, and thB New Hampshire Gazette had bBBn printing notices of the contributions. ’’Amicus Patriae,” in a lengthy address entitled ”To the Inhabitants of New Hampshire,” argued that Boston deserved help because the city had a long history oF contributing Funds to those suFFering From natural disasters and Fires. ThB city had also helped New Hampshire residents taken prisoner during thB Indian Wars. The article was published in the GazBttB qq in August. J Between September 1774 and March 1775, men in at 75

least tuiBnty-onB towns met to discuss a collection For

Boston’s poor. Those towns which decided to contribute generally sent money or grain; it was morB diFFicult to send other kinds of Food or animals. Some towns took thBir contribution out of the town treasury; some requested donations. Others voted in a new tax, but made the provision that if a person opposed aiding Boston, he could say so and hB would not be taxed. South Hampton voters agreed to a new tax in January to raise £15. In February they reversed their vote. Greenland held a special meeting to discuss the aid in January. A debate broke out between Clement March and John Haven aver the propriety of voting an such a measure prior to the annual town meeting. BeFore a vote could be taken, March oFFBred to pay out oF his own resources one tenth oF whatever thB town authorized. Despite his generous oFFer, thB town votBd to delay the decision until March. At the annual qu. meeting, voters rejected the proposed aid. In Portsmouth, FiFteen men who described themselves as ”. . . being deeply aFFected with deplorable Situation oF the Town oF Boston, and desirous to strengthen the Hands and encourage the Hearts oF our apprest BrethBrn there, now suFFering in the common Cause oF America . . .” requested the selectmen to call a special meeting to discuss contributions. The meeting began September 12, but with adjournments did not end until October 10. On the 18th a motion was made to contribute something For the 76

relief of Boston’s poor. The motion passed and the meeting adjourned. On the 19th a motion was madB to contribute £200 to Boston. The motion was defeated. ft motion was made next to set up a committee to receive voluntary donations. The motion passed and the meeting was adjourned to October 10. UJhen the town met again, a motion was made to rescind the vote of September 19

regarding the use of town funds for the aid. It passed and voters eventually authorized £200 for Boston to be raised by assessment. All those who paid only a poll tax were exempted, as were those who specifically requested

not to be taxed; only two men askBd.^ The procedure was not as complicated in other towns. Keene voters rejected thB proposal outright; othBr towns devoted one meeting to the subject. Of the twenty-one

towns for which records survive, eighteen contributed. The majority were located in Rockingham County. Towns that discussed aiding Boston debated issues of international concern. Those towns which contributed took part in an inter-colonial cooperative effort. The letter

TemplB wrote to accompany its forty bushels of rye revealed New Hampshire’s growing awareness of the unity created by collective action.

UJe are sensible that thB samB injustice which deprives you of your usual method of support by trade, because some tea was destroyed by somebody in your town, would as readily and on the same principles deprive us in whose country the tea was 77

destroyed, of the cheerful warmth of the sun and refreshing rain, till the tea was paid far, if this uiBre equally in its power.56

In the summer and early fall of 1774, some New Hampshire towns debated another form of collective action— the acceptance of a non-importation agreement directed against all products emanating from Great Britain, except those considered of vital necessity by the signers of each

agreement. ThB New Hampshire Covenant, the name by which

we know the agreement, has been attributed to thB provincial Committee of Correspondence, the Portsmouth Committee of Correspondence, and the First Provincial Congress. The only record of a non-importation agreement

found in thB Portsmouth town records is the one against

tea alone. However, thB Portsmouth Committee of Correspondence could have operated outside of a town meeting. Wilton, in Hillsborough County, posted a warrant to discuss the Covenant on July 9. Therefore, the first Provincial Congress which met on July 21 could not have developed the document. Governor Wentworth attributed the Covenant to the provincial Committee of Correspondence.

It is likBly that thB Covenant was sent to New Hampshire

by the Boston Committee of Correspondence. The Nbw Hampshire Covenant is very similar to a non-importation

agreement sent by that committee to Bvery Massachusetts town on June 0, 1774. Whoever wrote it, the document was 57 referred to by the towns as the Portsmouth Covenant. 70

fit thB same meeting during which UJilton voters BlBCtBd a representative to the First Provincial Congress, they Blected threB men to represent them at a meeting in New Ipswich to discuss thB Covenant. It is likely that Mason also sent delegates to the meeting. Both UJilton and Mason signed the Covenant, as did HennikBr and Boscauen. All were located in Hillsborough County. In Rockingham County, Concord signed; in Grafton, Hanover; in Cheshire, JaFFrey and PlainField. New Chester Cnow HillJ, in GraFton County, met to discuss the Covenant, but postponed action. Uoters in Keene, Cheshire County, also decided to delay action until ” . . . we hear what measures Said CContinental3 Congress has agreed upon For themsBlves and CQ their constituents.” For PlainField, which had not sent a representative to the F irst Provincial Congress and had probably not received word about sending aid to Boston, discussing the Covenant was the F irst opportunity residents had to express thBir views and engage in collective action. In the letter sBnt to Portsmouth recording thB meeting's results, the selectmen oF PlainField wrote we hartely wish Gods blessing on your prosedings In this aFFare of so grate importance---- and we thank you for giving us the opertunity of Filing up a Subcription paper; and all Cthel mBn in this town that has Seen it has Set thair names to it eg Except tew Ctwo or tBn]. . . . 73

The Covenant’s effective date was August 30, 1774. Committees usre established to secure signatures. In Mason, subscribers agreed that if ten petitioned, a meeting would be called to discuss changes in the Covenant. Such a meeting was held in November. At that meeting, ”. . . arms and ammunition also Steal Sowing needles Pins and Awls and Doctors drugs that Cannot Be

Purchased in ths Country of Equal Ualue . . .” were exempted from the Covenant. In early 1775, the Neui Hampshire Covenants were replaced by the Continental CO Association.au

The signing of thB New Hampshire Covenants raised the level of awareness of another group of towns. The process was similar to that which occurred with the Tea Resolves. A committee of correspondence initiated action. Towns held meetings, voted, and elected committees. Communication networks were created among towns in particular areas, like Hillsborough County, and among all towns and Portsmouth. In the sixteen months since the creation of the first Committee of Correspondence, New Hampshire citizens had been conditioned to believe that cooperation and collective action werB the proper responses to injustices. It is only natural that seacoast residents would use that tactic to respond to the next crisis in imperial relations, the ban on the shipment of military BO

supplies to the colonies. Since the passage of the Quebec Act in June 1774, many Neui Hampshire residents lived in fear of Indian attacks. A ban on military supplies could

have left the colony defenseless.61 □n thB afternoon of December 13, 1774, Paul Revere, courier for the Boston Committee of Correspondence, rode into Portsmouth looking for Samuel Cutts. He carried news

about the military stores ban and information that British troops were being sent to occupy Castle UJilliam and Mary. In the middle of the afternoon on thB 14th approximately 400 men from Portsmouth, New Castle, and Rye raided thB fort, and took away as much gunpowder as they could carry. The powder was hidden until it could be shipped to nearby towns for safe keeping. Under covBr of darkness the next evening, John Sullivan, from Durham, led another attack on the fort. This timB several small cannons, some muskets, and more powder were taken. These too were C3 secreted in neighboring towns. The attacks on Fort Uilliam and Mary were not the beginning of collective action by New Hampshire citizens, but rather the culmination of over a year and a half of Joint action against the policies and practices of the British government. The raid, like other activities, was planned by a committee of correspondence. Durham, Kingston, Epping, Poplin, Nottingham, Brentwood, Exeter, and Londonderry cooperated by hiding the stolen goods. Their hBlp was another step in thB politicization 01

process.63 Only Portsmouth and Exeter had protested against the Stamp Bet and the Touinshend duties. However, between thB creation of the First provincial Committee oF Correspondence in May 1773 and the raid on Fart William and Mary in December 1774, over FiFty towns participated in some Form oF collective action against the British government. By the and oF 1774 communications networks

existed which tied all of these towns to Portsmouth, As Governor Wentworth Feared the ”... spirit oF enthusiasm . spread." As important as the spirit was thB spread oF an organization to channel the spirit— Committees oF Correspondence. ThB mechanism For continuing protest was in place.®** Chapter Notes

1. The most useful sources for understanding thB raid on Castle William and flary are Elizabeth Aykroyd, "Note on the Raids on Fort William and Mary, "Historical New Hampshire 3E CFall 19771:144-146; Darryl Cathers, "Power to the People: The Revolutionary Structure Behind the Attacks on Fort William and Mary, 1774,” Historical New Hampshire 29 CWinter 19743:261-279; Theodore Crackel and Martin AndresBn, "Fort William and Mary: A Case Study in Crowd Behavior,” Historical New Hampshire 29 CWinter 19743:203-227; Elwin L. PagB, "The King’s Powder, 1774," New England Quarterlu IB (March 19453:03-92; Page, "What Happened to the King’s Powder,” Historical New Hampshire 19 (Summer 19543:2B-33; Charles Parsons, "The Capture of Fort William and Mary, December 14 and 15, 1774,” Proceedings of the New Hampshire Historical Societu 4 C19033:10-47; Douglas Sweet, "New Hampshire on the Road to Revolution: Fort William and Mary; a Decisive Step,” Historical New Hampshire 29 CWinter 19743:229-257; Paul W. Wilderson, "John Wentworth’s Narrative of the Raids on Fort William and Mary,” Historical New Hampshire 32 (Winter 19773:220-236; and Wilderson, ’’The Raids an Fart William and Mary: Some New Evidence,” Historical New Hampshire 30 CFall 19753:17B-202.

2. Nathaniel Bouton, et al . , eds., Documents and Records Relating to New Hampshire. 1623-1800, 40 vols. CConcord and Manchester, N.H., 1067-19433, 7:330-332, Chereafter cited as NH5P3. For an explanation of the development of committees of correspondence, see Edward D. Collins, ’’Committees of Correspondence of thB American Revolution, ’’ Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1901. 2 vols. (19023, 1:245- 271. ThB date of the Rhode Island letter was mentioned in Speaker Wentworth’s reply to the Speaker of the House of Deputies of Rhode Island, May 28, 1773, Nft5P, 7:332.

3. Speaker John Wentworth to the Earl of Dartmouth, February 7, 1773, NH5P. 7:315-316. The House minutBS for January 29, 1773, do not record who made the report an the difficulties between the colonies and Breat Britain or who made thB motion to write to Dartmouth. 03

4. NHSF. 7:107-1BB, 24B-249. CharlBs H, Bell, Historu oF ExBtBr. Nbui Hampshire (Exeter. N.H., 1BB05, pp. Bl-02.

5. NHSP. 7:329, 332. In the some sources Giddinge is spelled, Giddings, and Alcott, Qlcott.

B. Ibid.. 7:350, 351.

7. Charles H. Bell, Bench and Bar oF Neui Hampshire CChicago, 18945, pp. 27-2B, 30-31; U. S. Work Projects Administration, Genealoou. S-S, n.p., n.d.; Joseph Dow, Historu s£ Toun oF Hampton. Neui Hampshire. From its 1J3__163B. to the Autumn oF 1B95 CSalem, Hass., 1B935, p. 996.

B. Bell, Historu oF Exeter. pp. 148-152, Genealogical Section, pp. 14-15; Bell, Bench and Bar. pp. 41-43.

9. John L. Sibley and CliFFord K. Shipton, Biographical Sketches gf Graduates oF Harvard Universitu. 1713-1771. 17 vols.CCambridge, Mass., 1873-19755, 15:91-96, hereaFter cited as Bionraohical Sketches: Bell, Bench and Bar, pp. 44-47.

10. NHSP. 7:1B0; U.S. Work Projects Administration, Portsmouth CN.H.3 Touin___Records. 4 vols. C Portsmouth, N.H., 19405, vol. 2, p t . 2, pp. 242B-242C, 244A-245A, 246A-246B.

11. Neu Hampshire Gazette. 1765-1773 passim. Generally advertisements For tea were placed on the last page oF the paper.

12- Parts.mgyth Touun Records. vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 276A- 276B.

13. Ibid., vol. 2, p t . 2, pp. 277A-279A. Quotation From pp. 27BB-279A.

14. Ibid., vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 279A. ThB men uiho dissented uiere Theodore Atkinson, GBorgB JaFFrey, Daniel Rogers, John Parker, Woodbury Langdon, and GeorgB King. 04

15. Sea the New Hampshire Gazette. January 7, 1774, Far New Castle; January 14, 1774, For Dover; January 81, 1774, For Greenland; February 4, 1774, For Rochester; February 11, 1774, For Somersworth; February 10, 1774, For Strathan; February 25, 1774, For Barrington; and March 4, 1774 For Hampton. Bell, Historu d F ExBter. pp. B3-B4.

16. New Hampshire Gazette. February 4 and March 4, 1774. In Hampton, Captain Jeremiah Marston, Jonathan Marston, Jeremiah Towle, Ulinthrop Sanborn, Daniel Philbrook, and Simeon Lane dissented to the meeting and to the Tea Resolves. Their names were published in the Gazette.

17. Ibid., February 25, 1774.

IB. NHSP. 7:350, 351, 355, 355, 350. While Governor Wentworth deliberately recessed the Assembly, hB had to dissolve it. It had been in existence For three years and, by the provisions oF the Triennial Act, it was time to call For new elections.

13. NHSP. 0:224-225, 39G-307, 542-643, 653-664, 505-606 and ?:257; Dunstable CNashual Town Records, vol. 3, pp. 457, 46B, Concord, New Hampshire, New Hampshire State Library, ChereaFter cited as NHSL5; OrFord Town Records, vol.1, p. 217, NHSL; Hanover Town Records, vol. 1, p. 17, NHSL; Concord Town Records, vol. 2, p. S31, NHSL.

20. New Hampshire Gazette. March IB, 1774.

21. NHSP. 9:642-643; Dunstable CNashual Town Records, vol. 3, p. 467, NHSL.

22. Ransom B. True in an M.A. thesis entitled "The New Hampshire Committees oF Correspondence, 1773-1774, ” University oF New Hampshire, 1069, analyzed the 1774 Assembly. Dn page 90, he attempted to classiFy the members as Patriots, Moderates, and Conservatives. In classiFiying new members as Patriots, he made two errors. Neither Henry Prescott nor John Waldron were new members. Both served in the previous Assembly as replacements For deceased delegates. While there may have been a number oF candidates For the Assembly seat in New Castle and Dover, those contests did not involve Thomas Bell or John Gage. Both were dead. Also deceased was 0 5

Andrew Uliggin From Stratham. ThereFore, True is incorrect when he classiFies him as a member who was not returned. True also lists John Sherburne as a member who was not returned. At the time oF the Assembly election, Sherburne had taken his place an the Council. Therefore, he was not elegible For election to the house. See NHSP. 7:350; Notice From Speaker John Wentworth to the Sheriff of Rockingham County ordering an election in New Castle and Rye, January 57, 1774, and the response by Sheriff Parker on the reverse side of the notice, New Castle Town Records, Box labeled New Castle to New Hampton, Concord, N.H., New Hampshire Archives, ChereaFter cited as NHA); Franklin C. Thompson, ed., Ulinnin GBnealoou. Cn.p., n.d.D, passim.

53. Woodbury Langdon to Frederick Lord North, February 7, 1777, Langdon Papers, Box 1, Folder 13, Concord, N.H., New Hampshire Historical Society, ChereaFter cited as NHHS). William Parker was thB Portsmouth representative who was not rB-Blected. He signed the Association Test in 1776, but triad to remain neutral during the war.

54. The representatives who were not returned wBre John Phillips, Exeter; Simeon Alcott, Charlestown; and Josiah Willard, Winchester. Phillips remained neutral during the war. In 1774, Governor Wentworth appointeBd him to the Council, but he apparently never took his seat. Alcott also succeeded in remianing neutral; he did not hold any major town offices during the war, but did serve an committees to review town accounts. In 17B4, he was appointed Judge of the Court of Common Pleas For Cheshire County. Josiah Willard did not sign the Association Test. He held his last town office in 1775 and died in 17B6. For biographical information on Willard, see □. Hamilton Hurd, e d ., Historu of Cheshire and Sullivan Counties. CPhiladelphis, 1B065, pp. 541-5B5 passim.

55. NHSP. 6:BOB and 7:171, 360. I have been unable to determine what happened to Samuel Bruwster of Barrington. He did not sign the petition dated April 7, 1774, protesting the election of Joshua Foss. A Captain Samuel Brewster did sign a petition to the House, dated March B, 177B, in favor of appoinnting John Garland a Justice of the Peace. It is unclear whether Captain B6

Brewster was also representative Brewster or was his son. See NHSP 11:152-154.

25. NHSP. 7:353, 11:152-153, and 12:455-455; Petition to the House of Representatives, Londonderry, April 12, 1774, Record Group III, Box 3, Folder 5, NHA; Uoters of Londonderry and Windham to Samuel Livermore, Samuel Barr, and Stephen Holland, March 1774, and Selectmen of Londonderry to Constable of Londonderry, March 14, 1774, and to the Constable of Windham, March 14, 1774, Londonderry Town Papers, Box BB0121, NHA; Speaker John Wentworth to the Sheriff of Rockingham County, May 13, 1774, and Theophilus Dame to the House of Representatives, May 25, 1774, Barrington Town Papers, Box B72141, NHA. Stephen Holland became a Loyalist and was imprisoned for counterfeiting; Joshua Foss served on the patriot side during the war; John Webster continued to be re-elected. For biographical information on Holland, see Kenneth Scott, ’’Colonel Stephen Holland of Londonderry,” Historical New Hampshire 3 CMarch 1947):15- 27. for Foss, see Guy S. Rix, Genealonu of thB Foss Familu. CConcord, N.H., 1917), p. 25; for Webster, see Benjamin Chase, Historu of Did Chester (N.H.) From 1719- 1B59. CAuburn, N.H., 1855), passim.

27. B. Kimball to Nathaniel Peabody, Nathaniel Peabody Papers, Box 1, Correspondence 1767-1B15, NHHS; Petition to the Speaker and Members oF the House of Representatives, Plaistow, May 5, 1774, Record Group III, Box 3, Folder 5, NHA. UotBrs continued to elect Jonathan Carleton through the Fourth Provincial Congress. In the Fifth Provincial Congress, he was replaced by John CalfB.

28. The high Gini score— .711— indicates the uneven distribution of assignments in the 1774 Assembly . High Gini scores became the normal pattern the more involved New Hampshire became in revolutionary activities. See Chapter I For an explanation of thB Gini score.

29. Oren U. Henderson, "Copy oF the Town Records of the Town of Durham, New Hampshire,” Typed Transcription, vol. 2, p. 75, Durham, N.H., University of New Hampshire Library, (hereafter cited as UNH Library); Portsmouth Town Records, vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 2BBA-291A; Stratham Town Records, vol. 1, p. 407, NHSL; NHSP. 7:355. 07

30. NHSP. 7:366-367. Only thrBB members of thB First Committes of Correspondence mere rsappointed to the Second Committee of Correspondence. They were John Wentworth, John Giddinge, and John Pickering. John Sherburne was a member of the Council, and William ParkBr was not re-elected. Jacob Sheafb and Christopher Toppan were members of the 1774 Assembly, but were not reappointed. In 1774, Sheafe’s views on the British government’s policies were similar to his colleague Samuel Cutts’s. Toppan’s committment may have beBn questioned because his father-in-law was William Parker. Toppan, an orphan, had been raised by his uncle the Reverend Paine Wingate. In 1776, Wingate would refuse to sign the Association Test. In 1775, Toppan refused a military commission.

31. NHSP. 7:367; New Hampshire Gazette, hay 50, 1774.

35. Governor John Wentworth to the Earl of Dartmouth, June B, 1774 and Speaker John Wentworth to thB Massachusetts Committee of Correspondence, June 11, 1774, NH5P r 7.-36S, 406; Woodbury Langdon to Frederick Lord North, February 7, 1777, Langdon Papers, Box 1, Folder 13, NHHS. The deciding vote to create the second Committee of Correspondence was not Speaker John Wentworth’s. He would have voted only in case of a tie.

33. NHSP. 7:369.

34. Governor John WBntworth to thB Earl of Dartmouth, June 0, 1774, Ibid., 7:369.

35. Speaker John Wentworth to the Massachusetts Committee of Correspondence, June 11, 1774, Ibid., 7:406.

36. For biographical information on Samuel Cutts, see the article on his son Charles in Bell, Bench and Bar. p. 300. Portsmouth Town Records, vol. 5, p t . 5, pp. 542B- 545C, 244A-545A, 546A .

37. Charles W. Brewster, Rambles about Portsmouth. 1st Series CPortsmouth, 1069; reprint ed., Samersworth, N.H., 1971-1972) , pp. 156-120; NH5P 7:95. 103, 10B. 0B

30. Frank C. riBVBrs, ed., The Papers oF Josiah Bartlett. CHanover, N.H., 19791, xv-xxi; Bell, Bench and Bar. 32- 33.

39. William Prescott, The Prescott Memorial. or a Genealogical Memoire oF the Prescott Families in America CBoston, 10701, pp. 4E, 47, 52; New Castle Town Records 1765-1776 passim, NHSL.

40. Portsmouth Town Records. vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 292A- 29BA; Governor John Wentworth to the Earl of Dartmouth, July 4, 1774, NHSP. 7:409.

41. Mevers. ThB Papers oF Josiah BartlBtt. p. 11.

42. Governor Wentworth to the Earl oF Dartmouth, July 6, 1774, NHSP. 7:410, 400.

43. Governor Wentworth to the Earl oF Dartmouth, July 13, 1774, Ibid., 7:411.

44. Notice to the Parish oF Atkinson, July 6, 1774, Record Group III, General Court Records— Provincial Congress, Box 1, NHA.

45. Ibid. SeB also NHSP. 7:400-401.

46. Governor Wentworth to the Earl oF Dartmouth, July 6, and August 29, 1774, NHSP, 7:410, 411.

47. Notice To either oF the Constables oF the Town oF Amherst, n.d., Amherst Town Records, Folder titled Wilkins Papers, Box 072071, NHA; Atkinson Town Records, vol. 1, p. 50, NHSL; Barrington Town Records, vol. 2, p. 506, NHSL; Boscawen Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 111-112, NHSL; Candia Town Records, vol. 1, p. 63, NHSL; Canterbury Town Records, vol. 3, pp. 6-7, NHSL, Chester Town Records, vol. 2, pp. 122-123, NHSL; Dover Town Records, vol. 4, pp. 394-396, NHSL, Dunstable CNashual Town Records, vol. 3, pp. 471-472, NHSL; ’’Town Records oF the Town oF Durham," vol. 2, p. 7B, UNH Library; East Kingston Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 370-371, NHSL, Epping Town Records, vol. 1, p. 2, NHSL; Greenland Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 02-03, NHSL; Hampton Town Records, vol. 2, p. Q 9

365, NHSL; Hampton Falls Town Records, vol. 5, pp. 674- 675, NHSL; Hawke CDanville) Town Records, vol. 1, p. SO, NHSL; Hollis Town Records, vol. 4, p. 546, NHSL; Hopkinton Town Records, vol. 5, pp. 131-133, NHSL; Kensington Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 155-156, NHSL; Lee Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 91-95, NHSL; Lyndeborough Town Records, vol. 5, pp. 37B-5B0, NHSL; fladbury Town Records, vol. 1, pp. B1-8S, B4, NHSL; Merrimack Town Records, val B, p. 96, NHSL; Mason Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 550-SE1, NHSL; Newington Town Records, vol. 1, p. 91, NHSL; Wentworth Cheswell, trans. "A Duplicate of the Records of the Town of Newmarket from its First Incorporation as a Parish December 15, 1757— until the Commencement of the Revolutionary War in 1775— With an Account of Sundry Persons as Entered at the End of the First Book of Records and the Act oF Incorporation,” n.p., UNH Library; Newton Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 3B9-391, NHSL; Ezra S. Stearns, Historu of Plumouth New Hampshire. 5 vols, CPlymouth, N.H., 1906), 1:B5; Poplin Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 40-41, NHSL; Portsmouth Town Records, vol. 5, pt. 5, pp. 301A-30BB; Raymond Town Records, vol. 1, p. 51, NHSL; Rochester Town Records, vol. 1, p. 304, NHSL; Rye Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 559-560, NHSL; Sandawn Town Records, vol. 1, p. 169, NHSL; Seabrook Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 57-58, NHSL; Somersworth Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 539-541, NHSL; South Hampton Town Records, vol. 1, p. Ill, NHSL; Stratham Town Records, vol. 1, p. 413, NHSL, Henry A. Blood, The Historu of Temple. N. H.. CBoston, 1B60), p. 94; Wilton Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 165-166, NHSL.

48. In Amherst, Joshua Atherton and Zacheous Cutter dissented; in Newington, Benjamin Adams and Joseph Pattinson; in Rye, Richard Jenness; in Sandown, Benjamin Shaw. See notice To Either of the Constables of the Town of Amherst, n.d., Amherst Town Records, Folder titled Wilkins Papers, Box B7S071, NHA; Newington Town Records, vol. 1, pp. Sl-95, NHSL; Rye Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 559-560, NHSL; Sandown Town Papers, vol. 1, p. 169, NH5L. See also town records cited in footnote 47 above. Some towns may have voted not to participate in the First Provincial Congress, but voted to pay their share of the expenses to send the delegates to Philadelphia. Bedford’s town records do not record a vote to attend the 30

First Provincial Congress. However, its tax records for 1774 list a "Congress Tax.” See Bedford Town Records, vol. 3, pp. 111-114, NHSL.

49. Lyndeborough Town Records, vol. 2, pp. 278-573, NHSL.

50. Neui Hampshire Gazette. July 29, 1774; NH5£., 7:407- 408. John Farmer and Jacob B. floors, eds. , Col lections. Topographical Historical and Biographical Relating Princioallu to New Hampshire. 3 vols. (Concord, N.H., 1022-1024), 1:147.

51. "Government During the Revolution," Neui Hampshire Secretary of State, Manual of thB General Court, no. 5, (Concord, N.H., 1097), pp. 10-25; Joseph UJalkBr, New Hampshire’s Five Provincial__Congresses. Julu 21. 1774- Januaru 5. 177B. (Concord, N.H., 1905); Hollis Town Records, vol. 4, p. 246, NHSL; Merrimack Town Records, vol. B., p. 96, NHSL; Wancworth Cheswell, "A Duplicate of the Records of the Town of Newmarket," n.p. UNH Library; South Hampton Town Records, vol. 1, p. Ill, NHSL; StBarns, Historu of Plumouth N bw Hampshire. 1:B2; NoticB To Either of the Constables of the Town of Amherst, n.d., Amherst Town Records, Folder titled UJilkins Papers, Box 072071, NHA. S b b Appendix A for a list of the known delegates to the First Provincial Congress.

52. New Hampshire Gazette. August 5, 1774.

53. NM5P, 7:400; New Hampshire Gazette. August 26, 1774.

54. See "Correspondence in 1774 and 1775, Between a Committee of the Town of Boston and Contributors of Donations for the Relief of the Sufferers by the Boston Port Bill," Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Societu. 4th ser., vol. 4, (1850): 1-270 for Concord, Chester, Candia, Durham, New Market, Londonderry, Temple, Portsmouth, Exeter, and Monson; Lee Town Records, vol. 1, p. 94, NHSL; Somersworth Town Records, vol. 1, p. 243, NHSL; Stratham Town Records, vol. 1, p. 416, NHSL; South Hampton Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 107-100, NHSL; Epping Town Records, vol. 1, p. 62, NHSL; Newmarket Town Records, vol. 1, p. 167, NHSL; Greenland Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 85, 90, NHSL; Nottingham Town Records, vol. 9 1

4, p. 125, NHSL; Keene Town Records, U. 0, 09, NHSL; Portsmouth Town Records, vol. 2, pt. 2, 314A-315B; Poplin Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 47-40, NHSL; Brentwood Town Records, vol. 1, p. 206, NHSL; Hollis Town Records, vol. 4, pp. 261-262, NHSL.

55. Portsmouth Town Records. vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 312A- 316B. Quotation From p. 312A. Those who dissented were Daniel Humphry and John Sparhawk. There were dissenters in other towns also: William Pottle, Stephen M— ston, and Jonathan Leavit in Stratham; Stephen Lylord in New Market.

56 Keene Town Records, vol. D, p. 09, NHSL. Collections □ F the Massachusetts Historical Societu. 4th ser. , vol. 4, C10501:200-201.

57. Portsmouth Town Records. vol. 2, p t . 2, pp. 301A- 303B; Wilton Town Records, vol. 1, p. 160, NHSL; Governor Wentworth to the Earl of Dartmouth, NHSP. 7:411; Peter Force, camp. American Archives:_____Fourth Series- Containing a Documentaru Historu oF the Enolish Colonies in North America. From the Kinn’s Messaoe to Parliament, oF March 7. 1774. to the Declaration of IndeDendence bu the United States, E vols. CWashington, D.C., 1043; reprint ed., New York, 19721, 1:397.

50 . Wilton Town Records, vol. 1, p. 16B, NHSL; Joseph B. Walker, The New Hampshire Covenant oF 1774” Granite Monthlu. 35 CDctober 19031: 100-197; Henneker Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 57-50, NHSL; PlainField Town Records, vol. 3, p. 58, NHSL; Mason Town Records, vol. 1, p. 223, NHSL; Keene Town Records, vol. 0., pp. Bl-02, NHSL; JaFFrey Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 30-31, NHSL; Hanover Town Records, vol. 1, p. 209, NHSL; Charles C. Coffin, The Historu of Boscawen and Webstsr From 1733 to 1070. CConcord, N.H., 10701, pp. 106-107; Town Meeting Warrant, July 23, 1774, Hill Town Records, Box 079012, NHA; Concord Covenant, Concord Town Papers, Box B75021 CA1, NHA. If other towns discussed the Covenant, records have not been found.

59. Plainfield Town Records, vol. 3, p. 5B, NHSL. 95

BO. Mason Town Records, vol. 1, p. 540, NHSL.

61. Nbui Hampshire Gazette. December 15, 1774.

B5. Governor John Wentworth to General Gage, December 14 and December IB, 1774, NHSP, 7:450, 455.

63. Page, ’’What Happened to the King’s Powder,” pp. 50- 33.

B 4 . Governor John Wentworth to the Earl of Dartmouth, July 13, 1774, NHSP. 7:411. CHAPTER III

TOWNS CONSIDER THEIR OPTIONS

Whereas the American Continental Congress have BnterBd into, and recommended to their Constituents in thB respective Colonies, a Non-Importation, and Non-Consumption Agreement; thB punctual Performance of which, is very important and necessary under the distressing and alarming Situation of these Colonies. It is therefore earnestly recommended to the respective Towns in this Government, immediately to appoint Committees to see that the same Agreement be directly adhered to, and faithfully executed. By order of the Provincial Committee John Wentworth, Chairman Portsmouth, November 30,1774*

John Wentworth’s notice, published in the New Hampshire Gazette, and followed closely by his call for elections to the Second Provincial Congress, forced New Hampshire towns into a renewed process of decision­

making. The period, which lasted approximately nine months, was marred by sporadic acts of violence. Residents were torn between their concerns for their rights as Englishmen and their desire for law and order, between accepting the direction of the Provincial Congresses or trusting the wisdom of the British

government. For most of the period, the Provincial Congresses actively courted the support of the towns, while thB Governor chose to remain silent. Ironically, 94

Governor Wentworth’s actions ended this period and he make the decision For the towns. By leaving the colony in August 1775, he told the towns that they would have a revolutionary government or none at all. In the Winter of 1774, men who looked to their Governor For leadership in the continuing crisis with Great Britain were disappointed. Governor Wentworth had

not called a new Assembly, nor did he make ang public pronouncements regarding the recommendations oF t h B

Continental Congress or t h B call For t h e Second Provincial Congress. Privately hB expressed his Feelings to the Earl oF Dartmouth. So grBat is the present delusion, that most people receive them lithe recommendations oF the Continental Congress! as matters oF obedience, not oF considerate examination, whereon they may exercise their own Judgment.2

Governor Wentworth was incorrect in his assessment. Throughout the colony men had been trying to understand their rights and had been weighing the consequences oF their actions to deFBnd them. In the height oF the tea crisis Hinsdale, a Massachusetts border town, adopted a series oF resolutions critical oF the Tea Resolves being adopted by many other towns. Recognizing that some merchants might bB tempted to protest against the Tea Act because they stood to loss Financially, Hinsdale voters 95

contended that it is the Indispensable duty of every member of Society having Certain Knowledge uihat Rights and Privileges appertain to him to Exert himself to Perserve those Rights and Privileges uihsn ever thBy are in danger of being Ulrested from him but until he Knows what Rights and Privileges belong to him he ought not to Interpose in Political Hatters but industriously persue the Common and Ordinary Business of his Calling and Endeavour to Cultivate Urbanity and Social Harmony.^

The Hinsdale Resolves were printed in the New Hampshire Gazette and they were followed by other newspaper articles urging caution and restraint. These articles became more frequent after the attack on Castle William and Hary. "Amicus Patrie” worried that King George III would think that New Hampshire residents were disloyal when their main complaint was against Parliament. "Excubitor” cautioned against the excessive use of the symbols of opposition, like liberty polBS, fearing that they might alienatB the Crown. The "Spectator,” in a letter addressed to a "Former Friend,” analyzed the American position on taxation and accused the colonies of trying to enslave the mother country.1* Newspaper articles advocating restraint were in the minority. Almost every issue of the New Hampshire

Gazette contained several notices of private individuals or public officials being openly harassed for supporting

British government policies. Host of thB incidents occurred outside of New Hampshire. However, by SB

reprinting them, the Gazette defined for its readers what was considered acceptable behavior in thB defense of rights from Massachusetts Bay to thB Carolinas.^ Uithin New Hampshire, mobs forced Captain Isaac Jones of Portsmouth and Elisha Marsh of Walpole to sign statements recanting their former position on the salB and use of tea. In Amherst, the shire town of Hillsborough County, 400 to 500 men ’’visited” Joshua Atherton, a lawyer who was accused of having tried to prevent the election of a delegate to the First

Provincial Congress, and did not disband until he treated them all to a drink. Reluctant ’’visitors,” like Matthew Patten, a Justice of the Peace from Bedford, were bullied into visiting Atherton out of fear of being visited themselves. In Kingston eighty Sons of Freedom helped an English peddler from Boston burn his thirty-seven pounds of tea rather than ”be carted to Amesbury in a horse cart.”6 Not even Governor Wentworth was spared from verbal attack. After he secretly helped recruit carpenters from the Uiolfeborough area to build barracks for General Gage’s troops in Boston, the Portsmouth Ways and Means Committee published an article in the Gazette characterizing the Governor as ’’cruel and unmanly,” ”mBan and low," and "an Enemy . . . to the Community." The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee was Hunking 7 Wentworth, thB Governor’s uncle. 97

In Rochester, the Committee of Correspondence Forced Nicholas Austin, Governor Wentworth’s accomplice in the carpenters incident, to kneel beFore the assembled group and confess his errors. His testimony showed clearly that the Governor intended to deceive. Both Austin's confession and the record oF the meeting were published g in thB Gazette. Waters in three Hillsborough County towns, New Boston, Francestouin, and Hollis, were disgusted with such incidents of mob rule, Fearing that it could lead to a collapse oF law and order in their communities. They voiced their displeasure by Formally adopting resolutions in which they promised to support the enforcement of the law by the current civil officers and to

. . bear Testimony against all unlawful Proceedings of unjust and inconsiderate llsn, congregating together Cas they pretend) to maintain their Liberties and very audaciously trample under Foot they very Law of Liberty itself, and madly destroy that Jewel which is so exceeding precious to our American Land.9

The New Boston, Francestouin, and Hollis Resolves were almost identical and were adopted between October 51 and November 7, 1774. While there is no evidence of an intBr- town meeting, the similarity of the Resolves suggests that they uere the result of a circular letter or some ether form of intei— town communication. Their naturB reflected the area’s strong commitment to an orderly and law abiding society. SB

fit thB same time that Hollis was considering its

Rb s o Iv b s , all Hillsborough County towns werB debating an

invitation to attend a county-wide congress, now called the First Hillsborough County Congress, to be held at Amherst on November B, 1774. The call originated with an AmhBrst committee composed of Paul Dudley Sargeant, David

Campbell, and Benjamin Kendrick. The thrBB w b t r

instructed by their town to use their utmost efforts to diffuse peace and good order throughout the County, and excite in the minds of people a due respect to all Just measures that may be recommended by thB present Grand n Congress at Philadelphia. . . .1

Hollis voted to send three delegates to the Amherst meeting. Henneker, Lyndeborough, Mason, and New Boston also voted to attend the First Hillsborough County Congress. These towns’ instructions to their delegates reveal that regardless of the two-fold purpose of the meeting— peace and good order and the recommendations oF the Continental Congress— the towns wanted only to discuss the threat to local authority. Aware that England would retaliate if mobs destroyed public or private property, they feared that a continuation of ’’unlawful combinations” would ”... tempt the authority of Great Britain to wrest from [New Hampshire! that invaluable Blessing we now enjoy which our Sister Province Cthe Massachusetts Bay! is Deprived of." 11 The only known delegate to the first Hillsborough 3 9

County Congress with experience at the provincial level was Paul Dudley Sargeant, uiho had represented AmhBrst at the First Provincial Congress. He alone may have realized the significance of the recommendations of the Continental Congress. No minutes of the First Hillsborough County Congress have survived. Consequently no town actions can be directly traced to recommendations From the meeting. Perhaps because the towns could not agree on the agenda, nothing was done. The Congress, itselF, however, is not insignificant. It set up a county congress system that rivaled Exeter and Portsmouth as a source to which towns could turn for mutual support and direction. At least two more Hillsborough County Congresses met. Cheshire and Grafton Counties patterned l? meetings in their area on the Hillsborough model. While Governor Wentworth probably was encouraged by the conservative tone of the Francestown, New Boston, and

Hollis Rb s o Iv b s , he was discouraged by some towns’ responses to the recommendations of the Continental Congress. Before Chairman John Wentworth published his appeal for their acceptance in thB New Hampshire Gazette. Durham and Portsmouth held town meetings to implement the Continental Association. They were followed by Exeter, Greenland, Kingston, Newmarket, Epsom, and Hawke. All published the minutes of their town meetings in the Gazette.13

Colony residents were well aware oF the proceedings 100

of the Continental Congress. Since October of 177H the

Nbuj Hampshire Gazette had dBvoted a large portion of each issue to the Congress. It had published the recommendations and all addresses to the King, and to the

British, and American people. At the timB oF the

UlBntwarth letter, it was in the process of publishing the names oF all the delegates and the minutBS oF the meetings at which they were elected. 14 Thirty-Four towns adapted the recommendations oF the Continental Congress respecting the importing or the using of British goods prior to the meeting oF thB Second Provincial Congress. All appointed a committee to implement thB Continental Association, generally called the Committee oF Inspection. 15 Those towns which speciFied the Function oF the committee took advantage oF the situation with Great Britain to address local problems related to peace and good ordBr. Durham, Somersworth, and Portsmouth expected their Committees oF Inspection to ”. . . make it their Especial Care and Endeavour that Every Prevailing vice and Immorality, be Supres^. . . .” They cautioned against ’’gaming,” ’’billards and cards,” "dissipation,” ’’tavern haunting,” and ’’idleness.” Kingston, NewmarkBt, and Epsom voters were more concerned with "HawkBrs, PBddlers and Pettychapmen with thBir Lawns, Cambricks, Ribbons, etc. tempting Women Girls and Boys with their unnecessary Fineries. ...” They passed resolutions to 101

kBep itinerant salesmen out of their communities under 1G penalty of confiscation of their goods. Because of its local orientation, the acceptance cf the Continental Association and the establishment oF a Committee of Inspection seemed logical and appropriate to men of all political persuasions. It was a non-violent Form of inter-colonial collective action, and thus socially acceptable to those who abhorred the mob action inimical to the social order. Moreover, it was a kind of action that had been used successfully against the Stamp and Townshend Acts. While Governor Wentworth regretted the colony’s submission to pressure from other colonies, high government officials like Councilor John Sherburne and Representatives Jacob Sheafe and Woodbury Langdon supported the action. They served on Portsmouth town 17 committees to implement the Continental Association. Those towns that had not adopted the Continental Association before the Second Provincial Congress, tallied the number of towns that had made their decisions and now took similar actions. New Ipswich voters instructed their delegate Deacon Isaac Appleton, "That he make Enquiry whether the Towns in general have accepted the Result of Congress.” The answer must have been satisfactory; New Ipswich established its Committee of R Correspondence and Inspection in March. 1° The Committees of Inspection had broad powers. They were to ensure that no goods originating from Britain or 102

Ireland uere ta be imparted, said, ar consumed in their tours, including any East India Company tea, and all

’’Molasses, Syrups, . . . CoFFb b . . . Pimento . . . UinBs or Indigo” From British island possessions. They uere to make sure that no one From their town engaged in the slave trade or exported sheBp to the West Indies.1® Committees From one town met with those From another to determine the origin oF goods For sale. Under the guise oF eliminating vice, committees were authorized to investigate the private and public lives oF townsmen. In the coming months, these committees would assume more authority, raising the issue oF the abuse oF power. Aware oF this possibility, the Continental Congress stated that the Committees oF Inspection were to ”. . . be chosen . . by those who are qualiFied to vote For Representatives in the Legislature.” This would keep the enormous powBr oF the committees in the hands oF the morB responsible segments oF society, those accustomed to the exercisB oF authority,20 The invitation to attend the Second Provincial Congress Forced towns to choose between thB Committee oF Correspondence and the Governor. In issuing the call, John Wentworth used the title "chairman" and reFerred to the authority granted to thB Provincial Committee. Any misconception towns may have had over who was responsible For the Provincial Congresses should have been clariFied 103

by the wording of thB call. Towns now knew that the First Provincial Congress was not endorsed by the entire

General Court, the Ho u s b , Council, and Governor, but was called by thB Committee of Correspondence. Towns entered into the discussion and made their decision knowing that their action would alienate their Governor. Yet there is no record of a town that attended the First Provincial Congress refusing to participate in the Second because it felt that it had been deceived by the Committee of

Correspondence.21

The purpose of thB Second Provincial Congress was to elect delegates to the Second Continental Congress scheduled to meet on May 10, 1775. The Congress would be canceled if Britain repealed the tax an tea, curtailed the powers of the Uice-Admiralty Courts and repealed the Intolerable Acts. New Hampshire residents expected PP Parliament to act an the colonists’ requests in March. John Wentworth presided over the one day meeting, held on January 25, 1775. John Giddinge continued as Treasurer. The representatives elected John Sullivan and John Langdon, Woodbury Langdon’s younger brother, delegates to the Continental Congress. Langdon was a merchant whose only legislative experience was in the First Provincial Congress. He had been actively involved in the protest over the Tea Act, was a member of the Portsmouth Committee of Inspection, and is among those 101

who havs been positively identified as having takBn part in the raid on CastlB William and Hary. Wentworth, Nathaniel Folsom, Heshech WBare, Josiah Bartlett, Christopher Toppan, Ebenezer Thompson, and William Whipple were authorized to call another Congress if they felt it was necessary. The same men with the addition of Samuel Cutts and John Pickering were designated the pq provincial Committee of Correspondence.— □nly Pickering and Whipple had not been members of the Assembly dissolved by Governor Wentworth; Pickering had, however, been a member of the first two Committees of Correspondence. Whipple, a Portsmouth merchant, had been captain of a vessel involved briefly in the slave trade. He was SamuBl Cutts's cousin and was married to Catherine hoffat, the daughter of a prominent Portsmouth merchant.PI As the crisis with Great Britain deepened, Whipple Joined with leading Portsmouth merchants— John SherburnB, Jacob Sheafe, Samuel Cutts, Hunking Wentworth, and John Langdon— to protect the interests of the local mercantile community. At the time of the Townshend Acts, he had served on a committee to insure that outsiders did not bring merchandise to Portsmouth for sale in violation of local policies. He was a member of the group that arranged for the transfer of Portsmouth’s quota of East India tBa to Halifax, thus avoiding violence in thB town. He supported aid to Boston and was on the 105

Committee of Inspection to enforce the Continental Association.^ Nathaniel Folsom and Meshech Weare were also new to the Committee of Correspondence. Folsom, an ExBter merchant, had been one of New Hampshire’s delegates to the First Continental Congress. Weare, a Hampton Falls lawyer, was well known throughout the colony. A Harvard

graduate, he was first elected to the Assembly in 1745. He was a Justice of thB Peace, and had represented New Hampshire at the Albany Congress.^®

Folsom and UJeare may have been added to the Committee of Correspondence so that the group would represent the views of two opposing factions. During the meeting John Sullivan, supported by John Langdon, Nathaniel Folsom, Stephen Boardman, and others, lobbied For a petition to Governor Wentworth asking him to call a new Assembly and to keep it in session no matter what action the delegates might take. heshech Weare, along with John Hale of Hollis and Paine Wingate of Hampton Falls, opposed the movement. They contended that developing a petition to the Governor would bB illegal because the delegates were convened for one purpose only— the election of delegates to the Continental Congress. Sullivan is reputed to have replied ”. . . that their wholB meeting was unlawful, and therefore might do onB thing as well as another.” Weare and his supporters prevailed on this issue. The petition to Governor 106

Wentworth never materialized.07 The Congress did adopt a resolution supporting the recommendations oF thB Continental Congress. This was Foilcued by a long letter addressed "To thB Inhabitants oF thB Province oF Nbw Hampshire,” signed by John Wentworth, President, citing as his authority The

Convention. The address uas published in the Nbui

Hampshire Gazette on February 3, 1775.50 President WBntworth courtBd the support oF the towns by careFully constructing the recommendations in the address to appeal to the widest possible audience. He repeated the essential points oF the Continental Congress’s recommendations: towns should establish Committees oF Correspondence and Inspection, promote home manuFacturing, and continue to aid Boston; individuals should avoid thB use oF East India Company tea, and merchants should not take advantage oF a scarcity oF imported goods by raising their prices. Wentworth incorporated into the document the concerns For "peace and good order” expressed by towns attending thB First Hillsborough County Congress. He urged citizens to avoid all "disorders oF Bvery kind” and to ”. . . yield due obedience to thB Magistrates within this Government, and careFully endeavor to support the laws thereof." Also incorporated were the seacoast area towns’ recommendations against vicB, extravagance, pQ hawkers, peddlers, and petty-chapmen. 107

Far those concerned with the security of the colony, thB Congress recommended that current militia officers comply with existing military training laws, for . the Militia upon this Continent, if properly disciplined, would he able to do great service in its defense, should it Bver be invaded by his Majesty’s enemies.” Men were urged to ”. . . aquaint. . . Cthemselvesl with the manual exercise, . . . the motions being natural, easy, and best

calculated to qualify persons for real action.” In addressing the towns' concerns far peace and good order, prices, defense, and itinerant merchants, the Second Provincial Congress now assumed a major function of government. It became an organization to which the

towns could look for guidance, counsel, and authority. Delegates like New Ipswich’s Isaac Appleton returned home not only with answers to specific questions, but also with a sense that their towns had contributed to the development of the document. Deacon Appleton had been instructed to ”... use his endeavour that the Province be put in a State of Defense and that the Deputies when met at Exeter do recommend such Manual Exercise as they shall think proper.”3 1 After reading the address ”To the Inhabitants of the

Province of Nbw Hampshire” in thB newspaper, Governor Wentworth was certainly aware that the Provincial Congress had exceeded its stated purpose. A group of 144 men duly elected by their towns had assumed the right to 10B

make recommendations For the entirB colony and cleverly made Governor Wentworth responsible For thBir actions. In the address "To the Inhabitants, ” President John Wentworth reminded New Hampshire citizens that because the Governor had dissolved the Assembly "... For near ten months past you have been deprived oF any share in your own Government, and oF those advantages which Flow 32 to society From Legislative Assemblies. . . MindFul that iF he was to maintain control over the colony he would have to exert his authority quickly, Governor Wentworth issued election writs For a new Assembly. Elections were held in February For an Assembly scheduled to meet hay 4, 1775. The time spread between election and meeting was a deviation From past practice. Generally elections were held a month beFore a new Assembly convened. Governor Wentworth may have hoped that the election oF representatives would be an outward sign of his control ovBr the colony. IF his supporters were elected, they could act as a mediating Force within the towns. Furthermore, with delegates elected and ready to meet, the Governor could not be accused oF denying the blessings oF government to his people. The promise oF a General Assembly did not help Hillsborough County towns grappling with problems in their communities which were exacerbated by the conditions in nearby Massachusetts Bay. The recommendations oF the Continental Congress and the New 103

Hampshire Provincial Congress provided guidelines, but they ' lacked interpretations and the means For enforcement. To seek solutions for county problems, Benjamin Kendrick and David Campbell, using the authority delegated to them by the town of Amherst, called the Second Hillsborough County Congress. The purpose of the

April 5, 1775, meeting uias to determine what measures should be taken by the county towards Massachusetts Bay ”in case the cloud should break on that Province First,” what relationship people within the county ought to have with each other, and what recommendations ought to be given to the county's lawyers regarding court cases involving people from New Hampshire and Massachusetts

B a y .33 The towns’ instructions to their delegates and the minutes of thB meeting exemplified the frustrations of the towns as they attempted to preserve law and order, solve regional problems, and defend their rights. Hollis voters felt that if the county opened negotiations with

Massachusetts Bay, it might weaken the authority of the provincial Committee of Correspondence. They also felt that the recommendations made by the Second Provincial Congress regarding peacB and harmony . . to be as good a Method as any we can Prescribe." Wilton’s voters agreed that there was a problem in the county with "Supressing Riots or Mobs." Their delegates were 110

instructed to lobby for a petition to Governor Wentworth "Enquiring after the Bonds of Some Officers of the County.” Wilton expected local officials, especially *3U those appointed by the Governor, to preserve the peace. Representatives of seventeen towns attended the Congress. The First day of the meeting, the group voted to accept the recommendations of the Continental Congress. Dr. Jonathan Grove of New Boston and Esquire Quigley of Francestouin objected. Grove’s dissent was not

considered serious enough to keep him off a seven-man committee to prepare resolutions for the group to consider. The resolutions restated the Continental Congress’s charges against "Routs, Riots, or licentious attacks upon the person or property of any person,” and called For "military training once a week at least.” It was well known that the Durham militia, under John Sullivan, had been training weekly since March. The increased military training prompted a debate in the New Hampshire Gazette between Sullivan and "Monitor,” who claimed that Sullivan was violating the law by conducting military training more than four times a year. The Hillsborough Congress, however, chose to follow Sullivan’s example.35 Deacon Stephen Jewett from Hollis, Daniel Kendal from Litchfield, and Grove were appointed a committee to meet with local lawyers requesting that they refrain from suits against New Hampshire residents in the Massachusetts Bay court system until thB courts operated Ill

□n a freer bases. The committee reported that the lawyers agreed to the congress’s recommendations. 36 The delegates selected Captain John Stark CDerryfield), Paul Dudley Sargeant, and David Campbell to writB a letter to the people of Massachusetts Bay outlining the difficulties that residents of Hillsborough County were having in collecting debts owed to them by Bay Province residents and asking that Massachusetts citizens take that into consideration when they attempted to collect money owned to them. The Remonstrance was to be published in the Essex Gazette and a Boston newspaper. The same committee was instructed to prepare two petitions to the New Hampshire General Court— one dealing with credit, the other requesting two sessions af 37 the Superior Court at Amherst instead of one. It is unlikely that the Remonstrance or the petitions wsre written. Shortly after the meeting thB ’’cloud burst” over Massachusetts Bay with the battles at Lexington and Concord. A shocked David Campbell and Jonathan Martin prefaced the call for the Third Hillsborough County Congress with ”... God forbid! Let every Brest swell with Disdain an the Impious thought. The British troops have invaded every sacred Right of Nature.”38 ThB purpose of thB Third Congress was to discuss appointing a Committee of Correspondence to communicate with Boston, to adopt measures to provide for the 112

security of the county and tc enforce the Continental Association. Again Hollis voters were concerned that creating a county Committee of Correspondence might undercut the provincial committee. In a town meeting they "Uoted unanimously that as we have a Provincial congress now sitting which will doubtless send to them- therefore it appears to us not best for this county to take it upon them to send such a committee.” The Hollis •ag view would prevail. When the county Congress met again on May 2*i, the members re-affirmed their pledge to enforce the recommendations of the Continental Congress and thB two towns which had not selected a Committee of Safety promised to do so. The main agenda itBm was the creation of a county Committee of Safety. The fifteen man committee was "to act on any affairs that comB before them . . . til further orders.”1*0 The Hillsborough County Congresses typified the decision making process all towns went through in deciding what position to take relative to the Continental Congress, the Provincial Congresses, and local problems. Throughout the colony towns met in groups to discuss areas of common concern. This resulted in demi-centers of authority in Amherst, Kb b h b , Plainfield, Lebanon, Walpole, and Haverhill. At times these centers challenged both Portsmouth and Exeter for control of parts of the colony. 113

New Hampshire reacted swiftly tc the news of the bloodshed at Lexington and Concord. Local histories are full of stories of exhausted couriers speeding through towns on horseback spreading the word; of farmers dropping their plows, running for their guns and horses, and rushing to Massachusetts Bay; of women up all night packing lunches and other provisions; of tearful goodbys and foreboding thoughts. 4 1

The provincial Committee of Correspondence received the news on April 20, during its meeting in Durham. It dispatched Alexander Scammell, John Sullivan’s law clerk, to Boston to gather the latest intelligence. In a terse note John Wentworth, Chairman of the Provincial Committee of Correspondence, issued a call for the Third Provincial Congress to be held the next day to determine ’’measures necessary for our safety.”HP

In light of the emergency, many selectmen dispensed with the usual warrant, spread the word as best they could, and convened the meeting to select delegates. On April 21, representatives of thirty-four towns met in Exeter. They voted on two items only. Nathaniel Folsom was placed in charge of all New Hampshire men going into Massachusetts Bay and Josiah Bartlett and Theophilus Oilman CExBter) were sent to the Massachusetts Provincial

Congress to determine how many men Nbw Hampshire should raise. When Scammell returned with the news that the colony was not in danger of being attacked, the Congress 114

adjourned to the 25th. Representatives of thirty-five additional towns joined the Congress at its next meeting. This was the largest group of representatives convened to date. The Congress included a few men who had marched with their town’s unit to Lexington and Concord and many more whose sons had responded to the alarm. Despite having had first hand information on the situation in Massachusetts Bay, not one of those men was appointed to any uu committee. Only two first-time delegates, Wyseman Claggett and Matthew Thornton, received any assignments. While they

WBre new to the Provincial Congress movement, they WBre well known in the Portsmouth community and to Governor Wentworth. Claggett, who was educated at the Inns of

Court in London, had practiced law in Portsmouth until he moved to Litchfield. Between 17B7 and 1769, he had been thB King’s Attorney General. Thornton, a physician from Londonderry, had previous legislative experience. At the time the colony was divided into counties, Governor Wentworth had appointed him Chief Justice for the Court of Common Pleas for Hillsborough County. The Congress concerned itself only with military matters. It requested towns to store foodstuff--’’Biscuit

Flower and pork”— and to raise units of Minute Mb h . It formed a committee to purchase arms and ammunition to ssll to towns needing them, and it selected Nathaniel 11.5

Folsom, John Giddinge, and Josiah Bartlett to correspond with Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and othBr colonies to secure information on the raising of

troops.46 ThB most controversial item on the agenda mas Massachusetts Bay’s request that the New England colonies raise a 30,000 man army of observation. The Third Provincial Congress votBd that while it would not

discourage men who wished to Join Massachusetts units, it could not promise to raise an army because not all New 47 Hampshire towns were represented at the Congress. The delegates returned their homes in early May. Some would be returning to Exeter on May 17 for the Fourth Provincial Congress, which had been scheduled before the battles at Lexington and Concord necessitated calling the Third Provincial Congress. Some men were scheduled to travel to Portsmouth to attend the General Assembly. People in some areas of the colony feared that Governor Wentworth would postpone the Assembly, hut it met as scheduled on May 4 and had a quorum on May 5. The representatives unanimously elected John Wentworth

UR Speaker and his election was approved by the Governor. In his opening address, Governor Wentworth appealed to the Assembly as ’’the only constitutional and legal

Representatives of the People” and pledged that ”. . . you may entirely rely on my most ardent zeal to co­ operate with you in whatever constitutional measures may 116

be Found to accomplish. . . a Restoration of our Harmony with Great Britain.”1*^ Governor Wentworth had high hopes For a very cooperative Assembly . He had Formulated a two-part plan which, iF successFul, would remove those in opposition to him From the Assembly, and add new members who would support his views. The First part oF the plan called For the arrest oF all representatives who had taken part in the raid on Castle William and Mary. Because Governor Wentworth knew that the militia and the population would protest and perhaps prevent the seizure oF the representatives, he arranged For the arrests to be made by British troops sent to Portsmouth From Boston. The plan had the Full support oF the both the King and his agent Lord Dartmouth. They encouraged Wentworth to consider sending the accused men to England to insure that they would receive a Fair trial . The First part oF Governor Wentworth’s plan Failed when General Gage reFused to send troops to Portsmouth. Nathaniel Folsom, Josiah Bartlett, and Henry Prescott took their assembly seats unmolested. John Langdon and John Sullivan were attending the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, and WBre out oF reach oF the Governor.^ We don’t know whether Folson, Bartlett, Prescott, Sullivan and Langdon suspBcted that they might be arrested. However, Folson and Bartlett probably resented the Governor when thBy took their seats and were not 117

prone to cooperate with him. As part of his plan to punish those who had taken part in the raid on the Fort, Governor Wentworth stripped participants oF their appointive oFFices. Both Folsom and Bartlett were removed as Justices oF the Peace For Rockingham County, which resulted in a loss oF this source oF income.

Bartlett also lost a militia appointment.^1 When the Assembly met the Governor believed that the second part oF his plan, packing the Assembly with delegates Favorable to him, had a chance oF success. During the election process Wentworth issued writs to three GraFton County towns— Lyme, OrFord, and Plymouth. No Grafton County towns had been represented in previous Assemblies, though both OrFord and Plymouth had petitioned For representation in the 1774 Assembly. Shortly aFter Plymouth held its election, thB town published its instructions to its delegate, John Fenton, in the New Hampshire Gazette. The instructions were similar in tone to the New Boston, Francestown and Hollis Resolves, although they did contain a recommendation For public galleries in the assembly room. More signiFicantly, they alerted towns to the Fact that Governor Wentworth issued writs to new towns without consulting the Assembly.

When thB General Court met, a group oF Portsmouth voters sent a petition to the Assembly protesting Governor Wentworth’s actions. Signed by Fifty-nine 11B

residents, the petition declared as there is no Legal Authority vested in any separate Branch or Branches of the Legislature of the government to issue such writs, we apprehend the exercise of such authority . . . not only unwarranted by the British Constitution & the Laws oF this Province, but in its consequences subversive of both, and pregnant with many alarming evils.^

ThB Assembly, which had Just created a committee to answer the Governor’s opening message, created a second committee to address the issue of the three new towns. Undoubtedly Governor Wentworth issued writs to Lyme, OrFord, and Plymouth suspecting that they would elBct delegates who would support his recommendations. However, his action reopened a controversy that transcended political Factionalism. Not since 17*10 had a New Hampshire governor unilaterally issued election writs to previously unrepresented towns, and that time thB House had refused to admit the new members.^ The composition oF the committee to examine the admission oF the three new towns reFlected the seriousness oF this issue and its importance to the whole

Ho u s b . Two oF the Governor’s strongest supporters— Jacob SheaFe and Woodbury Langdon— were members. They were Joined by John Giddinge, Josiah Moulton, Jr. CHampton), and Caleb Hodgdon CDover5 . In the report they presented to the Assembly, they argued that it is a settled Rule Cas we apprehend) that every House oF Assembly has a Right to regulate 119

itself, and their indispensable duty to prevent any BncroachmBnts bBing made on their Privileges, and as the Governor sending Writs without the concurrence of ths other Branches of the Legislature to Towns that had not been allowed to send members appears to us a manifest breach thereof and directly contrary to thB Spiright CSpiritl and design of thB English Constitution. . . .55

CEbenezerl Greene of Lyme and Israel Morey of Orford prudently chose not to travel to Portsmouth to claim their Assembly seats. John Fenton, a former British army officer, lived in Portsmouth and wanted to be seatBd. By Spring 1775, Fenton was anathema in several areas of the colony. Shortly after the battle at Lexington and Concord, Fenton wrote a letter to the people of Grafton County, urging them not to abandon their Farms, but to continue to produce food ”to supply the wants of your fellow men down country.” He concluded with ”1 am informed that should the People From the Back Settlements takB up arms— a number of Indians and Canadians will fall upon them. . . .” Fenton’s reference to a possible Canadian attack needlessly terrorized Grafton County residents who had feared such an event since the passage of the Quebec Act.57

In its meeting, the Fourth Provincial Congress also discussed the admission of the three new towns to the General Assembly. The Congress argued that Establishing such a precedent may leave room for some Designing Governor to occasion a very partial Representation of thB People by sending tD small ISO

CO Towns and omitting large ones. . . .

The Congress recommended that the Assembly refuse to seat the representatives. When the General Assembly heard the report they had commissioned and the recommendation of the Fourth Provincial Congress, the representatives voted "clearly” not to seat the delegates from the new towns. With that vote, the second part of Governor Wentworth’s plan failed.^ Lacking the presumed help of Greene, Dorey, and Fenton, Governor Wentworth placed before the House Lord North’s Conciliatory Proposal, accompanied by a strong recommendation for its acceptance. The North Proposal provided for tax relief for any colony which would tax itself for its share of the defense of the continent and would provide for the permanent salaries of government officials. This was a divide and conquer tactic. No longer would there be one imperial policy for all colonies, but individual policies for particular colonies. The House was expecting the North Proposal and already knew its contents. The Nbw Hampshire Gazette had printed an article on the proposal in its April 21, 1775, issue.GO The Reverend Paine Wingate, one of Hampton Falls’ delegates to the Second and Fourth Provincial Congresses, developed a proposal to implement the North Plan. The Wingate proposal was based on the fear that 121

Should we entirely disregard the motion it might very probably answer North’s end he wished for. He might then say he made an oFFBr and w b would neither accept of that or make another

He recommended that the colonies oFfer . . to contribute their Full proportion oF the national expenses attending to their common defense.” In addition, UJingate proposed that a Formula be developed which would calculate revenue Britain received From each colony as a result of the acts of Trade and Navigation. This sum would be factored in when determining a colony’s share of the common defense.^ UJingate Felt his proposal was a way to buy time. IF General Gage could be persuaded not to attack while the British government was discussing the proposal, tempers would have a chance to cool. UJhat he hoped was that ultimately the British people would recognize the reasonableness oF t h e American position and pressure t h B S3 North ministry For a changB in policy. UJingate sent a copy of his proposal to his brother- in-law Colonel Timothy PickBring of Salem, Massachusetts, who was a member of the Massachusetts Bay Council of UJar. UJingate planned to present his ’’healing plan” to the Fourth Provincial Congress and hoped that the proposal would bB presented to the New Hampshire and Massachusetts General Assemblies. How much support there was in New Hampshire For an attempted reconciliation with Great Britain after Lexington and Concord is unknown. 122

However, John Sullivan and John Langdon must have thought that there was a possibility of a proposal for they wrote to the provincial Committee oF Correspondence . . we Earnestly Entreat you to prevent our General Court from making any application to Great Britain for Redress of Grievances as that would Draw the Resentment of all America upon dut Province it being agreed that no one shall make terms without the CU advice & Consent of the whole. ^

It is possible that because of the continuing debate over Plymouth, Orford, and Lyme, the General Assembly never discussed Lord North’s Proposal or any other proposals. Governor Wentworth refused to accept the House's decision on the three towns and urged them to rescind their vote. The request prompted an exchange of letters between the House and the Governor focusing on constitutional issues, and was carried to the public in the pages of the New Hampshire Gazette. Neither side in

EC the conflict would change its position. On June 13, 1775, a highly irritated John Fenton appeared before the House, demanded his seat, and spoke in favor of Lord North’s proposal. News oF Fenton’s conduct in the assembly room quickly spread throughout Portsmouth. The same evening a crowd gathered and decided that Fenton should be takBn to Exeter to defend his actions before the provincial Committee of Safety. The mob found Fenton at Governor Wentworth’s home where he had been a dinner guest. When the crowd threatened violence to get Fenton out of the house, he surrendered 123

and Uias forced to walk to Exeter where he was put in jail. Terrified, Governor and Mrs. Wentworth grabbed their five month-old son, Charles-Mary, and fled to Castle William and Mary, three miles away from their home by water. By leaving Portsmouth, Governor Wentworth essentially abdicated. His concern for his family’s safety was understandable; however, Governor Wentworth may have been too hasty in assuming that he was in personal danger. The crowd that came to the Governor’s house wanted John Fenton, and they left when they got him. While Fenton was humiliated, he was not physically harmed. Throughout the entire war, there is no record of any high former New Hampshire royal official being placed in actual physical danger. A few, like Treasurer George Jaffrey, were forced temporarily to relocate, but most stayed in their own homes and politically fadBd. Had he stayed in Portsmouth, Governor Wentworth probably would have suffered the same fate. By choosing to leave Portsmouth when he did, UlBntworth told town officials, the Portsmouth Committee of Ways and Means, and county officials that he did not trust their ability to protect him and his family. His views did not necessarily reflect the views of Portsmouth officials. Members of various groups, regardless of political beliefs, had previously demonstrated their ability to work with each other and with the Governor to 154

preserve thB peace in Portsmouth. At thB vsry tims that ths Asssmbly and the Governor usrB lockBd in conflict ovsr ths admission of the three new towns, legislators, councilors, merchants, town officials, and the Committee of Ways and Means worked with the Governor to prevent possible riots when the British ships guarding Castle William and Mary began confiscating food intended for sale in Portsmouth. Under

orders from Admiral Graves and General Gage, the British diverted the food to Boston for use by the army and navy. To prevent townsmen from retaliating by attacking his ships from the castle, Captain Barclay, Commander of thB British ship Scarborough. ordered his men to destroy the breastwork at the fort.®^

The Assembly was not in session when Barclay bBgan seizing foodstuffs. That did not stop Portsmouth merchants who had ordered the food from appealing directly to the Governor for help. Governor Wentworth called together the Council and it agreed with the merchants that Barclay’s actions might result in riots once the people became aware of a possible food shortage. Governor Wentworth did not succeed in convincing Barclay to ignore the orders of his superiors and release thB food. However, thB Portsmouth Committee of Ways and Means was able to use the Governor’s efforts to defuse a mob of about 400 men from the countryside who CB swarmed into Portsmouth to protest thB British actions. 1E5

Earlier, Portsmouth residents had demonstrated thBir particular affection for the Governor and their determination to protect him From harm. Only a feu days after Lexington and Concord voters unanimously resolved That ue the Inhabitants of this Toun uil use our Utmost Endeavours to prevent any Insult from being offered to his Person or Dignity and that ue uill take Every Method in Our pouer to assist and Support him in the due and Legal Exercise of his Authority.

Residents of Neu Castle continued to seek Governor UJentuorth’s aid even as he languished in self-imposBd exile at Castle William and Mary. On the evening of August IE, 1775, Captain Barclay’s men attacked the toun’s night uatch, uounding one man and capturing another. Not knouing uhat elsB to do, the selectmen,

John Suispoon and Henry Prescott, urate to Governor Wentuarth:

the man uho is taken on Board has a Wife and six small Children, and in very poor Circumstances, his uife now great uith Child. ThBrBforB ue bBg your Excellencys interpositions in behalf of thB poor man uho is on Board. . . .

Wentuorth arranged a meeting on August 14, and the man uas released. While in exile at Fort William and Mary, Governor Wentuarth continued to communicate uith the Assembly through Theodore Atkinson, the seventy-eight-ysar— old Secretary of thB Colony. On July 15, 1775, WBntuorth, citing the House’s refusal to seat the threB neu members, 126

recessed the Assembly. It was never ta meet again. 71

HBanwhile, the Scarborough continued to confiscate Foodstuffs coming into Portsmouth and tried to prevent local Fishermen From augmenting the area’s Food supply. Seacoast residents retaliated by refusing to sell Barclay any Fresh mBat; by mid-August, Barclay considered returning to Boston for supplies. On August 17, Governor Wentworth wrote to the selectmen of New Castle asking them if the town could provision thB group at the castle— about twenty adults. Swispoon and Prescott responded, telling the Governor that the town could not provide him with Food, as residents were already being Farced to travel by land to Portsmouth to get what meager supplies they could. There was Just not enough food to spare.

When the Scarborough returned to Boston for supplies on August 23, 177S, the Wentworths were aboard. Royal 7P government in New Hampshire camB to and end. By leaving the colony, Governor Wentworth madB an important decision far New Hampshire towns. They would have a revolutionary government. His flight thrust the Fourth Provincial Congress into a period of crisis. It had developed a plan to finance and Fight a war, but it lacked a plan to govern the colony . A reluctant Congress now had to find a way to maintain peace and good order throughout the province. 127

Chapter Notes

1. Neu Hampshire Gazette. December 2, 1774

2. Governor John Wentworth to the Earl of Dartmouth, December 2, 1774, Nathaniel Bouton, et a l ., e d s ., ag.wmgnt;g and Records Relating £g New Hampshire. 1623- 1800. 40 vols. CConcord and Manchester, N.H., 1867-13433, 7:418, Chereafter cited as NH5P3 .

3. Jere R. Daniell, ’’Reason and Ridicule: Tea Act Resolutions in New Hampshire," Historical New Hampshire SO CWinter 19653:24.

4. New Hampshire Gazette. June 17, 1774, February 24, 1775, and March 17, 1775.

5. Ibid., December, 1773 to August, 1775, passim.

6. Ibid., April B, 1774, September 30, 1774, DctobBr 7, 1774; Matthew Patten, Diaru of Matthew Patten of Beford. N.H.. 1754-1788 CConcord. N.H., 18033, pp. 328-330; Samuel Sweet, Notebook, 1772-1774, n.p., Concord, N.H., New Hampshire Historical Society Chereafter cited as NHHS3.

7. New Hampshire Gazette. October 27, 1774.

B. Ibid., November 11, 1774.

8. New Hampshire Gazette. November 18, 1774 for the New Boston (source of quotation! and Francestown Resolves; February 10, 1775 for the Hollis Resolves. See also NHSP. 7:417 and the Hollis Town Records, vol. 4, pp. 247-248, Concord N.H., New Hampshire State Library Chereafter cited as NHSL.3

10. Amherst Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 241-242, NHSL; Although incomplete, the best description of the Hillsborough County Congresses is Eduard □. Boylston, Historical Sketch gf the Hillsborough Countu Congresses Held at Amherst CN.H.3 1774 & 1775 with Other Revolutionaru Records CAmherst, N.H., 18B43. 13B

11. Hollis Town Records, vol. 4, p. 547, NHSL; Henneker Town Records, vol. 1, p. 53, NHSL; Lyndeborough Town Records, vol. 5, pp. 535-335, NHSL; Nason Town Records, vol. 1, p. 535, NHSL; New Boston Town Records, vol. 1, p. 53 (source of quotation!, NHSL. Historians have considered the Hollis’ Resolves its instructions to its delegates to the Hillsborough Country Congress. It is more likely that attending the Congress and adopting the Rb s o Iv b s were two separate items that just happened to be discussed at the same town meeting. See Samuel T. Worchester, Historu oF the Town of Hollis. Neu Hampshire. From Its First Settlement to the Year. 1879 cNashua, N.H., 1B7S1, pp. 140-141; Samuel T. UJorchestBr, "Hollis, New- Hampshire, in the War of the Revolution,” New England Historical and Genealogical Record 30 CJuly 10761:HB3. Worchester in both his book and article misleads his readers by stating that the four separate resolves which compose the Hollis Resolves were "of . . . like tenor” of the first, the only one he prints. They were not. The First resolve has a definite patriotic ring, while the other three are very conservative.

13. Delegates to the First Hillsborough County Congress were Paul Dudley Sargeant, David Campbell, Benjamin Kendrick for Amherst; James Bowman For Henneker; Stephen jBwet, Stephen Ames, Reuben Dow For Hollis; David Badger For Lyndeborough; Abadiah Parker, JosBph Barrett for Nason; and Jonathan Gove (Grovel, George Christy for New Boston. See town records cited in Footnotes 10 and 11 above. Other towns which had men versed in the major issues of thB day elected other delegates or chose not to participate. Hollis, Lyndeborough, Temple, UJilton, Nason, Dunstable, Hopkinton, and Nerrimack sent delegates to the First Provincial Congress.

13. Governor John Wentworth to the Earl of Dartmouth, December 3, 1774, NH5P. 7:419; see the N b w Hampshire Gazette. December 3, 1774, for Durham; December 15, 1774, For Portsmouth; January 6, 1775, for Exeter; January 13, 1775, for Greenland and Kingston; January 30, 1775, For New Market and Epsom; and January 37, 1775, For Hawke (Danvillel. 129

14. Nbih Hampshire Gazette. November 1774 to December 1774, passim.

15. For towns in Rockingham County see Atkinson Town Records, vol. 1, p. 51, NHSL; Brentwood Town Records, vol 1, p. 206, NHSL; Candia Town Records, vol 1, p. 53, NHSL; Canterbury Town Records, vol. 3, p. 14, NHSL; Chester Town Records, vol. 2, p. 125, NHSL; Chichester Town Records, vol.2, p. IS, NHSL; Deerfield Town Records, vol. 1, p. 55, NHSL; Epping Town Records, vol. 1, p. 63, NHSL; Hampstead Town Records, vol. 1, p. 152, NHSL; Hawke Town Records, vol. 1, p. 91, NHSL; Kensington Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 157-158, NHSL; Newington Town Records, vol. 1, p. 52, NHSL; NewmarkBt Town Records, vol. 1, p. 158, NHSL; Nottingham Town Records, Uol. 4, p. 122; Pembrook Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 45-46, NHSL;Poplin Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 47-40, NHSL; U.S. Work Projects Administration, Portsmouth CN. H.3 Town Records. 4 vols, CPortsmouth, N.H., 19403, vol. 2, p t . 2, p. 319A; Sandown Town Records, vol. 1, p. 173, NHSL; Stratham Town Records, vol. 1, p. 417, NHSL; South Hampton Town Records, vol. 1, p. 107, NHSL. For Strafford County see Madbury Town Records, vol. 1, p. 55, NHSL; Sanbarton Town Records, vol. 1, 117, NHSL; Somersworth Town Records, vol. 1, p. 243, NHSL. For Hillsborough County see Amherst Town Records, vol. 1, p. 244, NHSL; Bedford Town Records, vol. 3, p. 126-127, NHSL; Boscawen Town Records, vol. 1, p. 11B, NHSL; Dunstable Town Records, vol. 3, p. 475, NHSL; Hollis Town Records, vol 4, pp. 251-252, NHSL; Hopkinton Town Records, vol. 2, pp. 137-13B, NHSL; Mason Town Records, vol. 1, p. 245, NHSL; UJilton Town Records, vol. 1, p. 1B0, NHSL. For Cheshire County see Keene Town Records, vol. 0, p. B3, NHSL; Packersfield Town Records, vol. 1, p. 57, NHSL. For Brafton County see Haverhill Town Records, vol. 2, p. 42

IB. Somersworth Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 243-244, NHSL. Portsmouth Town Records. vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 320A; New Hampshire Gazette. December 16, 1774, January 13, 1775, and January 20, 1775. The first quotation is from Somersworth Town Records, vol. 4, p. 243; the second From the Epsom Resolves in the New Hampshire Gazette. January 20, 1774. 130

17. See Portsmouth Town Records, vol. E, pt. S, pp. 317A- 3E0B. Hunking Wentworth signed the petition requesting a town meeting to vote on the Continental Association and Councilor John Sherburne served an thB committee to draft the resolutions. Hunking UJentworth, Woodbury Langdon, and Jacob SheaFe were members of the CommittBB of Inspection. Other men active in politics on the provincial level who were involved in implementing the Continental Association in Portsmouth were John Pickering, Samuel Cutts, John Langdon, Supply Clapp, and Samuel Hale. Langdon, Clapp, and Hale had been part of the Portsmouth delegation to the First Provincial Congress.

IB. New Ipswich Town Records, vol. S, pp. 19S, E07, NHSL.

13. NHSP. 7:427.

20. Ibid., 7:428.

21. See Somersworth Town Records, vol. 1, p. 242, NHSL, for the call for the Second Provincial Congress.

22. New Hampshire Gazette. March 24, 1775.

23. Ibid., February 3, 1775 and NHSP. 7:442-444. See Chairman John Wentworth to the Selectmen of UlolFeborough, n.d., for reference to John Giddinge as Treasurer of the Second Provincial Congress, Wolfeborough Town Records, vol. 1, p. 53, NHSL. No records have survived for the Second Provincial Congress. The New Hampshire Gazette reported that 144 men attended. The account did not include the names of the representatives, but the delegate list has been partially reconstructed. See Appendix B for a list of known delegates. One hundred thirty-three men representing sixty towns have been identified.

24. For biographical information about William UlhipplB see Charles H. Bell, Bench and Bar of New Hampshire CConcord, N.H., 1BS43, pp. 3B-33, and Arthur Little, "William Whipple, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Porcesdinos oF the New Hampshire Historical Societu 3 C1B95-1B995:31B-339. 131

55. Portsmouth Town Records. vol. a, p t . a, pp. aa7A, SH3C, 344A, EISA, 346A, 393A, 395B, 305B, 30BA, 309A, 31EB, 31SB, 317B, 319A.

36. For biographical information on Nathanisl Folsom see Henry Baker, ’’General Nathaniel Folsom,” Proceedings of the Neu Hampshire Historical Societu 4 C1B99-19051:E53- 367, and Cyrus P. Bradley, ’’Memoirs of General Nathaniel Folsom of Exeter, ” Collections of the N bw Hampshire Historical Societu 5 C1B371:31E-aBl; for Meshech Wears see Biographical Sketches of Graduates of Harvard Universitu. 1713-1771. CCambridge, Mass. and Boston, 1873-19751, 9:590- BOS; Bell, Bench and B a r . pp. ai-BE; and Avery J. Butters, ’’New Hampshire History and the Public Career of Meshech Uleare, 1713 to 17B6," CPh.D. dissertation, Fordham University, 1961.1

37. Charles E. L. Wingate. Life and Letters of Paine Wingate. one of the Fathers of the Nation. a vols., CMedford, Mass., 19301, 1:153-153. Charles Wingate incorrectly attributed the letter describing thB debate between MeshBch Weare and John Sullivan to Speaker John Wentworth in an attempt to prove that his ancestor and Wentworth had the same political philosophy. Avery Butters in an unpublished dissertation titled ’’New Hampshire History and the Public Career of Meshech lilaare, 1713 to 17B6” repeated the error on page 1E3. The lettBr was actually written by Governor John Wentworth to Thomas W. Waldron. See ’’Belknap Papers,” Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Societu. Sth Series 4 C18311:73- 74. Internal criticism should have indicated to Wingate and Butters that they were in error. The writer oF the letter says ”1 hear the proceedings at ExetBr are very warm. , . .” Somersworth's John Wentworth would hardly have described a meeting he chaired in those words.

2B. NHSP. 7:443-444.

39. Ibid., 7:443.

30. Ibid., 7:444.

31. Nbw Ipswich Town Papers, vol. a, p. 199, NHSL. 132

32. NHSP. 7:443.

33. Boylston, The Hillsborough Countu Conoresses. p. 14.

34. Ibid., p. 15; NHSP r 7:443; H d I H s Toun Records, vol. 4, p. 268 CsaurcB of first quotation!, NHSL; Wilton Toun Records, vol. 1, p. 187 (source of second quotation!, NHSL.

35. Boylston, The Hillsborough Countu Conoresses. pp. 15- 17; see also NHSP, 7:448; Neu Hampshire Gazette. March 10, 17, and 31, 1775.

36. Ibid., pp. 16-17.

37. Ibid., pp. 16-17; see also NHSP, 7:44B .

30. Ibid., pp. 18-19 (source of quotation!.

39. Hollis Toun Records, vol. 4, pp. 272-273.

40. Boylston, The Hillsborough Countu Conoresses. p. 13. See also NHSP. 7:448-450.

41. See William M. Gardner, e d . , Toons floainst Turannu: Hillsborough Countu. Neu Hampshire During the American Revolution. 1775-17B3 CNashua, N.H., 1976! for examples of one county’s reaction to Lexington and Concord.

42. Alexander Scammell to John Sullivan, May 3, 1775, in Otis Hammond, e d . Letters and Papers of Maior General John Sullivan. 2 vols. CConcord, N.H., 19301, 1: 5B-61; Concord Toun Records, vol. 2, 242.

43. NHSP. 7:454; Alexander Scammell to John Sullivan, May 3, 177S, in Hammond, Letters and Papers - John Sullivan. 1 :5B-61.

44. The Gini Score for the Third Provincial Congress uas .806 indicating a high concentration of assignments in the hands, of a feu individuals. Eight men ranked as leaders: five from Rockingham County, tuo from Strafford, and one from Hillsborough. No one from Grafton or Cheshire Counties received any assignments. Only fourteen men or 133

13 percent of t h B Congress received assignments. OF those who did, nine had been members of the Assembly dissolved by Governor Wentworth the preceeding year, five were or had been members of the provincial Committees of Correspondence, and eleven had been members of previous Provincial Congresses.

45. For a biography of Wyseman Claggett, see Charles H. Atherton, "Memoir oF Wyseman Clagett,” Collections of the New Hampshire Historical Society 3 C1B23):£4-39; for a biagrapohy of Matthew Thornton see Bell, The Bench and Bar. pp. 2B-30, and Charles Adams, Matthew Thornton of New Hampshire: A Patriot of the____ American___Revolution CPhiladelphia, 1903).

46. NH5P, 7:462 Csource of quotation), 466.

47. Ibid. 7:456.

46. JCohnl Hurd to Joshua Brackett in Massachusetts Historical Societu Proceedings CApril I860):3.

49. NHSP. 7:372.

50. CUI. Noel! Sainsbury, comp., ’’Abstracts from [Records in Her Majesty’s Public Records Office, London!, Messechygetts Historical Societu Proceedings CMay 1B76):343. I am basing my opinions that the militia would not aid in the arrests on the Governor’s inability to raise themilitia on December 15, 1774. See NHSP, 7:421. Langdon and Sullivan were identified by the commander of the fort as having taken part in the raid. Sb b Paul UJilderson, "The Raids on Fort William and Mary: Some New Evidence,” Historical New Hampshire 30 CFall, 1975):178- 202 .

51. Frank C. Mevers, e d ., The Papers of Josiah Bartlett. CHanover, N.H., 1979), p. 12.

52. NHSP. 9:6B5-6B6, 6B7 and 7:374; Orford Town Records, vol. 1, p. 217, NHSL.

53. New Hampshire GazettB. February 24, 1775. 134

54. NH5P- 9:714-715.

55. NHSP. 5:85; William H. Fry, New Hampshire as a Roual Province. Columbia University StudiBS in History, Economics and Public Law, vol. 29 CNew York, 190BD, pp. 154-1SB.

56. NHSP. 7:370.

57. John Fenton Tc the People oF the County of Grafton, from a real friend, uho sincerely wishes their well-being, Ibid., 7:480. Fenton was a close personal Friend of Governor Wentworth's and was married to Elizabeth Temple, the sister of New Hampshire’s Lieutenant-Governor, John Temple. The early Lyme town records burned in a fire. The First name for Representative Greene comes from the Lyme tax records For 1773-1775. See NHSP. 12:503 and Secretary of State-Inventories, Record Group IU, Box 20, FoldBr 5.

SB. Ibid., 7:507.

59. Ibid., 7:378.

50. Ibid., 7:380-381; New Hampshire Gazette. April 21, 1775.

61. Paine Wingate to Timothy Pickering, April 2B, 1775, Wingate, Life and Letters oF Paine Wingate. 1:160.

62. Ibid., 1:160-161.

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid., 1:156, 15S-161; John Sullivan and John Langdon to the New Hampshire Provincial Committee, Hay 22, 1775, Hammond, Letters and Paoers-John 5uilivan. 1:62.

65. NHSP. 7:384, 385; New Hampshire GazBtta. July 2 and August B, 1775.

6 6 . Nevers, Josiah Bartlett. pp. 14-15; Governor John Wentworth to General Gage, June 15, 1775, NHSP. 7:3B1; 135

DaniBll, Experiment in Republicanishm. pp. 89-91. Jere Oaniell, ’’Lady Wentworth ’ s Last Days in New Hampshire,” Historical New Hampshire 23 (Spring 196B:14-25.

57. NHSP. 7:375.

5 B . NHSP. 7:375-375.

59. Portsmouth Town Records, vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 329C.

70. New Castle Town Records, Microfilm Reel Number 9B51B5, NHSL.

71. NHSP. 7:3S3-3S4. The Gini Score for Governor Wentworth’s last assembly was .753 indicating that the majority of the assignments were held by very few men. The Assembly leaders were John Wentworth, Ebenezer Thompson, John Giddinge, and Woodbury Langdon. All hut Langdon would play an important role in New Hampshire’s transition From colony to state.

72. New Castle Town Records, MicroFilm Reel Number 9B51B5, NHSL . CHAPTER IU

CONGRESS ACCEPTS RELUCTANTLY THE BURDENS OF GOUERNNENT

In July 1775, Msshech Weare wrote to the Continental Congress and reported

The Colony is at Present wholly governed by this Congress S the Committees of the respective Towns,

But u i b greatly dBsire some other Regulations as our present situation is attended with many Oifficultys

Weare’s and similar statements have suggested to some historians that the Fourth Provincial Congress was a revolutionary body whose goal was to wrest control of the government from royal officials. They attempt to strengthen their argument by noting that the Fourth Provincial Congress was the largest representative body ever convened in the colony . They tend to equate numbers with a revolutionary movement and assume that there were no differences of opinion among the delegates. On the surface, the evidence seems to support their interpretation. The Fourth Provincial Congress developed a plan for conducting the war and adopted a plan for future representation. It became the colony’s de facto government aftBr the departure of Governor Wentworth. And, most significantly, it opened discussions with the 137

Continental Congress on assuming civil government. Historians who cite these actions as evidence that the Fourth Provincial Congress was a revolutionary organization all have analyzed the Congress as a unit. They look at the results of the Fourth Provincial Congress and assume that those results were its intention at the beginning of its session. A closer attention to the passage of time, however, suggests a different interpretation, one that details the painstaking process the Fourth Provincial Congress followed before requesting permission from the Continental Congress to become a government. When the first and second sessions of the Fourth Provincial Congress met, Governor Ulentworth was still in the colony and he convened sessions of the Assembly. The Congress's third and fourth sessions met when Governor Ulentworth was in Boston. If the two periods are analyzed separately, it is clear that as long as Governor Ulentworth was in the colony, the Congress reacted primarily to events rather than creating them. With the Governor’s departure in August 1775, the Congress initiated some actions, but still relied upon the Continental Congress for authority to implement them. The Fourth Provincial Congress did not seek power. It pleaded with the Continental Congress to a d e p t ”a general plan” for all colonies, so it would net have to make an separate plan for New Hampshire. It 130

refused to make decisions until forced to do so by exigencies. After making decisions, it appealed to the Continental Congress to legitimize its actions.2 Chairman John Wentworth called the Fourth Provincial Congress before the battles at Lexington and Concord. Unlike the other Congresses, this Congress, which began on May 17, 1735, was elected to meet as necessary for six months. The General Assembly was also in session in Hay. For the Fourth Provincial Congress to meet as Pi anned, the Assembly had to petition Gcverncr Wentworth for a recess.2 Governor John Wentwcrth reluctantly agreed, kncwing that he was giving those Assembly representatives who were elected to the Provincial Congress an opportunity to attend that extra-legal meeting. However, the Governor had no choice. He could not afford to alienate the Assembly if he wanted and a favorable decision on the admission of Plymouth, Orford, and Lyme. When the Fourth Provincial Congress met, the delegates elected Matthew Thornton president, Ebenezer Thompson clerk, and Nicholas Gilman 'lExeter.'' treasurer. To provide order and structure to their proceedings, the Congress modeled itself after the General Assembly. The- group chose one oF its own members, the Reverend Josiah Stearns from Eppmg, to lead them in prayer. It also created a committee to develop rules of conduct for the members. Each new General Assembly had always taken 133

u similar actions. Chairman Wentworth's call does not make clear exactly what measures the provincial Committee of Correspondence intended the Fourth Provincial Congress to discuss. When the Congress met, however, its primary purpose became providing fcr the defense of the calory. Defensive measures assumed increasing importance when the Congress learned that Governor John Wentworth had asked

General Gage to station two regiments of soldiers at Portsmouth, raising the specter cf a possible Lexington

and Concord in New Hampshire.6 The cclony was not prepared for war. It had little ammunition and no army. To begin to provide fcr defense, the Congress dispatched Colonel John Hale (Holiisi on an unsuccessful mission to Albany to purchase arms and ammunition. The Congress then considered Massachusetts

S a y ’s request to the Third Provincial Congress for the New England colonies to create an army of observation. Not knowing where General Gagewould strike next, the

Congress voted to raise three regiments totaling E ,COO men, providing for more to be called up later as needed.6 The vote to create the army passed unanimously . The Congress and New Hampshire residents viewed calling up troops as a necessity, as neither felt that professional soldiers should be killing American Farmers. Even men like Paine Wingate, whc advocated reconciliation with Great Britain, recognized that the colonists would derend 140

themselves.^ The urgency of the matter superseded even the strong habitual tendency of the New Hampshire Congresses to look For leadership elsewhere. This became plain in the apologetic report From the Congress to John Sullivan and John Langdcn at Philadelphia: We would have desired to have consulted Cthel general Congress, iF time had allowed, beFore we had taken such an important step as raising a military Force: but the case seem’d too plain to be doubted, and too O urgent to be delayed.

While there was no dissent over raising an army, Financing one created a serious problem. The colony had very little cash. The Fourth Provincial Congress had some money, but it had been collected to pay the expenses oF the colony’s delegates to the Continental Congress. The Congress estimated that it would immediately need an additional £3000 to pay the army through December. IF troops were needed past that time, other arrangements 9 would have to be made. To pay the army through December, the Congress voted

to raise £300 by a voluntary assessment on each town according to its proportion of the colony's tax bill, the same method that had been used to Finance New Hampshire's delegates to the Continental Congress. The system proved wholly inadequate. On Nay S3, a list was prepared of the sixty-eight towns that had ignored the assessment For the Second Provincial Congress. Had they paid, the Congress 141

would have collected £226-3-0.^® Perhaps it was this accounting which prompted Matthew Thornton’s appeal to the Continental Congress for advice on how to pay the army and his suggestion that the Continental Congress consider some form of paper money. ”lde desire to have the benefit of same general plan for bills of credit, or that we may be pointed to such other methods as shall appear Just and equal, . . .’’he wrote. The Congress repeated Thornton’s appeal to John Langdon and John Sullivan, adding Ue must, Gentlemen, press you on this article. The little cash we ever had is almost entirely drained off. . . . we seem to have no method left but borrowing, and we don’t know that we can borrow, unless we issue a proper currency ourselves, or have a currency on a general plan . . . .1 1

Neither the Continental Congress nor Sullivan and Langdon responded to the letters. Having failed to receive any advice from Philadelphia, the Congress was forced to develop its own plans to raise money . The Congress directed those towns that had not paid their provincial taxes to pay them to Receiver General Nicholas Gilman, Cthe treasurer of the Congress!, instead of to George Jaffrey, treasurer of the colony.^ Residents of Temple, in Hillsborough County, voted to pay their taxes as usual, but they significantly removed the phrase "in his MAJESTY’S name” from Che warrants. Nottingham, in Rockingham County, decided not to pay its taxes to Jaffrey, but worried about the 142

possible consequences of its action. It established a committee to be ready in Case a Law Suit arise or any Person should be arrested or Have any of their Goads or Chattels Taken from them on account of the Province Rate not being Paid to the Province Treasurer.AJ1 ^

Since it was impassible to determine haw much money might be obtained from unpaid town taxes, the Congress created a committee consisting of Ichabod Rollings from Somersworth, Josiah Bartlett, EbenezBr Thompson, Joseph Cilley from Nottingham, Joseph Welch from Plaistow, David Gilman from Pembrook, and Stephen Evans from Dover to ask Treasurer George Jaffrey to give the Congress the money in the colony treasury. Even though the committee impressed upon Jaffrey . that the Exigence of the colony is such that no excuse or delay of the same can be admitted. . . they were unsuccessful. Jaffrey remained in control of the funds. 1 4 Failing to receive any money from Jaffrey, the Congress copied a measure that had been adopted recently in Massachusetts. They created £10,050 worth of treasury notes, redeemable at B percent interest, beginning in December 177B. Funds from the colony treasury were to be used to redeem the notes. This was a bold plan. It meant that the Congress had to persuade the General Court that its debt was the colony’s dBbt.^ Before ending its first session, the Congress created two new standing committees, both consistent with 143

Its goal of providing For the defense of the colony. The Committee of Supplies was responsible For furnishing the troops uith all necessities and also with distributing ammunition to towns that needed i t . The Committee of Safety was responsible for executing . whatever plans have been determin’d upon by the Congress, to be immediately carried into Execution, which have not been entrusted to the management of any particular Persons or Committee. . . .16

Essentially the Committee of Safety was a new name for the provincial Committee of Correspondence. When First appointed, the committee consisted of Matthew Thornton, Josiah Eartlett, William Ulhipple, Nathaniel Folsom, and Ebenezer Thompson; all but Thornton were members of the Committee of Correspondence. Disgruntled delegates carped that the committee was drawn from only two counties, Rockingham and Strafford. The Congress voted to add three additional men whc wculd represent Grafton, Hillsborough, and Cheshire counties; the new members were Israel Morey C Graf ton.'1, the Reverend Samuel Webster CHillsborough j , and Samuel Ashley ^Cheshire). Josiah Moulton and later Meshech Weare, both from Rockingham County were also added. 1 " 7 The second session of the Fourth Provincial Ccrgrsss convened on June 27, 1775, only ten days after Bunker

Hill. A somber group analyzed the relationship of the Congress to the General Assembly. The stalemate between the Assembly and the Governor over the admission cf the 144

three new towns also affected the Congress. In its brief session, held while the Congress was recessed, the Assembly discussed only Plymouth, Orford, and Lyme. They failed to legitimize the measures passed during the Fourth Provincial Congress's first session— calling up troops, collecting taxes, creating bills of credit--bu voting upon those measures themselves. Without the legitimizing action of the Assembly, the Congress would be forced to assume the authority to honor the commitments that it had made. In spite of the escalating violence that decreased the possibility of a reconciliation with Great Britain, Governor Wentworth chose not to back down on the admission of the new towns. He did not reconvene the General Assembly. Although nominally in charge, he remained in self-imposed exile at Castle William and Nary . The Governor seemed to be unaware of the concerns of his people. He communicated only with Secretary Theodore Atkinson who scurried around Portsmouth delivering his messages to members of the Council. Perhaps because he felt he was unable to control events in the colony, the Governor chose to ignore them. While New Hampshire residents mourned the dead and tended to the wounded from Eunker Hill, the Governor wrote letters complaining about his "miserable house” at the fort and R the money he was spending to improve it. 1 In this time of crisis, the Governor chose to remain 145

silent, closing his ears to the cries of his pecple. He shrank From his responsibilities as governor of the colony, hen in the Assembly who supported Woodbury Langdon and those in the Provincial Congress who supported Paine UJingate's reconciliation efforts were leaderless. If theFourth Provincial Congress intended to declare itself the governing body of the colony, its second session would have been a good time to do so. The agonies of Bunker Hill were fresh in the representatives’ minds. Now the conflict between the colonies and the mother country was affecting New Hampshire in a personal way. It was creating widows and orphans and maiming young men. Dver 1,000 New Hampshire soldiers Fought in the battle. There were 10B casualties: 41 killed, SI7 wounded. host oF the casualties were from Hillsborough County, Hollis alone had seventeen. Representative John hcClary’s bother and Representative Enoch Noyce’s son-in- law were among the dead.19 Still the Fourth Provincial Congress did not take advantage of the subsequent hostility towards Great Britain. The delegates realized that Governor Wentworth had lest his ability to lead, but they continued to respect the fact that he was their governor, and did ret flaunt their position. The Congress passed only those measures which it considered essential for the operation cf the colony, becoming steadily more insistent in its 146

pleas far direction From the Continental Congress. As in their First session, it acted when it Failed to receive

advice. Again the Congress’s main priority mas the colony’s security. Residents in Grafton and Cheshire counties Feared a Canadian attack and appealed to the Fourth

Provincial Congress Fdt help. They considered themselves especially vulnerable aFter the Continental Congress dismantled Fort Tioonderoga to prevent the artillery there From Falling into the hands oF General Carletcn. In early June Matthew Thornton wrote to the Continental Congress asking them to review their decision on the

Fort. He informed the Continental Congress that the colony’s new settlements on the Connecticut River ”. . . are very defenseless in every respect and under Terrible apprehensions from the acc^s of warlike Preparations mak^ in Canada. The Fear of a Canadian attack was not the hysterical reaction of a Few frontier communities, but was taken seriously by the New England Provincial Congresses. The Fourth Provincial Congress voted to participate in an inter-colony intelligence network with the Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut Provincial Congresses. Designed to share information about British and Indian movements, the network was based on information provided by individuals and towns.^

The Continental Congress did not consider Matthew 1H7

Thornton's request for troops at Fort Ticondercga, nor did they write to him suggesting any alternatives For defense. Feeling that it had no other choice, the Provincial Congress voted to raise three companies for the defense of the Upper Cohos and ordered them to work with local inhabitants to build necessary garrisons, PP beginning at Northumberland. Again there was the problem of paying the the troops. We have wrote to you and the Congress several times on the situation of our affairs but not receiving any directions . . . have ordered Ten Thousand Pounds more C m notes! to be . . . Emitted for supplying the present Exigencies of the Colony . . .

William Whipple chided Langdon and Sullivan as he explained the necessity of issuing additional bills of credit to pay the Upper Cohos army. Needing cash, not bills of credit, to purchase ammunition frcm other colonies, the Congress again asked Treasurer George Jaffrey to turn over the colony’s funds. Perhaps Jaffrey sympathized with the proposed use of the money; he gave Nicholas Gilman £.1511-2-8. Still loyal to Governor Wentworth, however, Jaffrey refused to allow Gilman to inspect the colony’s account books. Gilman did not know

PLL how much mare money was available. The Fourth Provincial Congress was concerned also about the security of the colony’s other exposed region-- 14B

the seacoast. Residents worried about a passible naval attack and Feared that their towns would be destroyed, like Charlestown, Massachusetts had been, Eecause Fire was one oF the consequences aF a naval attack, the Congress decided to move the colony’s records out oF the private homes oF public oFFicials in Portsmouth to a more secure location.

It appointed Samuel Brooks and Noah Emery From Exeter and John McClary From Epson to ’’look out a place or places in Exeter” For the records. When they reported that they had Found men willing to house the records, the

Congress appointed a new committee consisting of Brooks, Stephen Evans, Ulilliam Weeks oF Greenland, Samuel Dudley oF Brentwood and Thomas Bartlett oF Nottingham to move the documents. The committee requested records From Theodore Atkinson, Secretary oF the colony; George King, Clerk oF the Superior Court; Joseph Peirce, Register oF Deeds; William Parker, Register of the Court oF Probate; and

Isaac Rindge, Clerk oF the InFerior Court and Quarter Sessions. Atkinson and Peirce reFused initially to surrender their records. Eoth Feared that Governor Wentworth would continue to hold them personally responsible For the saFety oF the documents. PR The removal oF records From a colony’s provincial capital to a revolutionary capital is cited by many historians as evidence to support the view that the 143

American Revolution was a democratic revolution. They claim the movement was symbclic of the transfer of power from an elite colonial government to a democratic revolutionary government. To apply that interpretation to New Hampshire is a misreading of the situation. Throughout the war, Exeter was safer than Portsmouth. The Fourth Provincial Congress's sale concern was the security of the records.

Their removal was not intended as a political statement, The Congress invited the affected public officials to accompany the records to Exeter,and to keep them in their charge until further notice. To guard against a misinterpretation, Congress declared . . as the real Intent of the vote may be mistaken, or not understood, It is Now resolved that it was the sole Intent B meaning of this Congress in removing the aforesaid Records, that they might be kept in a place of more security than they apprhended Portsmouth to be, and not to fix them from being removed again to Portsmouth whenever the Present Difficulty Danger may subside. P7

(At the conclusion of the Congress’s second session, President Pro Tempore Heshech Weare prefaced his report to the Continental Congress with " . . .we think, it cur duty to give you the earliest account of our transactions, that thereby you may be enabled to direct pq our future conduct.”

The third session of the Fourth Provincial Congress met on August .22, 1775. The following day Governor 150

Wentworth left Castle William and Mary and sailed to Boston. He never returned to mainland .New Hampshire. Governor Wentworth's departure, which could net have been anticipated when the Fourth Provincial Congress began meeting in May, catapulted the Congress into a new role. With no governor to call an Assembly, the Congress became the only popularly elected colony-wide body. It became solely responsible far the conduct and financing of the uar, and far maintaining peace and good order in the pro'.1 inee .

If the goal of the Fourth Provincial Congress was to assume the powers of government, this would have been a prime time for the Congress to proclaim itself the sole governing body of the colony. It did not do so. Instead the Congress examined its structure and function to determine its proper role in society. A new election, was scheduled for November. If changes were desired, it would be best to make them before the elections. The Fourth Provincial Congress had modeled itself after the General Assembly. Its internal operating procedure was the same, except that delegates served without a fixed rate of pay and there was no uniform plan For elections. Representatives to the General Court had always received a stipend and expenses for each day they attended. The amount was established by law and paid out of the province treasury. Delegates to the Provincial Congresses had been paid by their towns at a rate their 151

towns could afford, which in some cases was nothing at all. Some of the poorer towns, instead of sending an unpaid delegate, simply decided to go unrepresented. PS The question of uniform pay for delegates to the Congress was a divisive issue. Some men found the proposal, an outward sign of the Congress's new position, too radical to accept. After heated debate, the congressmen voted that they should be paid fcr their services. The measure had passed on the first vote, but was brought up for a second vote and passed again. Delegates would receive five shillings per day from their towns, plus two pence per mile for travel from the Congress for attendance at the Fourth Provincial Congress only. Pay was not retroactive to the first three Congresses. The Congress next began work on a uniform plan of representation for future congresses. This became the main agenda item for its third and fourth sessions. The plan was not tied to any movement for the assumption of government in New Hampshire, but was simply an attempt to regularize the election process. There appeared to be general agreement on the need for such a plan, Perhaps the Congress found a large group of unpredictable numbers unwieldy. In the First through the Fourth Provincial Congresses, towns were allowed to send any number of delegates they wanted. By the Fourth Provincial Congress, a few towns combined to select one 152

representative. Mast towns sent between one and three delegates, with Portsmouth sending five. Perhaps the Congress felt that a town’s representation based upon a its ability to pay for the expenses of delegates was not a fair system. The wealthier towns would always be able to send more f-epresentatives than poorer towns. Work on the plan for representation began on August

30, 1775, and was completed on November 14. The resulting plan was clearly a compromise between those who favored one representative for each town and no property qualifications for delegates, and those who supported proportional representation and high property qualifications for delegates. The compromise plan favored the latter group. The plan was not submitted to the towns for approval. Had it been, many of the difficulties that surfaced in the Fifth Provincial Congress might have been averted. The delegates were so divided on the subject of representation that three committees were created to develop the new plan. The first committee consisted of

William Whipple, John Dudley CRaymond), Nicholas Gilman, Ebenezer Thompson, Steven Evans, Samuel Hobart, Wyseman Claggett, Eenjamin Giles £ Newport, Croydonl, and Jonathan Childs. Ninety per cent of the committeemen came from towns which had been enfranchised by the Crown. One third of the committee had been members of the General Assembly; only Giles had never participated m a New 153

Hampshire assembly election. 3 1 The committee had or kneui of several plans of representation which it could use as models for its plan. The mast important was the ’’Act for Ascertaining What Places Hay Send Representatives to the General

Assembly,” passed by the New Hampshire Assembly in 1754 and disallowed by the King in 1757. It also knew the election qualifications for both the General Assemblies and the Provincial Congresses. Three committeemen, Hobart, Giles and Childs, could have had experience with the voting practices of Massachusetts and Connecticut. 3P

From the disallowed act, the committee adopted the idea that each town containing 100 freeholders would be entitled to one representative; smaller towns would be classed together and each group would elect one representative. Those towns that had been allowed to send more than one representative would continue to do so, even if they did not have 200 freeholders. Towns containing 200 or more freeholders would be allowed two representatives, with Portsmouth continuing to send three.33 The committee was aware that it had teen elected by men qualified to vote in town affairs, i.e., a freeholder or those with a taxable estate of £20. Fifty-nine percent of the delegates to the Fourth Provincial Congress had nG experience with any ether type of election. Their towns had not been entitled to 154

representation under the Crown. The committee knew that it would alienate representatives from many towns if it proposed high property qualifications for voting. It suggested that ail resident freeholders be allowed to vote. Non-residents could votB if they had real estate in the town valued at 1 2 0 .3 4

Members of the committee realized that there was strong sentiment within the Congress and the colony For keeping a substantial property qualification fcr office holders. Deferring to those who felt that £3CC was too high, they suggested a £200 qualification For representatives. Finally they proposed a method oF dividing the pay for representatives from classed towns.3 5

The committee plan was much fairer than the method used by the Crown. However, it was still biased in favor of the older, mere populated areas of the colony. It also assumed that there was a direct correlation between holding property and the ability to govern. While that assumption was generally unchallenged during the cclonial period, there was considerable dispute as to the appropriate amount of property. The committee presented their plan on August 31, only a day after it had been created. The Congress voted ’’That it bay For DC consideration.” Two days later Congress recessed. On November 4, the whole Congress discussed the proposed plan for representation, The plan was attacked 1SS

by those who felt it was too liberal and those who felt it was too restrictive. The attacks reflected the deep division in the Congress between those from the older, more wealthy and populated sections of the colony--the seacoast, plus a few towns in Hillsborough County— versus the newer, less well settled areas of the colony.* Ebenezer Thompson recorded in the Congress's minutes the votes that took place during the discussion. The records are not very clear, but it appears that members as a group developed a more conservative plan for representation. It included a £E0 freehold property qualification for voting and a £300 property qualification for office holding. Each town with 100 freeholders would be allowed one representative, with smaller towns combining to elect one delegate from each town group. More populated towns would be allowed to send one additional representative for each additional 100 freeholders. If this plan became the new plan of representation, the older, more populated areas cf the colony would dominate the Congress. Far example, T7 Portsmouth would have five or more delegates. It was clear from the differences between the committee plan and the plan from the floor that no plan would satisfy everyone. Representatives from towns entitled to representation under the Crown wanted to maintain their traditional dominance in the legislature. They Favored proportional representation and high 156

property qualifications For office holding and voting. Representatives from towns new to the legislative process argued that each town should have its own representative and insisted that property qualifications for voting and office holding be low to maximize the number of men who could participate. On November 3, only five days after the whole Congress discussed the new plan, the Congress Uoted, that all the Uotes of Saturday last, respecting Delegates or Representatives, and the qualifications of the Electors and elected, and the manner of choosing and sending them, be, and hereby are reconsidered, and made void.

Matthew Thornton reappointed Whipple, Dudley, Thompson, Claggett, and Giles to the second committee to develop a plan of representation based upon the plan from the floor and the committee’s report. They were Jcmed by fleshech Weare, Timothy Walker (Concord), Caleb Page (Dumbarton), Richard Downing (Newington), Samuel Ashley, Israel Morey, Ebenezer Smith (Meredith), James Kncwles

(Rochester), Jonathan Martin, and Abel Webster (Campton.) The committee contained five men From Rockingham County, three each From Strafford and Hillsborough Counties, and two each from Cheshire and Grafton Counties . Forty percent of the committee members had represented their towns in Governor Wentworth’s last General Assembly. Sixty percent of the committee men were from towns entitled to representation in the General Court. This committee could not reach an agreement. It 157

dissolved without presenting a proposal to the c o n g r e s s .3 9 Matthew Thornton placed himself on the third committee to develop a plan of representation. He reappointed Whipple, Dudley, Thompson, Hobart, Eiles, Walker, Morey, Smith, Knowles, and added Nathaniel Folson, John Cragin CTemplei, Nathaniel Prentice r. Alstead'J, and David Gilman CPembrook.l This committee contained six men from Rockingham County, three from Strafford, two each from Hillsborough and Cheshire Counties, and one from Grafton County. Twenty-one percent of this group served in Wentworth’s last Assembly; 50 percent represented towns entitled to un representation under the Crown. The third committee reached an agreement. It presented a proposal very similar to the first plan which had been rejected. This time the proposal was accepted. The plan stipulated that representatives must have real estate valued at 1200, but ’’every Legal Inhabitant Paying Taxes” could be a voter. Each town containing 100 taxpayers was allowed one representative; Portsmouth was allowed three and Exeter. Londonderry, Amherst, Do'.ar, and Chester two each. Towns with less than 100 taxpayers were to combined m districts to elect one representative each. The formula developed by the first committee for 4 pagirg delegates frcn classed toons uias adopted. 1 15B

The delegates agreed that the new plan For representation would be used in the elections for the Fifth Provincial Congress. Using the results of a recent census, but not a map, the committee grouped together those towns that had to combine to elect one representative each. The committee’s lack of knewledge about the geography of the colony would pose problems for some classed towns in the election For the Fifth Provincial Congress. The Fourth Provincial Congress was also cor-oerned with its Function. When Governor Ulentwcrth was in New Hampshire, the Congress’s primary duty was to provide fcr the defense of the colony. Find that was done. A mechanism was in place to raise an army, but financing one remained a thorny problem. Defense and finances continued to be a priority For the Congress after Wentworth left. Still needing money to meet existing commitments, the Congress voted to raise the towns' assessments from £3000 to £4000 and recommended that taverners and retailers pay their excise taxes to Nicholas Gilman. In a separate action, it voted to allow the town selectmen to keep 5 percent of all excise taxes that they collected as a . . reward for their services.” The Congress again attempted to get the colony account bocks from George Jaffrey; he resisted until November and then surrendered them. HP In other action, the Congress, at the request cf the 159

Continental Congress, ordered a census of the colony.

Matthew Thornton asked the towns to include in their census report a listing of their ammunition and Firearms, both working and nan-working. The Firearms census would be used by the Congress to assess the colony’s Future n e e d s While the Fourth Provincial Congress, during its

First two sessions, may have considered its primary Function to be providing For the defense oF the colony, towns pushed the Congress to expand its Function. They petitioned the Congress, For example, to give advice on or to solve local problems not related to deFense. Most petitions were related to the preservation oF an orderly society. With the Governor and the Assembly reFusing to discuss anything but Plymouth, DrFord, and Lyme, towns had nowhere else to turn. Portsmouth asked the Congress to pass a resolve against mobs From the countryside who roamed into town and disturbed the peace. Weare, Francestown, and New Boston asked what could be done to ensure that men who had been accused oF being Tories, but acquitted, could live in peace. Mason asked that the Congress extradite From the army two men accused oF stealing a cow. And Monadnack #5 CMarlborough? asked the Congress For permission to incorporate as a town. The Congress acted on all the petitions, except the one From

L i Li. Ueare, Francestown, and New Boston. With Governor Wentworth’s departure, the Congress 150

realized that it needed to Formalize its relationship with the towns. Ulhile it had passed many measures that affected the towns, it had no means of enforcing them. Towns not swayed by the necessity of the measures were Free to ignore them. However, with the Congress now solely responsible far the conduct of the war and for an orderly society, it needed the authcrity tc enforce decisions. It needed to be officially recognized as the only government in New Hampshire. This was a momentous step, one which the Congress was not willing to take alone. It looked to the Continental Congress, itself an extra-legal body, For guidance and approval. The Fourth Provincial Congress's instructions tc Josiah Bartlett, who replaced John Sullivan in the Continental Congress, reflected the urgency of the situation. The instructions written on September 1, 1775, concluded with "UJe press you net to delay this flatter as its being speedily done, Cyour own knowledge of our Circumstances must inform you) will probably prevent the greatest Confusion among us." 4 5 Bartlett’s instructions did not contain a specific request. When John Langdon asked the Congress for a ”. . . Petition from our Convention Etc the Continental

Congress! to take Government . . . ,” the Congress ignored the request. Eartlett and Langdon were free tc interpret the instructions as they saw fit. In and out of Carpenters Hall, they lobbied for permission for New 1B1

Hampshire to take up civil government. On October IS, 1775, they presented Bartlett’s instructions tc the

LLC Continental Congress and asked For adviCB. The matter was referred to a Five-member committee which included hassachusetts Bay's John Adams. Adams in his autobiography noted that he ”. . . embraced with Joy the opportunity oF haranguing on the Subject . . . and oF urging the CCcntinental 3 Congress to resolve on a general recommendation to all States to call Conventions and i nstitute regular Governments.” Adams’s position was supported by John Rutledge (South Carolina:*, Samuel Card (Rhode Island), E?J Lee (Uirginiai, Roger Sherman CConnecticut 3, Christopher Gadsden (South Carolina),

LA *7 Eliphalet Dyer (Connecticut), and others. On November 3, the Continental Congress voted on the Committee’s report and Resolved. That it be recommended to the provincial Convention oF New Hampshire, to call a Full and Free representation oF the people, and that the representatives, iF they think it necessary, establish such a Form oF government, as, in their Judgment, will best produce the happiness oF the people, & most eFFectually secure peace and geed order in the province, during the continuance oF the present dispute between GEreat) Britain and its c o l o n i e s .4 R

Langdon and Eartlett rushed the Resolution to New Hampshire, but it arrived after the Congress had dissolved. However, the warrant For elections For the Fifth Provincial Congress anticipated a response From the 162

Continental Congress. And in case there should be a recommendation from the Continental Congress For this Colony to Assume Government in any way that will require a hcuse of Representatives, That the said Congress For this Colony be Impowereri to Resolve themselves into such a House as may be recommended, and remain such For the u g aForesaid Term oF one year.

In Framing the election call, the Fourth Provincial Congress not only deFerred to the authority cF the

Continental Congress, but also tc the authcrity of the towns. IF New Hampshire was to have a new government, it would be designed by duly elected representatives of the p e o p l e . The only stipulation oF the Continental Congress’s authorization For New Hampshire to take up government mas that the new government be a temporary measure, lasting as long as the conFlict with Great Britain. The FiFth Provincial Congress, elected under the new plan of representation, could design the government in any way that it Felt would best meet its needs. Discussions on the Form of government began on December 27, 1775, and concluded with the adoption oF a constitution on January 5, 1 7 7 6 . 5 0

The constitution was the work oF two committees. The Congress First appointed a FiFteen man committee to create the structure oF the new government. It consisted of Matthew Thornton, Neshech Weare, Ebenezer Thompson, U y s e m a n C l a g g e t t , E e n j a m i n G i l e s , P h i l i p s W h i t e '.'South 163

Hampton) , John Hurd, Israel Morey, S;. ■’uel Sherburne (Portsmouth), Clement March, John Dudley, James Bretton (Wyndham), Noah Emery (Exeter), Jonathan Blanchard (Merrimack, Bedford), and Jonathan Lovewell (Dunstable). All but UJhite, Sherburne, Blanchard, and Lovewell had been members of the Fourth Provincial Congress. A second committee, really a sub-committee of the first, consisting of Thornton, Weare, Thompson, Claggett, and Giles, was charged with writing the constitution. The resulting document described both the new structure and C 1 the rationale For taking up government.

The committees received no further instructions From the Continental Congress, but John Langdon and Josiah Bartlett provided some suggestions. The ideas were probably their own. Langdon and Bartlett suggested that New Hampshire model its government on that of Massachusetts. They recommended a small popularly elected, House; a Council elected by the House; and no governor. In authorizing New Hampshire to assume civil government, the Continental Congress had discussed three branches, a governor, Council, and a House of 5P Representatives. When he heard of the Continental Congress’s action, John Sullivan wrote a long letter to the Fifth Provincial

Congress urging that New Hampshire mcdel its n e w government on Connecticut’s and Pennsylvania’s, He, too, favored a House and a Council, but felt that bath 164

branches should be directly elected by the people. He also Favored the direct election of a governor. Sullivan, as ’’Publicus” had earlier, recommended annual elections.^ Both committees uiere weighted in favor of the older, more densely populated areas of the province. Fifty- three percent of the first committee and 40 percent of the second represented towns in Rockingham County. The committee’s decisions reflected its members inherent bias. They found Langdon’s and Bartlett's recommendations more palatable than Sullivan’s. A small House, an indirectly elected Council, and no governor could result in the power of government remaining in the hands of those who traditionally controlled it, men From the seacoast area. The committee recommended that the Fifth Provincial Congress resolve itself into Mew Hampshire’s First House of Representatives. It propcsed that the house appoint a twelve member Council consisting of five men from Rockingham; two each from Strafford, Cheshire, and Hillsborough; and one from Grafton Counties. These two branches would Jointly appcint the colony’s civil officers. From the Sullivan proposal, the committee adapted the idea of annual elections, and stipulated that if the conflict with Great Britain extended for longer than a year, the people could vote for the councilorisj who represented their county The Congress adopted the plan of government and the 165

constitution, which attributed the necessity far the new government to ”. . . The Sudden & Abrupt Departure of his Excellency John Wentworth Esqr cur Late Governor. . . To, implement the constitution, the Congress did resolve itself into a House of Representatives and proceeded to elect the Council, consisting of fleshech Weare, Matthew Thornton, William Whipple, Josiah Bartlett, and Nathaniel Faison for Rockingham County; Thomas Westbrook Waldron and Ebenezer Thompson, for Strafford County; Wyseman Claggett and Jonathan Blanchard for Hillsborough County; Samuel Ashley and Eenjamin Giles for Cheshire County; and John Hurd far Grafton County, Waldron declined and was replaced by Scmersworth’s John Wentworth, who had recovered from recent his illness. The Council and the House them proceeded to appoint the province's civil and high military officers. By February 10, 177G, the initial appointments were completed and the new government was in p l, a c e .55

The Fourth Provincial Congress did not seize power through aggressive usurpation. It responded instead to the necessity of governing when royal government in the colony first broke down and then ended. It took it upon itself to provide fcr the defense of the colony when the General Court failed to do so. It assumed the responsibility cf maintaining law and order when Governor Wentworth left the cclcny . As the only colony-wide represE"tative body capable of exercising authority in this crisis, it could have announced that it had assumed IBB

the powers of government. It did not do so. Instead it appealed to the Continental Congress for permission to act as the governing body of the colony and to the towns For permission to implement the Continental Congress’s recommendations. The First House of Representatives did not present the constitution to the towns For their approval. According to its interpretation oF the Continental Congress’s instructions, that was not necessary. During the next year, towns would examine the Function and structure aF their revolutionary government and use their right oF petition to shape it into an institution that met their needs. 167

Chapter Notes

1. Meshech Weare to the Continental Congress, July 8, 1775, Nathaniel Bouton, et al., eds., Documents and Records Relating to Nbw Hampshire. 16S3-1B00. 40 vols. CConcord and Manchester, 1B67-19473, 7:561 ChereaFter cited at NHSP 3.

E. Neui Hampshire Congress to John Sullivan and John Langdon, May E4, 1775, and Matthew Thornton to the Continental Congress, May 23, 1775, Ibid., 7:4Bl-483.

3. Ibid., 7:373.

4. NHSP. 7:470. Somersuiorth voters had elected Speaker John Wentworth to represent them at the Fourth Provincial Congress. However, he was toe ill to attend both the General Assembly and the Provincial Congress; he chose to attend only the Assembly. See Somersworth Town Records, vol. 1, p. 250, Concord, N.H., New Hampshire State Library ChereaFter cited as NHSL3 .

5. Matthew Thornton to Governor John Wentworth, June B, 1775, NHSP. 7:SOS.

G. Ibid., 7:473, 477, 4B0, 503, 505, 507.

7. New Hampshire Congress to John Sullivan and John Langdon, May S3, 1775, Ibid., 7:4B1; Paine Wingate to Timothy Pickering, April SB, 1775, Charles E. L. Wingate, Life and Letters oF Paine Winoate. One of the Fathers oF the Nation. 3 vols. CMedFord, Mass., 19303, 1:15S-16E.

B. New Hampshire Congress to John Sullivan and John Langdon, May £3, 1775, NHSP. 7:481-482 Cquotation From 4 8 1 . 3

9. Ibid., 7:40E.

10. Ibid., 7:4B1. For the list of towns, see ”A List of Towns S Parishes with the Respective sums Apportioned to CthemJ by the Committee Appointed For that purpose which have not yet paid, same Agreeable to request oF the Provincial Convention . . . ,” Treasury Papers, Record IBB

Group 5, Box 9, Concord, N.H., New Hampshire Archives ChereaFter cited as NHA.3 The amount of money owed may have been more than £225-3-0. There is a hole in the document where it had been Folded. The day aFter the list was prepared, Greenland, New Ipswich, PlainField, UJalpole, and Hanover paid their assessment. It is probable that their representatives paid the money out oF their own resources. Certainly some delegates could not have traveled home on the evening oF Nay 23 and returned on the morning oF the 24th with the money in hand. By September, Kensington, Plaistow, Lyme, Swanzey, OrFord, and East Kingston paid. Like the towns, the Congress did not pay its bills promptly. It owed John Sullivan a total oF £350-7-6 For his services in the Continental Congress in 1774 and 1775. Sullivan received the last installment in 17B9. See ’’The State oF New Hampshire in Account Current with John Sullivan For Services in Congress in the Years 1774 and 1775” also located in Record Group 5, Box 9, NHA.

11. Natthew Thornton to the Continental Congress, Nay 23, 1775, and New Hampshire Congress to John Sullivan and John Langdon, Nay 23, 1775, NHSP 7:4B1, 482-4B3 Cquotation From 4B3.5

12. Ibid., 7:508.

13. Henry Ames Blood, The Historu oF Temple. N.H. CBoston, I860), p. 9B; Nottingham Town Records, vol. 4, p. 130, NHSL.

14. NHSP. 7:508.

15. Ibid., 7:510.

16. Ibid., 7:485.

17. Ibid., 7:478, 4B3; ’’Records oF the N.H. Committee oF SaFety” Collections oF the New Hampshire Historical Societu 7 C18635:1,11.

IB. Governor John Wentworth to General Gage, June 15, 1775, and Governor John Wentworth to CPaul Wentworth!, June 29, 1775, NHSP 7:3B1-3B2. Paul Wentworth’s name is 153

on the copy of the letter printed in Charles U). Brewster, Rambles about Portsmouth. 1st Series CPortsmouth, 1B73; reprint e d ., SamBrsworth, N.H., 1975), pp. 555-553.

19. Samuel T. Dorchester, Historu of the Town oF Hollis. N e w H a m p s h i r e . F r o m I t s F i r s t S e t t l e m e n t t o the-J(ear_.13_7_3. (Nashua, N.H., 1879), pp. 153-154: NHSP. 14:41-44.

50. natthew Thornton to the Continental Copngress, June 5, 1775, NHSP. 7:499-500. •

51. Ibid., 7:54B. In New Hampshire Or. Eleazer Dheelock, Founder of Dartmouth College-, John Hurd, Haverhill representative and Former secretary to Governor Dentworth; and thB selectmen oF Conway kept the Provincial Congress posted. Friendly Indians and missionaries were the sources oF their inFormation. The Congress appointed Jonathan Childs, Lyme; Oliver Ashley, Claremont; Timothy Bedel, Bath; and John Dheelock, Hanover, to collect and disseminate intelligence inFormation. They represented communities along the path oF previous Indian attacks. See NHSP. 7:547-548, 5ES-570.

55. Ibid., 7:555; "Records oF the N.H. Committee oF SaFety,” Collections of the New Hampshire Historical Societu 7 C1BB3):11-15.

53. New Hampshire Committee of SaFety to their Delegates in the Continental Congress, July B, 1775, NHSP. 7:559- 550 Cquotation From 550.)

54. Ibid., 7:546.

55. Ibid., 7:537, 543.

55. Theodore Atkinson to Governor John Dentworth, July 7, 1775, and Theodore Atkinson to Dilliam Dhipple, July 5, 1775, Ibid., 7:3B3, 553, 543. The Congress also Formed a committee to take the records oF the GraFton County Court oF Common Pleas, General Sessions oF the Peace, and Court oF Probate From John Fenton. Fenton lived in Portsmouth, but held many GraFton County oFFices. See NHSP. 7:544. The names oF the public oFFicials were taken From Nathaniel hills & John Hicks, Mills and Hicks British and American Register: with an Almanack For the Year 1775. 170

For All The New-Enoland Province CBoston. 1774J, pp. B2- 84, Evans # 13440-13441.

27. NHSP. 7:543, 553 (source of quotation.} ThB Congress issued its clarification statement after it received a Portsmouth petition protesting the action. See NHSP. 7 : 5 5 1 .

28. Meshech Weare to the Continental Congress, July B, 1775, Ibid., 7:5B1.

29. Representatives from Canterbury, Neui Town, and Packersfield served at their nun expense. See Canterbury Town Records, vol. 3, p. 15; New Town Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 330-351, 332; and Packersfield Town Records, vol. 1, p. S4, all at NHSL.

30. NHSP. 7:57B, 57B-57S.

31. Ibid., 7:5B4. Jonathan Childs was from Lyme. Although no man from Lyme ever served in the General Assembly, Lyme residents participated in the election far the 1775 Assembly.

32. Henry H. Metcalf, Laws of New Hampshire. 4 vols. (Bristol, N.H., 1S165, 3:343.

33. Ibid.; NHSP. 7 : GOG . Ulhen Hollis voters learned that they would be allowed two representatives under the new plan, they wrote to the Congress that they ”.. . h i g h l y approved of the Plan proposed by the . . . Congress as a Rule for a General Representation. ...” See Hollis Town Papers, Box labeled Kolderness to Hookset, NHA,

34. NHSP, 7:606.

35. Ibid.; riBsech WearB, in a defense of the actions of the Fourth and FiFth Provincial Congresses, wrote With Respect to the objection that the representatives must have 200 t Estate I shall only observe that it has been generally supposed to be For the Common Safety that those persons who are entrusted with the Desposal of Our Estates should have some Estate of their Own Subject to the same. 171

See ”1 have lately met with a Pamphlet,” Weare Papers, Executive Records, Record Group 1, Box IS, NHA.

36. NHSP. 7:606.

37. Ibid., 7:644-645. The First item voted on ’’That the Delegates or Representatives to be chosen to represent this Colony in Future shall be chosen by the voices cf Uotes oF the Electors and not by the value oF their Estates." has never been adequately explained. Perhaps this vote may have referred to delegates to the Continental Congress. They were the only ’’colony representatives" elected at the time. Deborah Downs in "The New Hampshire Constitution of 1776: Weathervane of Conservatism,” Historical New Hampshire 31 (Winter 13793:173 mistakenly assumes that this vote resulted in a change in the distribution of political power in the state. It did not. Only Five days later the vote was r e p e a l e d .

30. An Address oF the Inhabitants oF the Towns of PlainField. Lebanon. Enfield (alias Relhanj. Canaan. Cardigan. Hanover. Lume. GrFord. Haverhill. Bath, and LandaFF. to the Inhabitants of the several Towns in the Colonu of Meui-Hampshirs. 1775. NHSP. 10:229-235, contains the newer towns’ arguments for an expanded Franchise. The arguments will be discussed in Chapter 5 below. See Peter Force, comp., American Archives: Fourth Series. Containing a Oocumentaru Historu of the English Colonies in North America. From the King’s Message to Parliament:, of March 7. 1774. to the Declaration oF Independence bu the United States. 6 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1BH3; reprint e d ., New York, 1972 5, 4:15.

33. NHSP., 7:655.

40 . I b i d . , 7 : 6 5 7 .

41. Ibid., 7:657-660.

42. Ibid., 7:607, 603, 646, 655.

43. Ibid., 7:724. 172

44. Frances Town, New Boston, Weare, to the Honorable the Provincial Congress . . July IB, 1775, Ibid., 12:649- 550; Committee of Portsmouth to the New Hampshire Congress, June 2, 1775, 7:502; Complaint of Committee of Nason to New Hampshire Congress, June 20,1775, 7:535-535, and 7:549. The answers to the petitions are Found on 7:497, 535, 549. The manuscript copy of the Frances Town, New Boston, and Weare petition indicates that it was not answered. See Legislative Petitions, Record G r o u p 3, B o x 3, F o l d e r B, N H A .

45. Frank Nevers, ed., The Pagers of Josiah Bartlett (Hanover, N.H., 19795, p. 17.

46. Josiah Eartlett and John Langdon to Natthew Thornton. October 2, 1775, NHSP. 7:515. While Bartlett's name is on the letter, Langdon probably wrote it. At the time the letter was written, Bartlett was recovering From small pox and was not attending the Congress. Eartlett and Langdon described their eFForts to sway the opinion of the Continental Congress delegates in a letter to the Fourth Provincial Congress, November 3, 1775, NHSP. 7:G'iI- E42. Readers oF John Gemmill, "The Problems oF Power: New Hampshire Government During the Revolution. " Historical New Hampshire 22 CSummer, 19671: 29 may believe that New Hampshire appealed to the Continental Congress For advice on "taking up government” on I lay IS, 1775. Gemmill mistakenly attributes a letter on that subject From Nassachusetts Bay to New Hampshire. See NHSP 7:475-475.

47. Worthington C. Ford, et al . , eds., Journals oF the Continental Congress. 1774-17B9. 34 vols. (Washington D.C., 1904-12371, 3:307; Lyman H. ButterField, et al., eds., Diaru ar.d Autobioaranhu oF John Adams. 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., I951I, 3:354-355, 356 (quotation From 3 5 5 . 1

4B. Ford, Journals oF the Continental Congress. 3:312.

49. NHSP., 7:660. The records show that Eartlett's and Langdon’s letter arrived on November 24, 1775, nine days aFter the Fourth Provincial Congress dissolved. See "Records oF the N.H. Committeee oF SaFety,” p. 25. 173

50. NHSP. 7:703 and B:2.

51. Ibid., 7:703-704.

55. Josiah Eartlett and John Langdon to the Fourth Provincial Congress, November 3, 1775, Ibid., 7:541-542; Butterfield, Diaru and ftutobioaraohu. 3:355.

53. John Sullivan to Fleshech Uleare, December 12, 1775, □tis G. Hammond, ed., Letters and Papers of Ha lor-General John Sullivan. Continental flrmu. 2 vols. CConcord, N.H., 19303, 1:141-148.

54. NHSP. 8:2-4.

55. Ibid., 8:5, 28. CHAPTER V

TOUJNS ESTABLISH RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR NEW GOVERNMENT

In a broadside, dated March 19, 1776, the new Coun­ cil and House of Representatives proclaimed that they had . . chosen & Appointed the proper Officers for the Ad­ ministration of Justice in the several Counties. , . .

They declared that only the neui county officials had legal authority and former officials who continued to act i would be ’’deemed Inimical to their country.” In January towns had received a broadside proclaiming the assumption of civil government by the Fifth Provincial Congress. With the publication of the March proclamation, the towns entered into a new relationship with their revolutionary government. There was now in place a provincial government, recognized as a legitimate government by the Continental Congress and the congresses of the other colonies, that had assumed all the authority and the functions of the old royal government. Faced with little alternative, towns chose to accept the authority of the new government. They were determined, however, to use their right of petition to 175

influents the government’s actions. Eoth toons and individual tounsmen sent petitions to the first House of Representatives to mold it into an institution that met their local needs. These local petitions can be divided into two broad categories, those that addressed the functions of government and these that addressed the structure of government. Host of the petitions dealt with the functions. Towns wanted their provincial government to provide for their local defensive needs, to give advice or to solve local problems that local leaders had beer, unable to cope with, and to pass legislation which resolved common problems facing many towns. The first House of Representatives assumed all of these functions. However, before it acted, it relied upon the towns to demonstrate the significance of the local problem. The highest priority of frontier towns in. ail New Hampshire counties was their local defense, and the House of Representatives responded to their needs. As the war with Great Britain escalated, frontier townsmen feared that they would be attacked by the British, aided by sympathetic Canadians and Indians. Such an attack appeared imminent in hay 177E, after the defeat of hew Hampshire troops, under the command of Colonel Timothy Bedel. at the Cedars, a place on the Et. Laurence Pi'sr about HS miles north of hcntreal. The New Hampshire men were part cf the American forces that had invaded Canada 176

in late 1775.2 When news of Bedel’s defeat reached New Hampshire. forty-one frontier towns petitioned the House for arms and ammunition so they could provide for their own defense in case the British troops followed the fleeing Americans into New Hampshire. The towns petitions reflected the seriousness of their fears. Westmoreland’s petition was typical. Gentlemen we have Jest heard of the Retreat of our Nothard armey Which Puts us in feers that the Savages Will be Down upon cur frontteers and we in this Towne Being verey Short for amumtion; as Well as Sum armes Wanting; . . , Without Which we Cannct Defend cur Selves Nor oure Country in order that each man have one Pound of Powder we Want in this Towne si:;tey wait; and we Want fore hundred flints one hundred w*1 of Lead and Twenty guns. . . .2

riany of the petitions were as specific as Westmoreland’s, and were based on the military census the towns had taken in 1775. Through their representatives or their agents, towns asked for powder and lead by weight and flints and guns bu number. The House too); a month to review the petitions. They voted to provide guns and ammunition to all but seven cf the towns. If the frontier towns had not requested help, they probably jwould not have received it. There is no evidence that the House used the military census compiled by the Fourth Provincial Congress tc send towns arms =”d 4 ammunition automatically. In addition tc petitions 177

sent petitions to the House asking it to intervene in local problems that local leaders had been unable to solve. Before it acted, the House required evidence that an attempt had been made to resolve the issue at the touin level. Uhen New Town CNewtonJ Failed to reach an agreement with Joseph Bartlett, whom it claimed

Fraudulently represented the town in the Fourth Provincial Congress, it asked the House of Representatives to resolve the dispute. On April BO, 1775, New Town, outraged by Le:-:ington and Concord, had elected Joseph Bartlett, Jcsiah Eartlett's brother— in-law, to attend the Third Provincial Congress. Uhen Eartlett returned, he reported that he was to continue representing his town For an additional six months, and he took his seat in the Fourth Provincial Congress. The town eventually learned that the Third and Fourth Provincial Congresses were not the same group, and that there should have been a separate election. The town reproached Bartlett For his deception, but agreed to let him keep his seat

What the town did not know was that the delegates to the Fourth Provincial Congress would vote to pay themselves, and that it would be taxed to pay its share cF Eartlett's expenses. Uhen the tax bill arrived, the town notified the Ccngress of the Fraud. A tcvn committee tried to persuade Bartlett to accept only the travel allowance which was paid by the Congress. Uhen 17B

Bartlett refused, New Town felt it had no choice but to ask the House to hear testimony from both sides and give a decision. A House committee Found in Favor oF the town, and Bartlett had to return all the money he had r e c e i v e d .5 Private individuals also petitioned the House to intervene in disputes in their behalF that they were having with their town. The House applied the same criterion to private petitions that it did to town petitions. Uhen Zaccheus Clough of Poplin, CFreemontj petitioned the House tobecome involved in a dispute between him and his town, the House refused to act because there had been no attempt to solve the problem at the local level. Residents of Poplin called Clough a Tory, and accused him of having diverted some of the town’s donation to Boston to his own use. Clough, who had represented Poplin in the First and Second Provincial Congresses, had opposed the town’s decision to aid Boston. A selectman at the time of the vote, he was turned out oF office the Following year. Clough cleared himself of thecharge when he produced a signed statement from the Boston Committee of

Donations attesting that he had delivered one yoke of oxEn (presumably purchased with the Poplin’s £50i to Captain Isaac Foster, chairman of the Charlestown O Committee of Donations. 179

As a result of petitions from private individuals, the House occasionally acted as a Court of Appeals, reviewing and passing Judgment on decisions made by local Committees of SaFety. One successful petitioner, Oliver Parker of Stoddard, petitioned the House to review the judgment of the Committees of Safety from Stoddard, Harlow, and Camden which had ruled that he was . notoriously Disaffected to the American Cause” and that he was to ”be confin1"* to the Lot of Land his house stands on.” Parker had been ordered by the Stoddard Committee to appear before the combined committees of the three towns to answer charges of being "inimical to America.” Parker, who was not informed of the exact nature of the charge, refused to appear. The meeting took place without him. Parker was accused not only of writing a scurrilous piece entitled ”A Receipt to make a Whig,” but also of breaking down Nathaniel Emerson’s fence, allowing g his cattle to graze on Emerson’s property. In his petition to the House, Parker claimed that there was no evidence of his guilt and he asked For advice on how to prove his innocence. Twenty-one of Parker's neighbors petitioned the House to hear his case. They praised Parker for his military record during the French wars, noted his general good character, and claimed that the case against him was based on "maii.ce and falsehood.”'1'0 In September 1776, the House agreed to hear Parker's 100

petition, but it did not do so until March 1777. After hearing Parker’s testimony, the House was not convinced of his innocence, but it agreed that his sentence was too harsh. It ordered Parker to post a £500 bond and ruled that he should be confined to the town limits of Stoddard for one year. Ey November 5, 177B, the charges against Parker included counterfeiting and he was sentenced to prison by the Committee of Safety. 11 The insistence of the House of Representative that towns and individuals try solving problems on the local level before requesting help from the House effectively reduced the work load for representatives. The practice had another result. In forcing towns to rely upon their own resources to solve problems, the House encouraged inter-town communication, fostered the development of regional bonds, and nurtured feelings of self reliance.

In addition to appealing to the House for help w i t h particular local problems, towns used petitions tc prod the first House of Representatives into examining problems of a much broader nature, problems that could only be solved by legislation. Periodically the First House of Representatives established joint committees of the House and Council tc set priorities for a particular session. If one compares the stated objectives w i t h t h e legislation passed, it is possible to trace the effect of the towns' petitions in altering the schedule of pr i or 1 1 1 e s . l a i

fin Act Impousrinc Sundru Committees Tc Cause Sluices Tc Be Hade. In All Darns . . . , passed in July 17~E and An Pet Far Regulating The Prices oF Sunriru Articles Therein Enumerated. passed in January 1777, mere the direct result of tcun petitions. On March 7, 1776, the House agreed tc hear a petition from the residents of □erryfield CManchesterj requesting that dams be opened so that aleuives could pass From the Merrimack River into the Great Cohos Brook to spawn. The owner of most of the darns in the area, John GoFFe, agreed that opening the dams would be in the public interest. In a letter to the House, he stated that he had dene so in the past and would continue to do so in the future. Pis a result of the Derryfield petition, the House investigated the practices of the dam owners along Beaver Brook, another tributary of the Merrimack. Their investigation resulted in an act requiring the dams to be open From May 1 to June 15 each year, a time corresponding to the spawning s e a s o n .12 It was not sc easy for the towns to get the House tc address the issue of runaway prices. The regulation of prices had been a town concern since the Fail of l” '-t. For over two years the Continental Congresses and the Provincial Congresses had been issuing recommendations. but there had been no specific guidelines or means of enforcement. Tcwns became involved as soon as they began implementing the Continental Association. Article Mine IBS

of the document stated that imported goods mere to be sold "at the rates” charged in the previous twelve months. Article Thirteen stated that ”, . . all Manufactures of the country Cwilll be sold at reascnabiE prices. . . .” Former Speaker John Wentworth, in his address made at the conclusion of the Second Provincial

Congress, urged residents to ”... strictly adhere to the Association of the late Continental Congress, and deal with the violators of it in the manner therin recommended.” Nowhere in the address did Wentworth specifically mention prices, yet many towns seized upon price stability as an item in their statement on accepting the Association.^ For almost a year the residents of New Ipswich, challenged by merchant David Hills, struggled For an accurate interpretation of the Continental Congress's recommendations. In February, March, and July of 1775, the Committee of Inspection summoned Hills to account for raising his prices. On the first two occasions, Hills responded that he did not understand the Association; cn the third he questioned the committee’s interpretation. Hills claimed that he ought to be able to raise his prices enough to yield the accepted 30 per cent profit. The committee was not swayed by Hills's arguments. In accordance with the requirements of the Continental Association, they published a notice in the newspaper outlining Hills’s activities and ”. . . advisCed] all 1B3

14 good people to break oFF all dealing with him.” The notice in the paper provoked a public debate in the press between Hills and the New Ipswich Committee oF SaFety Chairman, Joseph Bates. Hills presented receipts From his wholesalers in an attempt to prove that his prices were reasonable, but the town supported the committee s action. Although outwardly conFident that they were correct, the members oF the New Ipswich Committee had some inner doubts. In September they wrote to Lieutenant Josiah Brown, one oF their townsmen who was in the army, requesting him to ask General John Sullivan the precise meaning oF Articles Nine and Thirteen. Sullivan had been a delegate to the First Continental Congress, the group that developed the Continental Association. Sullivan’s 1 R reply, iF made, has not been Found. There is no rucord oF New Ipswichasking the Fourth

Provincial Congress For advice, but iF it had the Congress would have agreed with New Ipswich’s handling oF the Hills case. On September 1, 1775, the Fourth Provincial Congress Resolved that any person selling . . . any . . . English Goods at an Extravagant price, contrary to the Express Tenor oF the Continental Association, and not Dealt with by the Committee oF such Town . . . may be cited beFDre the Committee oF any Neighboring Town within Ten Miles. . . .17

In November 1775, Portsmouth residents, outraged by 1B4

a rise in beef prices, pleaded with the Fourth Provincial Congress to take action. The Congress ordered the offending butchers to return their excess profits. In December, the town, again disturbed by a general rise in prices, appointed a committee to investigate and make recommendations. The committee, which included Fourth Provincial Congress delegate William Whipple, stated

. wee are of opinion that Cregulating prices] is too extensive as well as too delicate an affair to be in the power of any Town Committee to rectify. Wee therefore look up to the superior Wisdom of the Congress intreating that they will take up the matter on a general plan. . . .

Although it received the petition, the Congress did not respond.j IB The Portsmouth petition was followed in early 1^75 by one from the Merrimack River towns of Newberry Port, Newberry, Bradford, Andover, Boxford, Salisbury, Haverhill, Metheum, Londonderry, Plaistow, New Salem and Atkinson, Residents of these New Hampshire and Massachusetts towns who traded with one another complained that their purchasing power was shrinking as selfish merchants and farmers "engrossCed] the most Saleable articles” and doubled their retail price. According to Article Thirteen of the Association, American gocds were tc be sold at reasonable prices. T^e Committees of Safety from these towns pleaded with the First House of Representatives tc take the matter under 1B5

consideration and to effect a remedy. 19 As a result of the petitions, the House created a joint committee to study the problem. No action can be traced tc the committee. However, in hay, the Exeter New Hampshire Gazette published a reccmmendation From Councilor Matthew Thornton urging residents not to take P0 advantage of the scarcity of goads by raising prices. Thornton’s pleas went unheeded. In mid-summer the House received petitions, signed by 132 men From Exeter, complaining about merchants who engrossed and raised the prices on salt, woolens, linens and other West Indies products. The petitioners included Noah Emery, one of Exeter’s representatives. The House’s reaction was to republish Thornton’s newspaper address. P1 Frustrated by the New Hampshire House’s Failure tc act on their February petition, a group of eleven New Hampshire and Massachusetts towns met at Dracut, Massachusetts, on November 5, 1776, to again discuss the problem cf rising prices. They decided tc convene a larger group to discuss prices and the resulting depreciation of paper money. Invitations were sent tc thirty-three New Hampshire towns and Fifteen Massachusetts towns. Eighteen New Hampshire towns, Londonderry, Hampstead, Plaistow, Atkinson, Pelham, □unstable, Merrimack, Bedford, Derryfield, Goffstcwn. Hollis, Mason, Raby, New Ispwich, Peterborough, Wilton, Lyndeborough, Nottingham-West, and nine Massachusetts IBB

towns sent delegates to the November 2B meeting. They w e r e j o i n e d b y E d J e w e t t , uiho r e p r e s e n t e d s i x t e e n p p uninvited towns From Grafton and Cheshire counties. The group voted to petition the General Courts of both New Hampshire and of Massachusetts Bay, ashing them ”. . . to enact such Laws and make such Prevision, and Regulation, as in their Operation, may speedily, and effectually, remedy the evils of which we so justly c o m p l a i n ....

Finally, the New Hampshire General Court realized that the situation called far more than mere recommendations and it moved quickly to solve the problem. A committee of both houses reviewed the petition sent to New Hampshire and recommended that a committee be sent to Massachusetts Bay to develop criteria for a bill. Three weeks later the committee made its first report. After two days of debate, there was agreement on what items to include in the bill. The act, passed on January 18, 1777,listed various agricultural and manufactured products, and specified their maximum price pu p e r u n i t . The relationship of town petitions to the fish and prices acts was not an isolated example . In many other cases involving counterfeiting, spying, and disloyalty tc the patriot cause, towns also recognized problems before the state government did. In the Spring of 177G, the Hanover and Lebanon Committees of Safety investigated 107

local counterfeiting activities, discovered the culprit and confiscated his material. Unsure of its authority, the Hanover committee reported the action to the House and asked, ”Ue would wish to have our duty in that & other cases more particularly stated, that we may not be exposed to exceed our bounds.” On June 5, 177S, the

House and Council set as one of their priorities de­ veloping a bill against counterfeiting. fin Act to Pre­ vent the Foroeino & Altering Bills of Public Credit. . . p a s s e d o n J u l y 3, 1 7 7 6 .

The Cheshire County Committee of Safety complained to the House and Council in August 1776, that there were spies for the British, in their area. The committee a s k e d

that some Resolve pass . . . to hinder their progress, we would not think to Dictate hut we humbly Conceive the method Come into by the Governor and Committee of Safety of Connecticut would be a Ready method to accomplish the afores^ Designs. . .

The Cheshire County petition was followed by one from Claremont, reporting that the town contained a large number of "Neuters,” who now that the Fifth Provincial Congress had resolved itselfinto a House of Representatives, acted as if they were in a state of nature. The "Neuters” did not contribute their share to the war effort, ignored Fast Days, labored on the Sabbath, and freely moved From townto town, although many had beenconfined to the limits of Claremont by town IBB

committees implementing recommendations of the Provincial Congresses. The town asked that a measure be passed to regulate the conduct of such offenders. The House took both petitions under consideration and on January 17, 1777, passed An Act Against Treason . . . and fin Act For Preventing and Punishing Such Offences Against the State

As Do Not Amount to Treason, which solved the problem of spying and general disloyalty Ulhile towns were successful in using petitions tc influence the functions of their government, they did not succeed in using petitions to change its structure. Carping began as soon as towns received the call for the Fifth Provincial Congress. Towns in the seacoast area, led by Portsmouth, and towns in Cheshire and Grafton

Counties, led by Plainfield and Lebanon, began two separate petition drives to change the structure of the government. CisafFected seacoast towns opposed the resolution of the Fifth Provincial Congress into a Hcuse of Representatives and appointing government officials. Towns in the Frontier objected initially to the new plan for electing representatives. As their petition drive gained momentum, it engulfed other issues. Both groups felt that major changes in the structure of the government should have been put to a vote by the tours. Portsmouth articulated the seacoast's opposition to the proposed action by the Fifth Provincial Ccrgrass on

Decsmber BO, 17^5. when the town met to elect its 189

representatives. It voiced its objections in the instructions to its delegates, Samuel Cutts, Peirce Long, and Samuel Sherburne. William Whipple, one of Portsmouth’s delegates to the Third and Fourth Provincial Congresses, mas on the committee tc turite the instructions. The objection to ’’taking up" government Focused on one issue. How uould this action affect the opinions of the British people? Whipple and his committee argued that the Continental Congress had described the conflict to the British people as the colonists’ struggle with Parliament to preserve the traditional rights of Englishmen. The enemy had been identified as Parliament, not the Eritish nation; the Continental Congress had urged the British pecple to pressure their government For a change in its colonial policy. IF the New Hampshire Congress were now to resolve itself into a House of Representatives and appoint government officials, Parliament could use that action to persuade the British people that the struggle was not over rights, but was a movement For independence. The colonists would then lose the presumed support of the British nation. Portsmouth townsmen Felt that the risk of Eritish negative public opinion was too great. The Congress, they argued, should stay a Congress and not PR assume the nature of a government. Portsmouth’s assumption that the English pecple uould support the colonies in their opposition to 130

Parliament was a False hope. By December 1775, lives had been Inst an bath sides, and the Continental Congress had raised an army. It appeared that the difficulties between the colonists and Parliament uiculd be salved by armed conflict. Yet Portsmouth residents continued to believe that a reconciliation could be obtained if the Eritish people pressured Parliament for a change. Seven months earlier, Paine Wingate had expressed the same hope immediately after the battles at Lexington and Concord. It is impossible to determine how many towns in other areas of the colony were clinging to the hope of a reconciliation effected by British public opinion. Almost certainly Portsmouth’s fears of independence were discussed. The town published its instructions to its representatives in the New Hampshire Gazette. By 1775, the Gazette circulated to Hollis, Hinsdale, UJaipole, pQ Plymouth, Rochester, and points in between.'— When the Fifth Provincial Congress met, there were no delegates fromat least twenty-four towns. Some had not sent representative to the previous Provincial Congresses. Twelve of those towns, however, Sandown, Ha wke, Nottingham, Nadbury, Wolfebcrough, New Ecston, Swanzey, Jaffrey, Rindge, Fitzwilliam, Lebanon, and Hanover, had been represented at the Fourth Provincial Congress. Their representatives had participated m the vote on the new plan of representation and in the discussions cn "taking up civil government.” By voting 191

not to participate in the FiFth Provincial Congress, the touins expressed their dissatisfaction with the structure or the proposed actions of their government.^ The members of the Fifth Provincial Congress voted hy a two to one majority to adopt NewHampshire’s constitution, to resolve themselves into a House of Representatives and to appoint the Council and other government officials. Those who opposed the measure may have counted the number of towns that were not present and assumed that those towns were not there because they too objected to the Fifth Provincial Congress assuming

the nature of a government. 31 □n January 9, 1776, four days after the Fifth Provincial Congress, now the first House of Representatives, adopted its constitution and proceeded to appoint the council, New Hampshire Gazette editcr Daniel Fowle, perhaps feeling that Portsmouth’s views on independence were shared by many New Hampshire towns, published a lengthy article signed by "Junius.” The anonymous author accused the members of the Fifth Provincial Congress of duplicity. He stated We began the controversy on this principle, to s e e ! : Redress of Grievances: since, we have lost sight of the object and are in quest of what will terminate most certainly in our ruin and destruction; I mean, INDEPENDENCY upon Great Britain; a step that the public are exceedingly averse to; but the public in general are ignorant of the design and tendency of the conduct of their Representatives, . . 195

’’Junius” then proceeded to ask and answer two questions: "1st. Can we gain INDEPENDENCY? 5nd. If we gain can we support ourselves in it?” His answer to the first was "no.” He supported his arguments by discussing the American lack of a navy to defend its coast line, and the difficulties the colonies had been having in raising, financing, and equipping an army. His answer to the second, assuming he was wrong on the first, was also "no.” He supported hxs position by noting the lack of manufacturing in the colonies, and the loss of trade with Great Eritam that would result from independence. ’’Junius" attacked the way the Congress had interpreted the Continental Congress’s recommendations. He noted the potential abuse of power when a Hcuse appoints a Council and the two together appoint the civil and high military •aq officers of the colony. The day after the Junius article appeared, Portsmouth citizens held a special town meeting to discuss the provincial government’s actions. The townsmen voted to petition the House to reverse the process of assuming government. They included in the petition the instruct ions they had gi"sn to their representatives. Any action which looked like a neve towards independence would alienate the British public and jeopardize their efforts to change Par 1 lament's colonial policy . 193

Lil:s the Junius article, the Portsmouth petition accused the Congress of not acting in the best interests of the people. It stated . uie are of Opinion, that the Inhabitants of the Colony, do not generally approve of this measure, we uiDuld therefore have wished; to have had the minds of the People fully taken on such a Momentous, Concernment & to have known the Plan before it was adopted S carried into Execution which is their Inherent right.

The Portsmouth town meeting concluded with a vote ", . . to write circular Letters to all Neighboring Towns to desire they will unite with us in preferring Petitions tc the Congress. . . . As residents cf the largest mercantile community in the colony, many Portsmouth voters may have been influenced by a fear of the disastrous results of independence outlined by Junius. At least one prominent Portsmouth merchant, Ulilliam UJhipple, confided to his mother his fears that the colonists would be defeated in any military conflict with Great Britain. • a c On the same day of the Portsmouth town meeting, the representatives from North Hill (part of North Hampton!, Newington, Portsmouth, Dover, Rye, Kensington, Stratham, Rochester, Sandwich, Nouitonboro'ugh, and Lee presented a petition to their colleagues in the House protesting "the Present Plan of Taking up Government. " The representatives' protest equated the Congress’s actions with a movement towards independence. They questioned why 134

such action was taken by small New Hampshire, and net by much larger New York or Uirginia. The representatives’ main concern was that the new government was net what the people expected or wanted. In addition, they accused Josiah Eartlett and John Langdon of badgering members of the Continental Congress to grant New Hampshire permission to take up government.^ The representatives’ petition was followed by separate petitions from Portsmouth, Greenland, Newmarket, Dover, Rye, Rochester, Brentwood, and Stratham. These towns held special town meetings as a result of Portsmouth’s circular letter. Pill the petitions expressed a fear of independence and stressed that citizens should have been consulted before the new form

□f government was implemented. 3 7 On January IS, 1776, the House and Council assembled to discuss the town petitions against the new form of government, presented and argued by Portsmouth attorney John Pickering, whom the petitioners hired for the purpose. Pifter hearing the case the House agreed tc refer the problem to the Continental Congress and the petitioners agreed to abide by its decision. Ileshech UJeare, aided by Israel Morey, David Gilman and Stephen Evans gathered all the petitions, drafted a cover letter, and sent the materials to William Whipple and Josiah Bartlett in Philadelphia.®®

Bartlett was not happy when he received the packet 195

of materials. He had read Portsmouth’s instructions to its delegates in the Gazette. and knew of the fears of independence. To calm them, he had sent John Langdon a copy of Thomas Paine’s recently published Common Sense uhich he asked Langdon to ’’lend round to the people."

Neither Paine’s blunt logic nor his stirring rhetoric, houever, had worked the desired effect on the cautious minds of New Hampshire's very reluctant revolutionaries . ^ After reading the materials, Bartlett wrote to John Langdon describing his embarrassment when presenting the petitions to his colleagues in the Continental Congress. President CJohn Hancock! . . , asked us what was the question the Colony wanted to have put to the Congress for theiranswer as he said he could not find out by reading the papers, and neither Col. Whipple nor I could inform him; for the order of Congress to take up civil Govt, in such a manner as the Colony should think proper nobody can deny, and that the Colony had taken up Such a form as was most agreeable to majority, is not disputed; that a number disliked it and protested against it is set forth, but what the Congress . . . will report is uncertain, but for the honor of the Province I wish it had been kept at home.4 0

B y I1ay t h e C o n t i n e n t a l C o n g r e s s w a s s e r i o u s l y considering declaring the colonies independent from Great Britain. By comparison the problems in New Hampshire seemed inconsequential. In New Hampshire, the question of independence was not an issue to be decided quickly. Josiah Bartlett and William Whipple notified fleshech 136

Weare of the Continental Congress’s discussions an nay

5B, 177S, and asked UJe sha’d bee glad to know the sentiments of our Colony on the importat subject of a total seperation from Great Britain. Let cur own opinions be what they may, we think ourselves in duty bound to act agreeable to the sentiment* of our constituents

When Weare did not respond, Bartlett repeated his request and also wrote to Nathaniel Fclsome and John Langdon, hoping that they would use their influence to pressure the House to consider the request. Cn June 15, 1776, the House and Council unanimously voted WE , therefore Declare that it is the opinion of this Assembly that cur Delegates at the Continental Congress should be Instructed, and they are hereby Instructed to Jem with the other Colonies in Declaring THE THIRTEEN UNITED COLONIES, a FREE 3 INDEPENDENT STATE. . . ,42

The concerns of the seaccast towns, dcrmant since lata January, were now dead. As they had promised, the protesters now agreed to abide by the recommendations of the Continental Congress. If the Continental Congress wanted to declare all thirteen colonies independent, New Hampshire, too, would cast its vote for independence. The state's reluctant revolutionaries again deferred to a higher authority. Although it resulted in no change in the structure of the government, the seaccast towns’ protect was significant. It shows that there was dissent within the revolutionary government. Men like William Whipple who 1 9 7

had been the strangest advocate of reforms in the Eritish system, could not support actions that smacked of independence. And they Felt obligated to make their position known. Like true Eritish citizens, however, they agreed to abide by the decisions of the majority.

The seacoast protest also cautions us against over­ emphasizing New Hampshire’s First constitution and its implementation. Undoubtedly the Fifth Provincial Congress did assume functions previously reserved for the Crown, but it did so as a temporary measure to cope with an emergency situation. When it was time For the United

Colonies to vote For independence from Great Eritain, New Hampshire was expected to cast its vote with the others. Its constitution and form of government gave the colony no special status.

ft protest of a different kind against the structure of the new government, this one primarily From towns in Grafton and Cheshire Counties, was mare wide-spread and much longer lived than the seacoast protest. It was not resolved until 1782. In their first year, the protesters identified what they perceived as a problem, demonstrated its significance, and proposed a solution. They actively recruited people to their cause and publicized their ideas in two political pamphlets. While many of the protesters were geographically isolated, they were philosophically on the cutting edge of liberal political thought. Had their ideas been accepted, New Hampshire 13B

might have had an egalitarian government in which all touins wererepresented in the House of Representatives and all adult males were potential office holders. Like Portsmouth, towns in Grafton and Cheshire Counties that objected to the government’s new structure began their protest when they met to elect delegates to

the Fifth Provincial Congress. Fitzwilliam, classed with Swanzey, held a special town meeting prior to the election. Pit the meeting townsmen "Uoted that it is the opinion of thee Town that by being cupled with Swanzey they have not a free . . . representation agreeable to the advice of the Continental Congress.” A town committee was charged to go to Swanzey on the day of the election to explain why the town would not participate. The committee must have been persuasive. Swanzey also decided not to elect a delegate to the Fifth Provincial C o n g r e s s .4 3 doters from Rindge, Jaffrey, and Peterborough Slip met in Rindge on December B, 1775, to elect their delegate. After careful consideration, the towns decided

that each was entitled to its own representative. The meeting broke into two groups. Rindge voters elected Enoch Hale; JafFrey voters, William Smiley. Presumably Peterborough residents voted with one of the other two towns, though the record is unclear. During the next tan days, residents of Rindge and Jaffrey contacted vcters in Fitzwilliam and New Ipswich CHi1Isborough County). 199

Together the four towns petitioned the Fifth Provincial Congress . . that Every Incorporated Town in this Colony have free Liberty to send a Representative of their own Choice. ...”44 The petitioners argued that there could be no fair system of taxation if there was not a free representation. They noted that the system of classing towns together to choose one representative resulted in basic inequalities and practical problems. Whenever two towns were classed together, the larger town would always be able to dominate the smaller town. How could voters from classed towns make intelligent decisions when they did not ’’understand the qualifications and principles" of men from other towns? How could delegates fairly represent towns other than their own, when they were not familiar with the problems of a town in which they did not reside?^ The Fifth Provincial Congress rejected the petition and refused to seat bath Hale and Smiley. It ordered a new election in Rindge, Jaffrey, and Peterborough Slip. Six months later the towns complied. Enoch Hale returned to Exeter to tale his seat in the house in June 1776. 4E The six towns in the Hanover class, Hanover, Lebanon, Relhan CEnfieldJ, Cannan, Cardigan COrange?, and Grafton, returned the election writ tc the Fifth Provincial Congress without the name of a delegate. The writ was accompanied by a petition from John Uheelock, 500

the towns' agent, explaining the towns’ objections to the plan For representation. The Congress dismissed the

4 7 petition and ordered a new election. The towns in the Hanover class, irate that their petition received so little consideration, saw this exercise of congressional power as being just as arbitrary as the recent acts of the British government. To try to get a Fair hearing For their concerns, the towns chose a committee to write circular letters to all towns in GraFton and Cheshire Counties. The letters urged towns to consider the inherent inequities in grouping towns together to elect one representative. They repeated the arguments made by Mew Ipswich, Fitzwilliam, Rindge, and JaFFrey in their petition to the House and added the diFFiculties some townsmen farad in traveling long distances to cast their votes. The writers also attacked the 1500 property qualification For rapresentatives ”, . . which . . . may in some instances prove prejudicial to the Election cF persons most Suitable to that Important trust.” The circular letters prompted a number cF inter-town meetings held in January, February, and March I T6 , coordinated by a group called the United Committees. Their purpose was to Find some way oF presenting their grievances tc the House of Rapresentativss, while at the same time assuring the House that the towns supported the measures oF the Continental Congress and the war effort. 501

The method the towns decided upon was the publication of a pamphlet. Because the United Committees could not get the work printed in New Hampshire, the pamphlet, entitled An Address of the Inhabitants oF the Town of Plainfield. Lebanon. Relhan. Cannan. Cardigan. Hanover. Lime. OrForri. Haverhill. Bath. and LandaFF. to the Inhabitants of the

Several Towns in the Colonu of New-Hamoshire. was printed in Connecticut. The pamphlet was ready For distribution in July, 1776.49 Between the time of the towns’ initial protest in December 1775, and the publication of An Address oF the

Inhabitants. the Fifth Provincial Congress had resolved itself into the First House of Representatives and had appointed the Council and other colony officials. These actions convinced the pamphlet's authors that the new government was not operating in the best interests of the people. They moved their arguments away From the practical difficulties facing classed towns to the arbitrary exercise of power by the Fifth Provincial Congress in implementing the recommendations cf the

Continental Congress to the basic defects in the new government that the Congress had created. Throughout the pamphlet, the authors juxtaposed their relationship with the House of Representatives with the colonies’ relationship with Great Britain. To them, the arguments of no taxation without representation applied equally tc b o t h . 2 o a

Basic tD the towns’ protest uias their belief that by appointing a Council and developing plans far the 177B election, the House of Representatives illegally created a permanent form cf government and not a temporary farm as had been recommended by thB Continental Congress, The new government, they complained, was like ”a little horn, growing up in the place where the other was broken off.” The new Council was appointed, Just like the old one; most of the new councilors and representatives came from one area, just like the old ones. "Pray where is the difference between this establishment and the former one, so much complained of, except that the Governor had the power in the farmer, and a number of persons in the latter,” they asked.50 The authors argued that a permanent government should provide the opportunity for each incorporated town to have one representative, that councilors should be elected at large and represent the people at large, and that the Council should have someone to counsel, a governor. In addition, they argued that creating a permanent government was a right that belonged to the people, not to a small group of representatives. Si Knowing that they would be criticized for questioning the government at a time when there was a need for unity, the authors defended their position by noting that towns had petitioned the Congress, but that the petitions had been dismissed. They further charged 203

that members of the current House tuere too biased to fairly consider the petitions. To grant them would be to decrease in their own power. 5P The authors invited others who had similar concerns to write to them. The town of Temple and Meshech Weare responded. Neither agreed with sentiments expressed in fln Address of the Inhabitants. Temple asserted the temporary nature of the new government, painting out that the conflict with Great Britain was not over. They encouraged the disaffected towns to stop complaining and to ”. . . try the present Plan for a season, by which we shall be more able to Judge or experience the surest test of its advantages or disadvantages, and how to Improve it

for the better . While Meshech UJeare agreed with the towns on the importance of representation and the care one ought to take to preserve that right, but he too argued that the

new government was a temporary measure designed to he replaced after the war with Great Eritain ended. He defended the actions of both the Fourth and Fifth Provincial Congresses and challenged the authors cf the pamphlet to prove that some people were by intention denied the right to cast their vets for a

representative.^

Wears failed to understand the towns' plea for one representative for each incorporated town. He assured

that the authors meant that each incorporated town should 204

have onl'j one representative. What the authcrs actually s a i d w a s . . we do not deny, but the legislative body may, grant to the large capital towns in the Colony some greater privileges in this respect, Celecting representatives! than the other towns have; but to unite half a dozen or more towns together, equally privileaed, in order to make them equal to some one other town, is a new practice in politics. ^

There is no record that the Hcuse cr Council d i s c u s s e d Pip, a d d r e s s c f the Inhabitants, and there is r.c evidence that Weare’s response was printed. He may have written as a private individual. Yet on September 13, 177E, the House, claiming that it had been mistaken about the number of voters in the Hanover class, voted to spilt the towns into two groups. For the 1775 election, writs would be issued to Hanover, Canaan, and Cardigan, and tc Lebanon, Relhan, and Grafton. The House Further voted that writs would be issued tc other towns when their papulation increased. Had the House taken this measure in December 1775 when the Hanover class protested their grouping, the conflict with the Cheshire and Grafton County tcwns might have been avoided. When a new House of Representatives met in December 1775, at least thirty-three Grafton and Cheshire tours whose voters boycotted the elections were unrepresented. Some tcwns, which had voted for a representative, refused to vote for councilor, leaving Grafton County unrepresentsd m the Council. Fourteen towns, Hanover, 505

Canaan, Cardigan, Grantham, Qrford, Piermont, Haverhill,

Lyman, Sath, Gunthujait, LandaFF, Horristoun, Lyme, and flcuiDrth, sent statements to the House depending their reasons For non-oomplianoe with the election writs. In their protest, they reFerred to fin Address to the

Inhabitants and restated its most salient Features— classing towns together For representation, requiring representatives to be worth £500, and restricting the choice oF councilors by county. 5 7 More signiFicantly, the protesters elaborated upon an idea that had been merely suggested in Pin Address to the Inhabitants. The towns noted that the Fourth Provincial Congress had adapted a new plan For representation and the FiFth Provincial Congress had taken up civil government when the colonies and Great Britain were united. With the Declaration cF Independence, all the colonies reverted into a state oF nature, and the New Hampshire House lost its authority tc govern. A new Form oF government was needed and it could be created only by a Full and Free representation oF the p e o p l e . A disgusted Meshech Ueare, acting in his capacity as a member oF the Committee oF SaFety, bundled the protests with a copy oF An Address and sent them to Continental Congress delegate, William Whipple. In his accompanying letter, he accused the Dartmouth College Faculty oF being the Farce behind the protest. IF Weere spake Far the SOB

Committee of Safety and the House, the protesters were correct in their assertion that they would not get a fair hearing by the House of Representatives. Before the House had a chance to review the protest letters, Weare stated his position in his letter to Whipple ” . . . our

Government is only temporary & the State of matters twill] not allow a Revisal.”

Representatives from Harlow, Alstead, Surry, New Ipswich, Walpole, and Chesterfield arrived at the Hcuse of Representative in December 177E with instructions from their towns which supported the protesters’ efforts. Walpole specifically charged its representative to lobby for a special convention, attended by all incorporated towns, to write a new constitution, subject to the review of the people . Delegates from Portsmouth urged the Hcuse to examine the conflict and effect a solution. Their instructions read We desire you would pay a great attention tc any Causes of Complaint subsisting in many Towns an the Western part of this State S to quiet any uneasiness which they feel, from Real or supposed Injuries by Partial Representation; these Complaints if they are not seasonable redress’d may ripen into an cpen disaffection to our Cause, as the right of Taxation Wholly depends upon that of Representation S is the Basis of our present Controversy with Britain, S if we withhold this Right from our own Eretheren, by an unequal Classical Representation, we shall split upon the very Rods we are striving to avoid, we pray you would preserve this Inherent Right to the People Inviolate S sacred as it is their dearest Priviledge - The better tc make Representation equal a general 507

(as the [Continental! Congress recommended} let it be determined what number of Uoters shall be intitled to a Representative not exceeding Fifty a that every Town should have as many Members as that number will admit of. . .

Perhaps because the Portsmouth delegates interpreted the Continental Congress’s recommendations in the same utay as voters in Grafton and Cheshire Counties, the House created a Joint committee on December 30, 1775, tc study the problem. As a result, Meshech Weare, Benjamin Giles, John Wentworth, Jr. (Dover} and Josiah Bartlett were commissioned to travel to Cheshire and Grafton Counties

to meet with representatives g F the disafFeoted towns.

The House charged them to to reassure the people that the new government was a temporary measure to meet an emergency situation. What the House committee did not realize, as they made their travel plans, was that the disaffected towns had elevated their discussions to yet another level ar.d were now discussing among themselves the fundamental principles of government. They expressed their ideas m a new pamphlet, printed at the end of 177G, titled The People the Eest Governors: or a Plan of Government Fcunded cn the Just Principles of Natural Freedom. The authors of the pamphlet summarized all of the defects of the government created by the Fifth Provincial Congress, and they collected and made sense of the suggestions that R1 had beer, marie by the towns since December 1775. ECS

The People the East Governors has been described as

’’on e q F the clearest democratic statements of the times." Its authors advocated a system of checks and balances, argued in Favor oF having a governor, recommended that the Council be elected by the pecple at large, and that judges be elected by county.^ The reforms they proposed would have given the people more control over their government. They recommended that the state be divided equally into legislative districts; that each district have one representative, although the House cculd grant a district additional representatives; and that elections be held annually. To vote a man had to be twenty-one and reside in an area For a year. There would be no property qua1iFications For office holders, but no man could hold more than one oFFice at a time. The towns would base their discussions with the House’s committee cn the principles outlined in the pamphlet. ^ The committee’s journey took a month. It apparently held large meetings in Keene, UJalpole, and Lebanon, although records oF the Keene and Walpole meetings have not survived. The meeting in Lebanon, which was coordinated by the United Committees, took place on February, 13, 1777. At the meeting Weare, Giles,

Wentworth.and Bartlett depended the House's point of view and urged the towns to accept the current situation R*4 until the end oF the war. 209

The Grafton County towns repeated their position on the necessity of a new government, presented their plan for a Constitutional Convention which could be called without the disrupting the present House, and were ready to discuss specific principles of government as outlined in The People the Best Governors. The towns socn realized that the House committee was authorized only to listen, not to act. The following day, the towns met by themselves . They voted that they could not ” . . acquiesce with the Plan of Representation and proceeding of the present Assembly of this State respecting Government. ...” At the same time, they assured the House’s committee that they supported the Continental Congress and the United States in the struggle with Great

B r i t a i n . 6 5 The House committee did convince same towns tc compromise. Charlestown and the classed towns of Fitzwilliam and Surrey; and Plymouth, New Chester, Cockermouth, and Alexandria sent representatives to the CC March 1777 session of the house. □rford’s delegate to the meeting at Lebanon, Israel Morey, came away convinced that a compromise was necessary. For his outspokenness, the United Committees chastised him in a letter to his town and asked that the town choose another man to represent it on the committee. Morey, however, convinced his town of the need for a compromise. In March 1777, Crford instructed 510

Florey to ask the United Committees to propose a compromise settlement to the House oF Representatives on t h e b a s i s that they Cthe House! issue writs as soon as the public calamities will admit For a Full and Free representation, each town to send as many Representatives as they may think proper, which Convention Shall agree on a mode oF Future Representation, and Form a plan oF government.57

Three months later, the United Committees voted to present a compromise plan to the House based on three points: that every town can elect one representative to the General Assembly, that the capital be moved to the middle oF the state, and that a separate constitutional convention be called to establish a permanent plan of government. Because of the efforts to stop General Burgoyne’s invasion From Canada, the towns did not deliver the petition until November. The House charged a Joint committee, consisting of Josiah Bartlett, John Langdon, Benjamin Giles, Ebenezer Thompson, and George

King, to draft an answer. The committee replied that nothing could be done until the war with Britain ended. RR Rejected by the New Hampshire General Assembly, the towns Felt that they had no choice but to look elsewhere for a government more sympathetic to. their needs. They decided to Join the with towns on the west side of the Connecticut River to petition the Continental Congress For permission to Form the new state of Uermont . Those in charge of the petition drive promised to submit the 211

proposed constitution to all towns For suggestions and ratiFication. For over a year, the towns in Grafton and Cheshire Counties had been trying to persuade the New Hampshire General Court that this was the proper way to create a government

The Grafton and Cheshire Counties protest was the culmination of the political awakening in New Hampshire which began with the creation of the first Committee cf Correspondence in 1773. In three and one half years some towns had moved from questioning the authority of Parliament to proposing an entirely new farm of government based on the belief that the people are t h . E best governors and incorporating some of the most advanced political concepts of the era.

The Grafton and Cheshire County towns, however, were ahead of their time. The majority cf the people m New Hampshire were not ready for their ideas. Ey choosing to work outside of the system, rather than working from within, the protesting towns may have been partially responsible for the Failure of their own program. They assumed that they could not change the minds of the members of the House of Representatives, An Examination of town and individual petitions sent to their revolutionary government illustrates that the first House of Representatives was committed to pro 'iding for defense and maintaining peace and good order. However, it wanted tc carry out those functions without 215

altering the traditional power structure of the cld royal gpverrmant, It clearly rejected any petitions designed to give neu towns and previously unrepresented peoples and equal share in the decision making process. Strange then, that a modern historian has lauded this First New Hampshire House as an institution where new "ail had equal opportunity based on personal initiative." 7 1 213

Chapter Nates

1. The broadside is printed in Jere Oaniell, Experiment in Republicanism: New Hampshire Politics and the American Revolution. 1741-1794 (Cambridge, flass. , 13705, p. 113.

2. Edgar Aldrich, "The Affair of the Cedars and the Service of Colonel Timothy Bede in the War of the Revolution," Collections of the New Hampshire Iftstorical 5ocietu 3 (1835-13335:194-231.

3. Nathaniel Boutan, et al., eds. , Documents and Records Relating to Neui Hampshire. 1623-1B0Q. 40 vols. (Concord and Manchester, N.H., 1B57-19435, 13:655-656, (hereafter cited as NH5P 5.

4. The towns that petitioned were Chesterfield, Campton, Alexandria, Conway, Cockermouth, Holderness, Cornish, Lebanon, Hanover, Lyme, Haverhill, Bath, Bunthwaite, Lyman, Landaff, Canaan, Enfield, Walpole, Piermont, Orford, Wentworth, Warren, New Chester, Rumney, Salisbury, Wakefield, Moultanborough, Middleton, Northumberland, Sandwich, Tamworth, Plainfield, Pembrook, Westmoreland, Thornton, Saville, Morristown, Plymouth, Peterborough, Mason, Lyndeborough. See NHSP B:151-313. 12:lB7-557, 13:160-435; "Records of the Committee of Safety”, Collections of the New Hampshire Historical Societu 7 (1B635:47-63; Petition of the People of the Upper Coos, July 7, 1776, General Court Papers, Committee of Safety, Record Group III, Box 1, Folder 10, Concord, N.H., Records and Archives Division (hereafter cited as NHA5; Petition of the Connecticut River Towns to the General Assembly, July 2, 1776, General Court Records, Petitions, Record Group III, Box 3, Folder IB, NHA.

5. Newton Town Records, vol. 1, p. 338, Concord, N.H., New Hampshire State Library, (hereafter cited as NH5L5.

G. Ibid., pp. 333-402; NHSP. 8:4, 31, 111.

7. NHSP. B:312. In the index to volume eight of NHSP. information on Clough is listed under Clifford.

B. NHSP. B:312. 214

3. Ibid., 13:453, 461-462. Parker’s receipe was Take of conspiracy and the rent oF pride three handFulls two of ambition and vain glory, pound them .in the mortar of Faction and discord, boil it in 2 quarts oF dissembling tears and a little New England Rum over the Fire oF Sedition till you Find the scum oF Folly wood to rise on the top, then strain it through the cloths oF Rebillion, put it into the bottle oF envy, stop it with the cor): oF malice, then make it into pills called Conspiracy oF which taka nine when going to bed say aver your hypocritical prayer, and curse your honest neighbor in your bed chamber and then go to sleep iF you can, it will have so good an eFFect that all the next day you will be thinking how to cozzen cheat lie and get drunk abuse the ministers oF the Gospel, cut the threats cF all honest nen and plunder the Nation.

10. Ibid., 13:460-461.

11. Ibid., B:347, 515; ’’Records oF the N.H. Committee oF Sa Fe t y , ” p . 70.

12. NH5P. B:9B-99; HenryH. MetcalF, Laws oF New Hampshire. 4 vols. (Bristol, N.H., 1916), 4:20-21.

13. NHSP. 7:428,443.

14. Charles Henry Chandler, The Historu cF New Ipswich. New Hampshire. 1735-1314. With Genealogical Records oF the Principal Families (Fitchburg, Hass., 1314;, p. 83; the expected proFit rate oF 30 percent was taken From a Petition From the Herrimack River Towns to the New Hampshire General Court, February 23, 1776, Box 559043, NHft .

15. Chandler, History oF New Ipswich, pp. B3-B5.

15. Josiah Brown to General John Sullivan, September 16, 1776, in Gtis Hammond, ed., Letters and Papers of Naior- General John Sullivan. 2 vols. (Concord, N.H., 1930;, pp. 8 B - B 9 . S15

17. NHSP. 7:506-607.

18. Ibid., 7:648, 701; U.S. Work Projects fldministration, Portsmouth CN.H.l Touin Records. 4 vcls. iPortsmouth, N.H., 1940 J, pp. 342A-343A.

19. Petition from the Merrimack River Towns to the Mew Hampshire General Court, February 29, 1776, Box 559043, N H A .

20. NHSP B:109; Exeter New Hampshire Gazette. May 27, 1 7 7 6 .

21. Petitions to the New Hampshire General Court from Exeter, July 5, 7, 9, 1775, Box 553043, NHA.

22. "Convention in Dracut, " New Hampshire Historical Societu Collections 2 C18271, pp. 53-6B.

23. Petition to the New Hampshire General Court From New Hampshire and Massachusetts Towns, November 26, 1776, Ecx 559044, NHA.

24. NH5P. 8:454, 455, 456; Metcalf, Laws. 4:78-62.

25. NHSP B:115-117 ^quotation From 1171; MetcalF, Lavs. 4 : 2 0 .

26. Walpole Committee oF Safety to the Mew Hampshire General Court, August 6, 1776, NHSP, 13:598-599.

. Claremont Committee of Safety to the New Hampshire General Court, December 9, 1776, Ibid., 11:365-365; MetcalF, Laws. 4:71-76.

28. Portsmouth Town Records. vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 341A- 3 4 3 A .

29. New Hampshire Gazette. December 25, 1775.

30. Evidence exists that some towns voted not to attend the Fifth Provincial Congress because they did not agrsr with its proposed actions. See Hawke Town Peoords, vol . 1, p. 25, MHSL; Nottingham Town Peoords, vcI . 4, p. 132, 216

NHSL; New Ecston Tcwn Records, vol. 1, p. EG, NHSL; Warner Toon Records, vol. 1, p. 22, NHSL; Lyndebcrcugh Toon Records, vol. 2, p. 313, NHSL; for the Hanover class, see NHSP, B:6S6. Other toons did net attend cr arrived late. Nadbury objected to the expense associated with being represented and voted not to participate. See Nadbury Toon Records, Bex 0B1O21, NHA.

31. NHSP. B.-GE.

32. Neo Hamcshire Gazette. January S, 177S . See also NHSP, 0:23.

33. Ibid., NHSP. 8:2E-27.

34. Pcrtsmcuth Toon Records, vol. 2, pt , 345A, 34EB .

35. UJilliam Whipple to his mother, October ~ , 1775, Langdon/Eliuyn Family Papers, 1717-1B41, Box 4, Folder I, Concord, N.H., New Hampshire Historical Society thereafter cited as NHHSi.

36. NHSP. B:14-15.

37. For notices of or the actual petitions, see Portsmouth Tcujn Records. vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 345B; Greenland Town Records, vol. 1, pp. SB-S7, NHSL; Newmarket Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 18B-1B9, NHSL; Dover Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 441-444, NHSL; Rye Town Records, vol. 1, p. 267, NHSL; Stratham Town Records, vol. 1, pp. 42B-42B, NHSL; for Rochester and Brentwood, see NHSP B:33.

3B. NHSP. B:33-34, 65-67.

39. Josiah Eartlett to John Langdon, January 13, 17',5, Frank C. (levers, ed. , The Pacers of Josiah Bartlett '’.Hanover, N.H., 19791, p. 36.

'40. Josiah Bartlett to John Langdon, llarch 5, 1776, I b i d . , pp. 5 0 - 5 1 .

41. Josiah Bartlett and William Whipple to Heshech Ueare, May SB, 1776, Ibid., p. 63. 517

45. Josiah Bartlett ta Nathaniel Folsom, June G, 1776, to John Langdon, June 10, 1776, Ibid., pp. 69, 71; NHSP. B: 1 5 0

43. Fitswilliam Town Records, vol. 1, p. 11 Csource of quotation), NHSL; NHSP. 7:695.

44. NHSP 7:693-694; Petition to the New Hampshire CongressFrom New Ipswich, Rindge, Fitzwi11iam, and JaFFrey, December 19, 1775, Rindge Town Papers, Uncataloged, NHA.

45. I b i d .

46. NH5P. 6:131.

47. Ibid., 7:696; Election UJrit to Hanover, dated November 14, 1775, but altered, General Court Records, Provincial Congress, Record Group III, Eox 1, Folder 13, NHA. Uheelock's petition has not been Found.

48. The only letter I could Find was a portion oF one to ChesterField. See ChesterField Town Papers, Eox 874151, N H A .

49. See harlow Town Records, vol. 1, p. 360, NHSL; PlainField Town Records, vol. 1, p. 3B6, NHSL; Lebanon Town Records, vol. 1, p. 35, NHSL; Richmond Town Records, v o l . 1, p. B5, N H S L . In the December 3, 1775, issue oF the Exeter New Hampshire Gazette, the publisher depended his action in reFusing to print An Address oF the Inhabitants. He claimed that he had arranged to print the material because he was told it did not contain ’’anything respecting the present Grand Dispute.” When he read it, he Felt that it threatened independence and he asked some members oF the General Court For advice. Subsequently he decided net to print the piece.

50. An Address oF the Inhabitants oF the Towns of Plainrleld. Lebanon. Reihan. Cannan. Cardioan. Hanover. Lime. GrFord. Haverhill. Bath. and LandaFF. to the Inhabitants oF the Several Towns in the Caionu of New- SIB

Hampshire. NHSP. 10:233.

51. Ibid., 10:229-235.

52. Ibid., 10:229-230, 234-235.

53. Henry Ames Blood, The Historu of Terncle. New Hampshire CBoston, I860!, p. 105.

54. See ”1 lately met with a Pamphlet. . . ," tileare Papers, Executive Records, Record Group I, Box 15, Folder 107, N H A .

55. NHSP.10:231.

56. Ibid. , B :340 , 344.

57. See NHSP., 8:421 for Hanover, Canaan, Cardigan; 3:422- 423 For Lyme; 8:423 for Acwarth;10:240-241 For Haverhill, Lyman, Bath, Gunthwait, LandaFF, llornstoun; 12:57 For Grantham. See also QrFord Town Records, vol. 1, p. 264, NHSL; Piermont petition, Executive Records, Correspondence and Messages, Record Group I, Box 11, Folder 1, NHA,

5B. Inhabitants of the Towns of Haverhill, Lyman, Eath, Gunthwait, LandaFF and Norristown Cto the New Hampshire General Court!, December 13, 177G, NHSP, 8:425.

59. Ibid . , B:420.

60. 5ee NHSP. 8:424 For ChesterField; 10:235 For Harlow, Alstead, Surry. See also Portsmouth Town Records, vol. 2, pt . 2, pp. 359A-3B9B; NHSP 13: 602-604 For UalpnlS; New Ipswich to the General Assembly, February 24, 17^7, General Ccurt Records — Petitions. Record Group III.Ec:' 3, F o l d e r , 2 4 , N H A . .

61. The Peccla the Best Governors is printer1. :n Frederic): Chase, The Historu of Dartmouth Col Isos and the Town of Hanover (Cambridge, Hass. , 165111, pp. 654-563.

52. Merrill Jensen, "Democracy and the American Revolution, ” Huntington Libraru Guar ter In 20 •! August I 556 •- 219

1957"1, 221-341, ^quotation From p. 233 5.

63. Chase, Dartmouth. pp. 659, 660-661, 662.

64. Evidence fcr a meeting at Walpole comes Frcm Acuorth Town Records, vol. 1, 3B-39, NHSL; For Keene From Letter to the Committee oF the General Court From ChesterField, Petitions, Record Group III, E o x 3, F o l d e r 23, N H A . S e e also Josiah Bartlett to Gilliam Whipple, March 1, IT7?? in Mevers, The Paners oF Josiah Bartlett, p. 30. Sartlett writes that he has Just returned From GraFton County as part oF the committee and that the trip tool: a month. The committee must have had more than one destination. It would not take a month to travel to Lebanon For a tuo da^, m e e t i n g .

65. United Committees to the Assembly's Committas, February 14, 1777, Executive Reccrds, Correspondence and Messages, Record Group 1, Box 11, Folder 2, NHA.

66. NHSP. 8:503.

67. United Committees to QrFcrd, February 14, 17"~, Executive Recoords, Correspondence and Messages, Record Group I, Box 11, Folder 2, NHA.

SB. NHSP. 13:762-764, 7E5 and 8:717.

69. See volume ten cF NHSP Fcr a record oF the attempts □F New Hampshire towns to Join Uermcrt.

70. James K. Martin, "A Model For the Coming oF the American Revolution: The Eirth and Death cF the Wentworth Oligarchy in New Hampshire, 1741-1776,” Journal of Social Historu 4 iFa11 1S70;:5B. CHAPTER UI

THE REUOLUTIONAR Y GOVERNMENTS: FAMILIAR PATTERNS CONTINUE

In 177B, the Nbuj Hampshire towns that eventually voted to join Uermont chose to work outside of the legislative system to pressure the first House of Representatives to change its composition and structure. These towns assumed that because of their opposition to the new plan for representation and the way the Fifth

Provincial Congress had interpreted the recommendations of the Continental Congress, their delegates could not rise to a position within the House from which they could influence the members to make thB changes they considered essential For representative government. The towns based their assumptions on their analysis of the way political power was distributed in both the

General Assemblies and thB Provincial Congresses. It appeared to them that the system was inherently biased towards representatives From the older, more populated towns, and that the members of the First House of Representatives intended to keep it that w a y . The House's rejection of the proposals contained in An

Address of the Inhabitants and The People the Best ESI

Governors reinforced their beliefs. To the people of Grafton and Cheshire Counties, the Declaration of Independence resulted in no real change in New Hampshire. One oppressive government mas replaced by another. Jackson T. Plain and James K. Martin have challenged the perceptions of the pamphleteers from Cheshire and Grafton Counties. Main, who analyzed the Provincial Congresses and the first House of Representatives as institutions, and Martin, who analyzed the personal and professional characteristics of specific men, both agreed that political power was more equally distributed in the province’s revolutionary legislatures than it had been in royal institutions. They concluded that a democratic revolution had occurred in N bw Hampshire.*-

Main focused on the Fourth Provincial Congress. He called the group an ’’agrarian democracy,” and argued that this trend frightened unnamed ”. . . provincial leaders . . Cwhol either drew back in alarm or tried as quickly as possible to organize a regular, less popular government.” The conservative reaction resulted in the new plan for representation that limited the number of delegates to the Fifth Provincial Congress.^ Martin concentrated on the changes resulting from the Interim Constitution of 177G. Because it had a House and a Council, the nBW government looked very similar to the old General Assembly; however, there were striking aas

differences. Elections mere held annually, making representatives mere accountable to their constituencies. The 1775 plan for representation, which was incorporated into the Constitution, divided towns into the equivalent of election districts, allowing all voters an opportunity to participate in the election process. As a result the first House of Representatives had more members than the

former royal Assemblies, and they represented towns in all parts of the state. The result of this change, according to Martin and Main, was that political power

moved out of the hands of men who rsprBSBntBd the Piscataqua area into the hands of those who represented thB western part of the state.^ Both Martin and Main based their claims for the democratic nature of the Revolution in New Hampshire on the changes in the structure of thB government that gave more men the opportunity to participate in the election process. Neither analyzed the changes, if any, in the composition of the group who controlled the decision­ making process in the Assemblies, the Congresses, and the House of Representatives. For a true democratic revolution to have occurred, there must have been a change in the structure of government that allowed more men to participate, and a change in thB composition of the leadership group that allowed nem categories of men the opportunity to make important decisions about U. government, ES3

The people From BraFton and Cheshire Counties based their perceptions oF the Provincial Congresses and the First House oF Representatives on their own experiences. Main and Martin used widely accepted historical techniques. The diFFerences in their conclusions about the same groups Forces historians to analyze the distribution oF political power and the characteristics of leaders in the General Assemblies, the Provincial Congresses, and the First House oF Representatives. Such an analysis will enable us to determine morB precisely what changes occurred in New Hampshire legislatures in the early years oF the Revolution.

□ne can make comparisons oF the distribution oF political power among the three groups by examining Gini scores, calculated as a part oF the Structural Analysis procedure used to identiFy legislative leaders. The Gini scores indicate how equally committee assignments were distributed among members oF a legislative session.

Since most oF the important decisions were made by committees, those mBn who served on committees had a greater opportunity to participate in the decision-making process than those who did not serve on committees.

% IF Jackson T. Main and James K. Martin were correct in thBir analysis oF the changes in the way political power was distributed, then we would expect the Bini scores For the Assemblies called by the governors to be very high, close to 1.0, indicating that a Few men held a 5 2 4

majority of the assignments, and thus controlled the decision-making process of the Assembly. The scores for the Provincial Congresses, on the other hand, uiill be very low, close to 0.0, indicating that many people shared decision-making power. Those for the first House of Representatives should be higher than those for thB Provincial Congresses, but lower than those for the royal Assemblies, indicating that fewer men exercised power in thB House than in the Provincial Congresses, but that more men exercised power in thB House than in the

Assemblies. ^ Table 0 presents the Gini scares far legislative sessions convened between 1755 and 1776 and the

percentage of leaders in those sessions. The s c o c b s show

that Martin’s and Main’s theory needs revision. The distribution of political power was apposite of what thBy concluded. The scores for the Provincial Congresses were high, while thosB for the General Assemblies and the first House were lower and very similar. The Gini scores showed that men elected to the General Assemblies convened between 1755 and 1771 had more opportunity to participate in thB decision-making process by being appointed to committees than men who were elected to any other legislative session in the period. The 1765 through 1771 sessions met for the required three-year period; therefore their scores reflect the normal distribution of power for royal Assemblies. In those 2 2 5 sessions between 27 and HI percent of the members controlled 75 percent of the committee assignments. The 177H and 1775 Assemblies were abnormal, meeting only a Few months. In a sense, they were single issue Assemblies; Governor Wentworth dissolved the 1774 Assembly in response to the creation of the second Committee of Correspondence and the 1775 Assembly in the dispute over the seating of the delegates from Plymouth,

OrFord, and Lyme.

TABLE U

GINI SCORES FOR LEG ISLATIUE SESSIONS BETWEEN 1755 AND 1775

Gini Score # Leaders * Leaders flssemblu flay 21, 1765 0.507 13 41* May 17, 1768 .4B4 14 41* May 22, 1771 .651 10 27* April 7, 1774 .711 B 24* May 4, 1775 .763 6 21*

Provincial Congress First N/A N/A N/A Second N/A N/A N/A Third .906 B 7* Fourth .740 25 16* House First 0.673 33 33* 226

The Gini Scores For the Provincial Congresses indicate that political power was concentrated in thB hands oF a Few, rather than being widely distributed. This was especially true in the Third Provincial Congress in which 7 percent oF the delegates controlled 75 percent oF the committee assignments. The Fourth Provincial Congress, Main’s "agrarian democracy," had a Gini Score oF .740, again indicating that relatively Few men controlled the majority oF the assignments. In equating a large number oF delegates with a redistribution oF political power in the Fourth Provincial Congress, Main has made a serious error. He assumed incorrectly that merely by being elected, all representatives had an equal chance to participate in the decision-making process. In actuality, 16 percent of thB dBlsgatBS to the Fourth Provincial Congress received 75 percent oF thB committee assignments. The perceptions oF the people oF Grafton and Cheshire Counties were correct. They realized that the majority oF the representatives who attended the Fourth Provincial Congress had an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process only when the Speaker created a Committee of the Whole, or when the entire Congress discussed a particular issue, as it did on November 4,

1775, in attempts to develop a plan of representation. The rest of the time, most of the delegates sat. Contrary to Martin’s and Main’s conclusions, the 227

Gini scares indicate that delegates to the First House of Representatives had a greater opportunity to participate in the decision-making process than those who were elected to the Provincial Congresses. In the Ho u s b , 33 percent oF the delegates controlled 75 percent oF the committee assignments. Their opportunities were similar to those in Governor John Wentworth’s second Assembly. Again, the assumptions oF the pamphleteers From Cheshire and GraFton Counties were correct. There was no signiFicant change in the actual distribution oF legislative power between the new government and the old. In pre-revolutionary America, it was not unusual For a small number oF men to control the legislative process. Jack Greens estimated that 17 percent oF the men elected to Uirginia’s House of Burgesses became leaders, while Robert Zemsky estimated that between 26 and 40 percent of Massachusetts representatives became leaders. In light oF thB Uirginia and Massachusetts studies, a Gini score range of .407 to .306 can be considered extreme, as can the range of active members, From 7 percent to 41 percent

Considering that political power was distributed less equally at the end of the period than it was at the beginning, another question neBds to be answered. Did the characteristics oF New Hampshire’s legislators and legislative leaders change From crown to congress to state? IF there was indeed a change in the type of men 5 5 0 sleeted and a change in the type of men who rase to leadership positions, one might he justified in concluding that a democratic revolution had, in fact, taken place in Nbui Hampshire.^ An analysis of certain politically significant characteristics of men elected to the General Assemblies, the Provincial Congresses, and the first House of Representatives indicates that there was no change in these characteristics batuieen 17G5 and 1776. When New Hampshire voters WBnt to the palls, they looked for a man in his mid-forties with recognized status based upon a combination of professional and personal characteristics. CSee Table UID.

TABLE UI

PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGISLATORS ELECTED BETWEEN 1765 1776

G. Assemblies Prov. Congresses House N - 73 N - 511 N - 100

Selectman 06% 73% 85% Moderator 57% 44% 50% Justice of the Peace 50% 13% 53% College education 18% 10% 13% Merchant or Professional 50% 43% 55% Kinship 57% 45% 43% Age 44 yrs. 44 yrs. 45 yrs 223

Pin indication of a man's local status tuas his alBction as touin selectman or moderator. Man in these offices, like James Knowles of Rochester or Ezekiel Worthen of Kensington, were responsible for thB day-to- day functioning of their towns. ThBir duties, which required the ability to communicate clearly, mediate disputes, and exercise good Judgment, prepared them to takB a seat in the legislature. Between 73 and BE percent of the representatives had been selectmen before election, and between 44 to 57 percent had been •7 moderators.

IJoters also looked for a man who had status outside his community. As a result they frequently elected their local Justice of the Peace to represent them. The Governor, with the concurrence of his Council, appointed Justices of the Peace. The office, which was one of the few favors New Hampshire’s Royal Governors could dispense, provided the holder with an opportunity to augment his income and increase his status in the larger community. Of thB 120 Justices in the colony in 1774, 50 percent of them served in a legislative session in that or the following year. Overall, between 13 and 23 percent of the representatives had been Justices of the a Peace before election. In selecting their representatives, voters also considered a candidate’s personal characteristics, particularly those that indicated that a man had 530 knowledge of and stature in the world outside of the local area. A man who had a college education, was a merchant or a member of one of the professions, or was related to someone in the legislature fit this description. Throughout t h B entire period 18 to 18 percent of the legislators uers men who had .graduated from college or had an equivalent educational experience. fit a time when only 1 in 500 eligible men had these opportunities, the figure for New Hampshire q legislators was 47 of 586, or 1 in 6.3. While farmers composed 66 to 75 percent of the eligible voters in New Hampshire, they never composed more than 44 percent of thB legislature. LJhen farmers went to the poll, they elected merchants and professional men to represent them. Forty nine to 58 percent of the legislators fell into this group. As a result of their means of making a living, these men traveled, coming in contact with people outside of their local area. These contacts enabled them to exchange views on the current issues of the day. Men who WBre related to legislators also had a source of information denied many others. This proved to be an advantage in being selected themselves. In the three groups, from 45 to 57 percent of the delegates were related by blood or marriage to someone who had been previously elected . This analysis of the pre-Blection characteristics of men elected to the 6eneral Assemblies, the Provincial 531

Congresses, and ths First House of Representatives, suggests that Main’s and Martin’s conclusions need revising. In spite of a more open election procedure, the voters’ mental image of uihat constituted a ’’proper” representative did not change. They continued to elect the same type of men. Status on the local level, however, did not guarantee that a man would be recognized by his colleagues in the legislature as a leader on the provincial level. When a representative traveled to Portsmouth or Exeter to take his seat, he carried with him the characteristics of the town hB represented. In the struggle for political power within the legislature, those characteristics could be significant factors, as could the experience a man gained while a member of the legislature. Both Jack GrBene and Robert Zemsky analyzed leadership characteristics as part of their larger works. In colonial Uirginia, legislative leaders served a period of apprenticeship in the Assembly before advancing to leadership. In Massachusetts, experience in the legislature was not a relevant Factor. The Massachusetts Assembly drew its leaders from delegates who had a college education, had previous judicial experience, and represented an Eastern shore constituency. Martin and Main concluded that, as in Massachusetts, the Neu Hampshire legislature separated 232 leaders From non-leaders on thB basis of characteristics that delegates brought with them to the legislature, rather than on the basis of characteristics thBy acquired after election.

An analysis of the characteristics of the N buj Hampshire legislators between 17G5 and 1776 indicates that the leadership profile in the Neu Hampshire legislatures urns similar to that in the Assemblies of both Uirginia and Massachusetts. Some men became leaders as a result of characteristics they had acquired before they mere elected, uihile others became leaders as a result of the experience they had gained within the legislature. In addition, the characteristics which separated leaders from non-leadBrs in the General Assemblies remained essentially the same in the Provincial Congresses. Leaders in the first House of Representatives had the same characteristics as leaders in the other two groups, but because the House was a more homogeneous body, the differences were not as dramatic. Twenty-five men composed thB leadership structure of the General Assemblies. By definition, they were the men who controlled 75 percent of the assignments. Fifty-six percent of the leaders, like those in Uirginia, were distinguished from their peers on the basis of the experience they gained in the Assembly, as w b II as on their pre-election characteristics. The Assembly’s preference for experienced men, however, did not prevent 533 eight first term assemblymen From climbing to the top in their First session. These men, like those in Massachusetts, ware separated From their peers solely on the basis of the characteristics they brought with them to the Assembly. (See Table

TABLE UII

LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS OF MEN ELECTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BETWEEN 17S5 AND 177G

All Assembly Members Leaders N - 73 N - 55

College education IB* 40* Merchant or professional 5B* 08* Kinship 57* 70* 0 Previous experience 56* Town social scale 5 through 10 55* 64* 7 through 10 17* 40*

0 calculated only For leaders.

While only IS percent of the Assembly’s members had a college education or its equivalent, 40 percent of the leaders Fell into this group. A college degree, not only gave a man educational advantages, but also provided an indelible mark of social status. At Harvard, the college of almost all Neui Hampshire legislators, incoming students in each class, until the class of 1775, were ranked according to their Family’s status. The rank, S34 which determined a student’s position at school, was carried bg the student into the next generation.13 All of the college-educated men were either merchants or members of the professions. This group composed 5B percent of the Assembly and BB percent of the leadership group. Hen who had achieved status at the local level as a result of their education and occupation found their skills in demand in the Assembly. As relations with Britain became tense, merchants like Jacob Sheafe and John Sherburne led the fight against Parliament’s attempts to tax the colonies, and lawyers like Woodbury Langdon wrote the brief defending the Assembly's right to determine its own membership. As expected, as a result of research on the New Hampshire Council, family ties were important in determining a man’s rise to a position of leadership. A man who had a relative in thB Assembly had someone to wham he could turn far advice, someone to introduce him to people who could help him advance his career. If the relative was no longer in the Assembly, the neophyte legislator still benefited from name recognition and the reputation of his predecessor. Fifty-seven percent of the members of the Assembly werB related to someone who was elected prior to their election; among the leadership group, 70 percent were so related.11* Town characteristics were significant in separating leaders from non-leaders in the Assembly. Towns that 2 3 5 biBre mars sociallg developed provided their residents more opportunities to receive information about the outside world. An indication of a town’s social development mere institutions, organizations, or tgpes of people located within a town that could serve as a conduit for the exchange of ideas. Men who came from tauns that had a newspaper, were the seat of county government, or had a long history of representation in the Assembly were better able to understand the significance of colony-wide issues. To compare a town’s social development, I constructed a scale for each town by counting the number of local institutions, organizations, or groups of people that potentially provided men an opportunity to give and receive information about the outside world. The maximum points a town could accrue was ten, with a point awarded for items like a newspaper, a minister, a representative.

The higher a town’s score, the more opportunity local T 5 people had to exchange information. UJhile 55 percent of the representatives came from towns that ranked five through 10 on the social scale, 64 percent of the leaders came from those towns. More significantly, 40 percent of the leaders came from towns that ranked seven through ten. Only 17 percent of the delegates c b i d b from this group. The members of the Assembly clearly desired leaders who had the opportunity to learn about colony-wide issues before their election. 236

While i t appeared that the Assembly had rigid criteria for selecting its leaders, therB was roam at the top not only far men like Portsmouth’s John Sherburne mho uias born with the proverbial ’’silver spoon” in his mouth, but also For men like Durham’s Ebenezer Thompson, who started his legislative career as a backbencher. Nine years later, Thompson was a major Assembly leader.

Both Sherburne and Thompson began their Assembly careers in 17SS. As a member of the Portsmouth Fire

Society, ShBrburne was exempted from town offices. He was firs t elected to the Assembly to replace his brother,

Henry, who was elBvatBd to the Council. Sherburne’s father, a Harvard graduate, had also been a representative and a councilor. In his first term,

Sherburne, a merchant, was appointed to several prestigious committees dealing with the colony’s finances and its relationship with its agents in Great Britain.

He was on a joint Assembly and Council committee to develop a plan to dividB the colony into counties, and he helped plan Governor John Wentworth’s welcoming reception. In 1774, Sherburne replaced his recently deceased brother on the Council.15

Ebenezer Thompson, a physician, served his town as selectman and clerk, and a larger area as Justice of thB

Peace. His only connection with the Assembly was through his uncle, Jonathan Thompson, who had also represented

Durham. In his first term, Thompson was appointed to three committees to deliver messages, a committee to 237

dram parish lines in Hampton Falls, and a committee to survey lauis and fines in order to devise a way to regularize them. In Governor John Wentworth’s final

Assembly, Thompson was on the committee to defend the

Assembly’s refusal to seat the delegates from Plymouth,

Orford, and Lyme.*^

Thompson's experience in moving from backbencher to leader was typical of the experience of several individuals who served in the Assembly between 17G5 and

177B. Far From being a closed system, providing opportunities only to those related to the Governor or councilors, the Assembly evaluated the merits of all its members and advanced to leadership these best qualified to govern.

The profile of the twenty eight leaders in the Third and Fourth Provincial Congresses was very similar to that of the Assembly. Fifty-SBven percent of the leaders had a college education, and B9 percent were merchants or members of the professions. While only 45 percent of the leaders had previous legislative experience, the delegates who advanced to leadership in their first term were well qualified to Join the leadership circle.

Ninety-three percent were merchants or members of the professions. The lonB farmer among the group was related IB to someone who had previously served. CSee Table UIII).

Town characteristics, however, were more important in the Provincial Congresses thanthey were in the

Assemblies, and they workBd in favor of older, more 230

settled communities. A town’s social scale continued to be a significant factor in determining leadership. Fifty- seven percent of the leaders came from towns that ranked five or more on the social scale. Yet only 22 percent of the total delegates came from this group. Ulhile only 7 percent of the delegates came from towns that ranked seven through ten, 25 percent of the leaders came from this group. As in the General Assemblies, leaders came from the more cosmopolitan areas of the colony.

TABLE UIII

LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS OF MEN ELECTED TO THE THIRD AND FQURTH PROVINCIAL CONGRESSES, 1775

All Provincial Leaders Congress Members N “ 211 N - 20

College education 10% 57% Merchant or professional 49% 09% Previous experience 45% Town social scale 5 through 10 22% 57% 7 through 10 7% 25% Town represented in General Assembly 51% 71% Town aoe 1 - 3 years 6% 0% 4-33 years 53% 47% 34 - 55 years 21% 22% 66+ years 10% 31% Unincorporated 3% 0%

^calculated only for leaders. 2 3 9

While 51 percent of the delegates came From towns

entitled to representation under the Cronin, 71 percent of

the leaders came from th is group. The bias towards men

From older towns was reinForcsd bg the Fact that 31

percent oF theleaders come From towns that had been

incorporated For sixty-six or more years. Only IB

percent oF the total membership came From towns in this

age group. Without Fail, those who came From towns that

were not entitled to representation under the Crown had

other prerequisites For leadership that compensated For

the type oF town they represented. They were either

merchants, ministers, or related to someone who had

previously served in the legislature.

The analysis oF the leadership characteristics oF

members oF the Third and Fourth Provincial Congresses

Further underscores the need to re-evaluate Martin’s and

Main’s conclusions. ThB leaders oF the Congresses bore a striking resemblance to thosB of the General Assemblies.

Main was correct in noting that the largest single occupation in the Provincial Congresses was Farming, the occupation oF 44 percent oF its members. Yet, only 10 percent oF the Farmers achieved leadership status. As in the Assemblies, the leaders oF the Provincial Congresses were college-educated merchants or members of the proFessions. There is little basis For concluding that the Provincial Congresses were "agrarian democracies.”19 £ 4 0

flany of the towns that protested the actions of thB

First Housb of Representatives had experience with only

the Provincial Congresses. Townsmen looked at the

Congresses' leadership pattern, compared the proFile with

what they knew about leadership in the General

Assemblies, and assumed that men From their area would

not be able to compete successFully For the power necessary to implement thB reFarms they advocated. They

knew that they had Feu college-educated proFessionals or merchants to elect. UJhat was perhaps more Frustrating

was leadership based upon town age, representation under the crown, and a town’s social scale. These were Factors beyond a town’s control.

The analysis oF the characteristics oF the thirty-

three leaders in House oF Representatives indicates that the leadership pattern Found in the Assemblies and in the

Provincial Congresses prevailed with only slight modiFications. Sixty-Four percent oF the leaders were merchants or members oF the proFessions, and 5£ percent were related to someone whohad previously served, but only £4 percent had a college education. SigniFicant in determining leadership For the new House oF

Representatives, but not For the General Assemblies or

Provincial Congresses, was appointment beFore election as

a Justice oF the Peace; 43 percent oF the leaders, compared to £3 percent oF the members had appointments.

Previous experience continued to be important with B1 241

percent of the leaders having served in either the

General Assemblies or the Provincial Congresses. Like thB other tuio groups, the House preferred to have as leaders men uiho came from more cosmopolitan areas of the state. Sixty—one percent of the leaders represented touins that ranked five through ten on the social scale, uihile 40% represented touns that ranked seven through ten. (See Table IX).20

TABLE IX

LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS OF MEN ELECTED TO THE FIRST HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 1775

All House Members Leaders N - 100 N - 33

College education 19% 24% Merchant or professional 52% 64% Kinship 43% 52% Previous experience 61% Justice of the Peace 29% 49% Town social seals S through 10 30% 64% 7 through 10 11% 40% Toun represented in General Assembly 57% 70% Town aoe 1 - 3 yBars S% 6% 4-33 years 51% 40% 34 - 66 years 22% 27% 66-*- years 20% 27% Unincorporated 2% 0%

^calculated only for leaders. 245

Both Martin and Main concluded that in thB First

House of Representatives the center oF political pouter moved autagFrom the seacoast area to the western part oF the state. An analysis oF the town characteristics For

House leaders indicated that thosB areas that traditionally controlled political power kept it.

Seventy percent oF the House leaders came From towns entitled to representation under the Crown, 27 percent represented towns that had been incorporated For sixty- six or mare years, and 69 percent represented towns in

Rockingham or StraFFord Counties. Again the pamphleteers

From Cheshire and GraFton Counties were correct. As in the General Assemblies, more House leaders came From PI Rockingham and StraFFord Counties.

The diFFerences between leaders and non-leaders in the First House oF Representatives were not as great as the diFFerences in the other groups. UJhBn towns in

GraFton and Cheshire Counties reFused to participate, they pulled From the House those men who tended to be at the bottom oF the scale, men who had only a common school education, who were Farmers, representing young, less developed towns, whosB First legislative experience was in thB Provincial Congresses. As a result, they created a rump House whose members were mare homogenous than they otherwise would have been. Until 1782, when the disaFFected towns returned to the Fold, the House essentially represented the interests oF Rockingham, 543

Strafford, and Hillsborough Counties.

From an analysis of the distribution of political

pouier within and the leadership characteristics of the

General Assemblies, the Provincial Congresses, and the

first House of Representatives, it is clear that the

purported democratic revolution in New Hampshire in 1775

and 1775 did not occur. At the end of the period, representatives had as much opportunity to participate in

the decision-making process as they had in the beginning,

but not more. Uoters did not change thBir ideas on the

type of man they wanted to represent them. From the beginning to thB end of the period men were elected who

had achieved status in their personal and professional

lives. Those who advanced to leadership were those who

were college-educated merchants or professionals who represented older, more cosmopolitan towns. There had always been a place in the leadership structure for men with these characteristics.

The people of Grafton and Cheshire Counties were correct in their analysis of the revolutionary legislatures. They recognized, as Martin and Main did not, that regardlass of thB changes in the structure of government that allowed more men to participate in the process, there was no change in thB way political power was distributed or in the nature of those who controlled it. The representatives from the disaffected towns soon realized that they had no chance of penetrating the 5 4 4

leadership structure tc implement their reforms. Feeling that they had no other choice, they withdrew from the

House, and unsuccessfully lobbied for changes by directly approaching the people through fin address of the

Inhabitants and The Peoole the Best Governors. 245

Chapter Nates

1. Jackson T. Plain, The Sovereign States. 1775-1783. CNeui York, 1373; "Government by the People: The American Revolution and the Democratization of the Legislatures, ” William and Maru Ouarterlu. 3rd sers. 23 CJuly 13661: 331- 407; James K. Martin, ”A Model for the Coming of the American Revolution: The Birth and Death of the Wentworth Oligarchy in New Hampshire, 1741-1776," Journal of Social Historu 4 CFall 13731:41-60; Men in Rebellion: Higher Governmental Leaders and, the Coming g£ ttfi American Revolution (New Brunswick, N.J., 1373, New York, 13761.

2. Main, The Sovereign States, p. 130.

3. Ibid., pp. 144-145; Martin, ”A Model for the Coming of the American Revolution,” pp. 5B-G0,

4. When Martin and Main analyzed leaders, they focused on the Council, not the House of Representatives. See Martin, ’’A Model for the Coming of the American Revolution,” and Jackson T. Main, The Uooer House in Revolutionaru America. 1763-17BB C Madison, 13651; and "Social Origins of a Political Elite: The Upper House in Revolutionary America,” Huntington Libraru Ouarterlu 27. (February 13641: 147-158.

5. See Chapter I for a discussion of the Gini Score.

6. Robert Zemsky in Merchants. Farmers, and River Gods: QD Essau on Eighteenth Centuru American Politics CBoston, 13711, p. 232; Jack P. Greene, "Foundations of Political Power in the Uirginia House of Burgesses, 1720-1776, William and Maru Ouarterlu. 3rd sers. 16 (13531:485.

7. More than 236 men served between 1765 and 177G. I did not attempt to analyze the charactersitics of those who attended the first two Provincial Congresses as the delegate lis ts are incomplete. The analysis ignores thB contribution of John Langdon, as most of the time he was in Philadelphia at the Continental Congress, rather than representing Portsmouth in the Provincial Congress. Throughout the period, men who were not members of the 5 4 6

legislature served on legislative committees. These men mere also ignored in the analysis. An obvious personal characteristic is wealth. I uias not able to find comparable data for men from different towns. However I did find personal inventories for eleven towns, Bath, Lyme, Conway, Dublin, Piermont, Bedford, Gunthwaite, Kingston, Concord, Hampton Falls, and Hawke. In those towns representatives ranked either in the upper 10 or 50 percent of those listed.

8. I took the numbBr of Justices of the Peace from Nathaniel Mills and John Hicks, Mills and Hicks British anil American Register; with an Almanak for the Year 1775. EOC all the New England Province CBoston, 17743, Evans # 13440-13441. Almanacs in the eighteenth century contained lis ts of province and county offices, plus information about towns, churches, roads, and taverns.

3. The estimate for college educated men comes from Jackson T. Main, His Social Structure of Rsvolutionaru America CPrincBton. 13653, p. 547.

10. Kinship tie s may have been greater than I have estimated. I only traced the degree of kinship through f irs t cousins in a man’s family and to nephew by marriage in his wife’s. Kinship was only recorded for a man who had a relative elected before his election. If two men who were related were elected at the same time, kinship was not recorded.

11. See works cited in footnotes 1 and 6 above.

15. Previous experience was recorded for leaders only. It was therefore not subject to the same analysis as other characteristics.

13. The characteristics listed in Table 3 a ll had a Chi Square Level of Significance of less than .05. See Clifford K. Shipton, ”Ye Mystery of Ye Ages Solved, or, How Placing Worked at Colonial Harvard and Yale,” Harvard Alumni Bulletin 57 C1354-13553:25B-553, 565-563, for a discussion of ranking at colleges.

14. See works cited in footnote 4 above. B47

15. See Uen Beck Hall, Politics WitftflULt Parties: Massachusetts. 17B0-1751 (Pittsburgh, 1S7BD For a discussion oF the usefullness of a Social Scale that indicates the opportunities local peoplB had to give and receive information. I awarded one point For participation in the General Assembly, participation in the Provincial Congresses, being a shire town, having one lawyer, having tuio or morB lawyers, having one minister, having two or mare ministers, having an inn, college, or newspaper.

IB. NHSP. 7:113,130.

17. NH5P. 7:10B, 137, 133, 103.

IB. The characteristics listed in Table 4 a ll had a Chi Square Level of. Significance of less than.05.

13. Main, in "Government by the People," passim., estimates that between two thirds to one half of the representatives to the New Hampshire Provincial Congresses were Farmers. My figure is 44 percent.

BO. Only two characteristics in Table 5 had a Chi Square Level of Significance of less than .05. They were Justice of the Peace and Social Scale.

E l. Eighty percent of the leaders in the General Assemblies came from Rockingham and Strafford Counties; BB percent in the Provincial Congresses came from those areas. CONCLUSION

It is time to create a new mosaic that illustrates the coming of the Revolution in New Hampshire. The Focus on the process forces us to look at familiar events in a new wag. Far from being in the vanguard of the revolutionary movement because of the attack on Castle

William and flary in December 1774, the Fourth Provincial

Congress’s petition to assume government in September

1775, and the first state constitution in January 1776,

Neui Hampshire residents were slow to become politically aroused, were almost equally divided on what course of action to follow, and feared the disruption to peace and good order that changB could bring. New Hampshire's revolutionary leaders reluctantly assumed the responsibilities of government and they created a new government that, except for the lack of a governor, was nearly indistinguishable From the old. In the process they crushed proposals th at might have resulted in an egalitarian government in New Hampshire.

The most significant event in the political awakening of New Hampshire townsmen was not the attack on the fort, but was the creation of the first provincial

Committee of Correspondence approximately a year and a 543

half earlier. That committee, which spawned local committees, fostered communication among New Hampshire towns and between New Hampshire and other colonies. Its successor, the second Committee of Correspondence

BducatBd New Hampshire citizens to the threat to their rights by Parliament’s actions, ensured the colony’s participation in the Continental Congresses, and encouraged towns to participate in collective activities designed tc aid Boston and pressure Parliament for changes in its policy.

The collective actions and arguments surrounding the

Tea Act caused men to apply to themselves the arguments of "no taxation without representation.’’ nany towns began to examine the situation in their own colony and in

1774 petitioned the Governor to change the system of representation. Their petitions feel on deaf ears.

Governor Ulentworth issued no new election writs.

S till not a ll were convinced. Prominent men like

Portsmouth’s Woodbury Langdon in the General Assembly and

Hampton Falls’s Paine Wingate in the Provincial

Congresses argued for a reconciliation with Great

Britain, for compromise, for the status quo. Their arguments found ready listeners among those who feared a disruption to society from mob actions seemingly associated with the preservation of rights. The tug between rights and law and order continued until August

1775 when Governor Ulentworth left the colony. He decided 5 5 0

far towns that they would have a revolutionary

government.

When Governor Wentworth loft, the Fourth Provincial

Congress, which until that time had been primarily

concerned with the defense of the colony, reluctantly

assumed responsibility for preserving law order in the

province. But i t was uncomfortable with its role. As it

had in matters of defense, i t appealed to the Continental

Congress for advice and permission to formally assume the

nature of a government. In thB election warrant for the

Fifth Provincial Congress, i t appealed to the towns for

permission to implement the recommendations of the

Continental Congress.

The first House of Representatives, croated out of

the Fifth Provincial Congress, demonstrated its commitment to providing for defense and preserving law

and order by responding to pressure from the towns to solve local problems. It was not responsive, however, to

town petitions which challenged the plan of representation or the decision to assume government.

Such petitions were callously dismissed.

By January 1776 the appearance of the government had changed, yet there was no changB in its internal structure. The same type of men who exercised political power at the beginning of the period,exercised power at the end. The conservative nature of the leaders of the

Fourth Provincial Congress and the firs t House of 5 5 1

Representatives drove From the legislature representatives From GraFton and Cheshire Counties mho uianted to give men more control over their government.

UnsuccsssFully they used political pamphlets to lobby For reForms.

The new mosaic depicts a colony that became concerned with the preservation oF its rights earlier than previously estimated, but i t did so hesitantly and gradually. Its leaders reluctantly assumed power, but eFFectively used that power to crush proposals that would have given peoplB more control over their government. APPENDICES Appendix A

F irst Provincial Congress July 21, 1744

Town DelBoats(s)

Amherst Paul Dudley Sargent

Atkinson Nathaniel Peabody

Barrington John Garland

Boscawsn Henry Gerrish

Candia Abrahan Fitts

Canterbury Ezekiel Morrill

Chester John Ulsbster Robert Wilson

Concord Timothy Walker, Jr.

□over Nathaniel Cooper Stephen Evens Caleb Hodgdon John Waldron Joshua UJingate

Dunstable (Nashua) Jonathon Laveuell

Durham John Sullivan Ebenezer Thompson

East Kingston Ebenezer Bachelor Jacob Gale 254

Epping Abraham Perkins Nehemiah UJheeler

Exeter Nathaniel Folsom John Giddinge Samuel Gilman Theopolis Gilman John Phillips

Greenland Clement March William Weeks

Hampton Jonathan Moulton Josiah Moulton Josiah Moulton, III Christopher Toppan

Hampton Falls Meshech Wears

Hawk (Danville) Thomas S t. Ranney

Hollis John Hale

Hopkinton Jonathan Straw

Kensington Uoted not to participate.

Kingston Josiah Bartlett Jacob Hook Benjamin Stevens

L s b Ebenezer Janes Joseph Sias

Lyndeborough Ephraim Putnam

Madbury John Wingate

Mason Amos Bakin

Merrimack John Chamberlain

Newington Richard Downing S 5 5

Newmarket Walter Bryant Israel Gilman Thomas Tash

Newton Stephen Bartlett Abraham Kimball

Plymouth Abel Webster

Poplin (Fremont) Zaccheus Clough

Portsmouth Supply Clapp Samuel Cutts Samuel Hale John Langdon Woodbury Langdon John Pickering Jacob SheaFe

Raymond John Dudley

Rochester James Knouiles

Rye Samuel Jenness Samuel Knowles

Sandown Samuel Sleeper

Seabrook Henry Robie

Somersworth Ichabod Rollins John Wentworth

South Hampton Philips White

Stratham Stephen Boardman Simeon Wiggin

Temple Samuel Webster

Wilton Jacob Abbot

m Could not be verified in Concord Town Records.

Appendix B

Second Provincial Congress January 25, 1775

Town PeleoatBCsJ

Amherst Paul Dudley Sargent

Atkinson Thomas Noyes Nathaniel Peabody Daniel Poor

Barrington John Garland

Bedford James Marten

BascauiBn Henry Gerrish

Bow Uoted not to participate.

Brentwood Samuel Dudley Thomas Peabody Elisha Sandbcrn

Candia Moses Baker

Canterbury Samuel Ames

Charlestown Elijah Grout

Chester Robert Calfe Matthew Forsaith ------French Samuel Robie John Ulebster Robert Ulilson 257

Chichester Elijah Ring

* Concord Timothy UJalker, Jr.

Deerfield Moses Marshall Daniel Moore

Derryf ield Uoted not to participate.

Dover Nathaniel Cooper Stephen Evans Caleb Hodgdon John Waldron, III Joshua UJingate

□unstable CNashua5 Joseph Ayers Robert Fletcher Jonathan Loveuell

Durham John Sullivan Ebenezer Thompson

Epping Enoch Coffin Seth Fogg □avid Laurence James Norris Abraham Perkins

Epsom Andreu McClary John McClary

Exeter Nathaniel Folsom John Giddinge Nicholas Gilman Theopolis Gilman William Parker

Greenland Nathan Johnson Clement March William Weeks**

Hampton Amos Coffin Anthony Emery 5 5 6

John Fogg William Lane Jonathan Moulton Josiah Moulton Josiah Moulton, III Jeremiah Sanborn Christopher Toppan

Hampton Falls Jonathan Burnam Caleb Sanborn Jonathan Tilton Meshech Ueare Paine Wingate

Haiuk (Danville) Moses Colby Thomas S t. Ranney □avid Tilton

Hollis John Hale

Hopkinton Joshua Bayley

Keene Isaac Wyman

Kensington Jonathan Ooui Nathaniel Healy Ebenezer Potter Benjamin Roue Ezekiel Ulorthen

Kingston Josiah B artlett Jacob Hook Ebenezer Stevens

Lee John Layn (Lynn) Joseph Sias

Londonderry Moses Barnet James McGregore

Lyndeborough Benjamin Jones

Madbury John Wingate 259

Mason Joseph Barrett

Merrimack John Chamberlain

New Boston Jonathan Grove

Newington Richard Downing John Nutter

New Ipswich Isaac Appleton

Newmarket John BurlBigh Israel Gilman Thomas Tash

Newton Stephen B artlett Robert Stuart, J r .

North Hampton Levi Dearborn David Marston

Northwood Benjamin Hill

Nottingham Benjamin Butler Joseph Cilley, Jr.

Qrford Uoted not to participate.

Parkersfield CNelson) Uoted not to participate.

Pelham Aaron Wyman

Plainfield Uoted not to participate.

Plymouth Abel Webster

Poplin CFremont5 Zaccheus Clough William Eastman

Portsmouth Supply Clapp Samuel Cutts John Langdon Pierse Long 2 B 0

John Penhalloui John Pickering William Whipple

Raymond John Dudley Jonathan Swaine

Rindge Enoch Hals

Rochester James Knouiles Ebenezer Tebbetts

Salisbury Leonard Judkins

Sanbornton Rev. Joseph Woodman

Sandouin Robert Collins hoses Hook Samuel Sanborn

Seabrook UJinthrop Gove Benjamin Leavitt Henry Robie Richard Shith

Somersiuorth Ichabod Rollins John Wentuorth

South Hampton Abel Broun Eliphalet Merrill Philips White

Stratham Stephen Boardman Stephen Peiper (Piper3 Simeon Wiggin

Temple Francis Blood

Wilton Jacob Abbot

Could not be verified in Concord Town Records. Greenland Town Records, vol. 1, p.85, New Hampshire State Library, l i s t Nathan Johnson, not William Weeks. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Unpublished Sources

Concord, New Hampshire New Hampshire Historical Society

Bartlett, Agnes P. "Portsmouth Genealogies.”n.p., n.d. CHandwritten3.

Childs, Francis Lane. "Gravestone Inscriptions From Uleare, New Hampshire.” n.p., n.d. C Mimeographed 3.

"Church Records of East Kingston, New Hampshire."n.p., n.d. CflimBographedJ .

Clough Family Association. "Clough Genealogy.”n.p., n.d. CTypescript).

"The Evans Family (Allenstoun, New Hampshire3.”n.p.,n.d. CTypBScript3.

Folsom, Mrs. Wendell B. ”Inscriptions-01d Town Cemetary- South Hampton, Nbw Hampshire.” n.p., n.d. (TypBscript3.

______"Inscriptions Taken From the Old Cemetary, Newton, New Hampshire.” n.p., n.d. CMimeographed3.

Gale, Charles B. "Gale Family Records: Bartholomew Gale Line.” Youngstown, 0., 1320. CBound, handwritten).

Graves, John Kimball, comp. "The Family oF John Ayers oF BrookField, Massachusetts, 1635-1962, Part I . ” n.p., n.d. (Typescript3.

"Gravestone Inscriptions From North Road Cemetary or North Side Cemetary, Wells Cemetary, Sandown, New Hampshire.” n.p., n.d. CMimeographed3. SEE

Hammond, P riscilla. ’’Uital Records of Ulilton, Now Hampshire.” n.p., n.d. CMimeographed).

Hardon, Henry W. ’’RobertsFamily,” 4 vols. n.p., n.d. (Mimeographed).

Page, Elwin. ’’Rider for Freedom: Josiah B artlett, 1729- 1795. n.p., n.d. CTypescript).

’’Pelham, New Hampshire Church Records, 17S1-1B85.” n.p., n.d. CMimeographed).

Plumer, William. ’’Plumer’s Biographical Sketches,” 5 vols. n.p., n.d. (Handwritten).

’’The Records of the Church of Christ in the Town of South Hampton in thB Province of New Hampshire in New England.” n.p., n.d. CMimeographed}.

Sanborn, Jonathan, Jr. "Diary, 1774-1813.” CSanbornton, N.H.! (Handwritten).

"Sandoun, New Hampshire, Congregational Church Records.” n.p., n.d. (Mimeographed).

"South Side Cemetary, Fremont, New Hampshire.”n.p., n.d. (Mimeographed).

Swett, Samuel. ’’Notebook, 1772-1774.” CKingston, N.H.!, (Typescript).

Tallman, Louise H. ’’Baptismal Records of Rye, New Hampshire and Adult Church Records.”Rye, N.H., 1980. (Typescript).

Walker, Joseph. ’’Life of Honorable Timothy Walker.” n.p., 1903. (Typescript).

Concord, New Hampshire New Hampshire State Library

Town Records for Towns Listed on the1 7 7 5 Nbw Hampshire Census. (Microfilm). Durham, New Hampshire, University of New Hampshire Library

Henderson, Dren U., comp. "Copy of the Town Records of the Town of Durham, New Hampshire, 1735-1841. n.p., n.d. (Typescript).

Chsswell, Wantworth, comp. "A Duplicate of the Records of the Town of Newmarket, from Its F irst Incorporation as a Parish, December 15, 1737-until the Commencement of the Revolutionary War in 1775-With an Account of the Ages, e tc . of Sundry Persons as Entered at the End of the First Book of Records and the Act of Incorporation,” Uol. 1. (Handwritten).

Portsmouth, New Hampshire Portsmouth Public Library

Frost, John E., comp. "The Nbw Castle (New Hampshire) Record Book.” n.p., n.d. (Mimeographed).

______, comp. "Portsmouth Record Book.” n.p., n.d. (Mimeographed).

"The Parish Register of Queen's Chapel, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, during the Rectorship ofRev. Arthur Browne, 173B-1773.” n.p., n.d. (Mimeographed).

"Records of North Church, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.” (Typescript).

Records of South Church. Portsmouth. New Hampshire,n.p., n.d.

Tallman, Louise H., comp. "Location Reference for North and Union Cemetaries, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.” n.p., n.d. (Typescript). 2 S 4

Manuscript Collections

Concord, New Hampshire Neui Hampshire Historical Society

Langdon/Elwyn Family Papers.

Langdon Papers, 1715-1B41.

Nathaniel Peabody Papers

Waldron Family Papers, 1703-17B2.

UlalkBr Papers.

WBntworth Papers.

Wingate Papers.

Concord, New Hampshire Neui Hampshire Records and Archives Division.

Record Group I-Executive Records.

Record Group 11-Executive Council Records.

Record Group Ill-General Court Records.

Record Group IU-Secretary of State Records.

Record Group U-Treasury Records.

Miscellaneaous Town Records For Towns Listed on the 1775 New Hampshire Census.

Wentworth, John. "Letter Book, 1767-177B.” Transcript of 3 Ucls. in Nova Scotia Public Records,Halifax.” n.p., n.d. (Handwritten).

Newspapers

Freeman’s Journal. 1776-177B (Portsmouth). 565

Neui Hampshire Gazette CExeter3 .

Neui Hampshire Gazette CPortsmouthD .

Printed Primary Sources

Annis, Daniel Gage, and Browne, George U. ads. Uital Records oF Londonderry New Hampshire. Manchester, N.H., 1914.

"Belknap Papers.” Massachusetts Historical Sociatu Collections. 6th ser. 4 C10911:3-633.

Boscawen and tiiebster. Nbw Hampshire Births. 1733-1B50. Concord, 1BB4.

Bcuton, Nathaniel, Btal., eds. Documents and Records Relatino to Neui Hampshire. 1653-1600. 40 vols. Concord and Manchester,N.H., 1667-1947.

Browne, George Ul. Earlu Records oF Derrufield. New Hamshire. B vols. Manchester, N.H., 1906.

Burnett, Edmund Cody, ed. Letters of Members t h of B Continental Congress. B vols. WashingtonD.C., 1921- 1936.

Butterfield, Lyman H., etal., eds. Diaru and Autobiooraphu of John Adams. 4 vols. Cambridge, Mass . , 1961.

Chase, Jonathan. General Jonathan Chase C173B-1B001 of Cornish.. New Hampshire; His Papers. Cornish, N.H., 1977.

"Correspondence in 1774 and 1775, Between a Committee of the Town of Boston and Contributors of Donations for the Relief of the Sufferers by the Boston Port Bill." Massachusetts Historical SociBtu Collections. 4th ser. 4 C16561:1-57B.

Draper, Mrs Amos G., comp., Pesnion Papers of New 2 6 6

Hampshire Soldiers in the Revolutionary War■ 64 vols., 7 supplementary vols. abstracts. Washington D.C., 1S01.

ThB First Parish in Dover. Naui Hampshire. Dover, N.H., 1QQ4.

Force, Peter, comp. American Archives: Fourth Series. Containing a Documentary Historu oF the English Colonies in North America. From the King’s Message to Parliament, of March 7. 1774. to the Declaration oF Independence bu the United StatBS. E vols. Washington D.C., 1843; reprint ed., New York, 1872.

Ford, Worthington C., etal., eds. Journals of the Continental Congress. 1774-17B9. 34 vols. Washington D.C., 1804-1837.

Hammond, Otis, Gen. ed. Letters and Papers ofMajor- General John Sullivan. Continental Armu. 2 vols. Concord, N.H., 1830.

Hammond, Priscilla. Genealogical Gleanings. Church Records oF Stratham. New Hampshire. 1746-1BE9. Concord N.H., 1833.

------. Vital Records oF Greenland, .New Hampshire. Concord, N.H., 1830.

------• Vital Records oF Plaistou). Nbui Hampshire. Concord, N.H., 1837.

Hanover, New Hampshire. The Records oF the Town oF Hanover. New Hampshire. 1761-1818. Hanover, N.H., 1805.

Hanson, Charles Lane, ed. A Journal For the Years 1739- 1803 bu Samuel Lane oF Stratham. Netu Hampshire. Concord, N. H., 1837.

Haynes, William P. ’’Greenland, Neui Hampshire-Early Ministerial Records.” New_.Enpiand.Historical and Genealogical Register 2B COctober 18745:415-423. 567

Hughes, Paul C., and Hughes, Paul F. Persons Buried in Greenland. Neu Hampshire Cemeteries. Burtonsville, rid., 1 3 6 0 .

Langdon, Woodbury. ’’Letter From Hon. Woodbury Langdon In Regard to the Seizure of Arms and Powder at Fort William and Mary, December 14, 1774.” Neui England Historical and Genealogical Register 55 CJuly 1868):337.

Locke, Arthur H. Portsmouth andNbw Castle.. Neui Hampshire Cemeteru Inscriptions. Portsmouth,N.H., 1807.

Lyme, N.H. Congregational Church, Manual of the Congregational Church in Luma. Neui Hampshire. Hanover, N.H., 18BS.

McLoughlin, William G. The Diaru of Isaac Backus. 176S-17B5. 5 vols. Providence, R.I., 1373.

Metcalf, Henry H. ed. Laws cf New Hampshire. 4 vols. Bristol, N.H., 1316.

MBvers, Frank C., ed. The Papers of Josiah B artlett. Hanover, N.H., 1373.

------, ed. The Papers of Josiah Bartlett C1753-17353. microfilm, 6 reels. Concord, N.H., 1376. hichipor, Ruth L., comp. Uital Statistics From the Town Records of Hamoton Falls. New Hampshire - through 1833. Hampton Falls, N.H., 1376.

’’Newington Church Records." New Hampshire Genealogical Record 5 (July-April 1304-13053:167-176.

’’Original Letters: John Hurd, William Whipple.*’ Proceedings of the Massachusettss Historical Societu CApril 18603:5-8.

Patten, Matthew. Diaru of Matthew Patten of Bedford. New Hampshire 1754-17BB. Concord, N.H., 1303.

’’Records of the New Hampshire Committee of Safety. ” New 5 6 0

Hampshire Historical Societu Collections. 7 C10635:1-340.

Sainsbury, CW. Noel3, comp., ’’Abstracts From CRecords in Her Majesty’s Public Records Office, London!.” ProcBBdincs of the Massachusetts Historical Societu CMay 10765:340-45B.

Tate, Joseph. Master Tate’s Diaru. Boston, 1950.

Tewksbury, Charles E., comp. The Vital S tatistics of Stsuartstouin ■ Neu Hampshire, from December 1. 1770 to Januaru 1. 1000. Steiuartstouin,N.H., 1BBB.

Webster, Kimball. Cemetaru Inscriptions of Hudson. New Hampshire, n.p., 1900.

U.S. Work Projects Administration. Cemetaru Inscriptions of Litchfield. Neu Hampshire,n.p., 1936.

Portsmouth CN.H.3 Town Records. 4 vols. Portsmouth, N.H., 1940.

Uermont State Papers: Being a Collection of Records and

Establisnment of Government bu thePbop I b of Oermont. Toaether uith thB Journal of the Council of Safetu. the First Constitution.thB Earlu Journals of the General Assemblu and the Laws from the Year 1779 to 1706. Inclusive. To Which ArB Added the Proceedings of the Firstand Second Councils of Censors. Middlebury,Ut., 1B53.

Uital Records of Danville. Neu Hampshire CFormerlu Hauike!. 1769-1BB6. Danville, N.H., 1979.

"Ultal Records of Dover, Neu Hampshire, 1606-1050.’’ Collections of the Dover. Neui Hampshire Historical SflfiiatlL 1 C10945.

Uital Records of Salisburu. Massachusetts to the End of the Year 1049. Topsfield, Mass., 1915. 569

WalkBr, Timothy. "Diaries of Rev. Timothy UJalker, First and Only Minister of Concord, Neui Hampshire from His Ordination, November IB, 1730 to His Death, September 1, 1785." Neui Hampshire Historical Societu Collections 3 (1BB95:123-191.

Warren, Joseph lileatherhead, ed. "The Toun Records of Gasport, Neui Hampshire.” Neui England Historieal__and Genealogical Register B7 CJanuary, April, July, October 1913):56-53,132-147,231-24B,354-359; SB (January, April 19145:32-46,127-145.

General Background

Adams, Thomas R., "The British Pamphlet Press and the American Controversy, 1764-1793,” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian SociBtu BS, part 1 CApril 1979):33—99.

Aronson, Sidney H. Status and Kinshio in the HiohBr Civil Ser,Vice. Standards of Selection in the Administrations of John Adams. Thomas Jefferson. and Andrew Jackson. Cambridge, Mass., 1964.

Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Oroins oF the American Revolution. Cambridge, Mass., 1997.

------• The Origins of American Politics. Neu York, 1970.

Bailyn, Bernard, and Hench, John B., eds. The Press and the American Revolution. Worchester, Mass., 1300.

Baldwin, Alice M. New England Clernu and the American Revolution. Durham, N.C., 1929.

Becker. Carl. The Historu oF Political Parties in the Province of New York. 1760-1776. Madison, 1909,

Blumin, Stuart. "The Historical Study of Uertical Mobility.” Historical Methods Newsletter 1 (September 196B):1-13. 270

"Boston Port Bill.” ProcBBdinos of tha Massachusetts Historical Societu. 2nd ssr. 2 CMay 1BB63:481-4B6.

Brennan, Ellen E. Plural Office-Holding in Massachusetts 1760-17B0-. Its Relation to the "Separation" of Departments of Government. ChapelHill, N.C., 1945.

Broun, Richard D. Revolutionary Politics in Massachusetts: The Boston Committee of Corres­ pondence and the Touns.f772-1774. Cambridge, Mass., 1S70.

Collins, Eduard D. Annual Report of the American Historical.association For the Year 1901. 2 vols. 1902

□aues, Norman H. ’’Titles as Symbols of Prestiege in Seventeenth-Century Neu England. ” Ulilliam and Maru Quarterlu. 3rd ser. B CJanuary 19493:69-B3.

Dexter, Franklin Boudich. ”0n Some Social Distinctions at Harvard and YalB, before the Revolution.” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Societu 9 COctober 18953:34-59.

Edinger, Leuis J. and Searing, Donald D. "Social Background in ElitB Analysis: A Methodological Inquiry.” American Political Science Revieu 61 CJune 19673:42B-445.

Frakes, George Eduard. Laboratoru For Libertu: The South Carolina Legislature Committee Susten 1719-1775. Lexington, Ky., 1970.

Greene, Jack P. "Foundations oF Political Pouer in the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1720-1776.” Ulilliam and Maru Quarterlu. 3rd ser. 16 COctober 19593:4B5- 506.

______. ’’Legislative Turnover in British America, 1696 to 1775: A Qualitative Analysis.” Uilliam and Maru Quarterlu. 3rd ser. 38 CJuly 19B13:442-463.

______. ’’Political Mimesis: A Consideration of 271

the Historical and Cultural Roots of Legislative Behavior in the British Colonies in the Eighteenth Century.” The American Historical Review 75 (December 1969}:337-360.

______• ThB Quest For Power: The Lower House of Assemblu in the Southern Roual Colonies. 1699-1763. Chapel Hill, 1363.

______. ’’The Roles of the Lower Houses of Assembly in Eighteenth-Century P o litics.” Journal of Southern Historu. 37 (November 19613:151-474.

Hall, Uan Beck. Politics Without Parties: Massachusetts. 17B0-1791. Pittsburgh, 1972.

Harlow, Ralph Uolney. The Historu of Legislative Methods in the Period bBfore 1B25. Yale Historical Publications Miscellany, Uol. 5. New Haven, Conn., 1917.

HBrshberg, Theodore and Dockhorn, Robert. ’’Occupational C lassification.” Historical Methods NewslBttBr 9 (March/June 13763:59-38.

Jensen, Merrill. ’’Democracy and the American Revolution.” Huntington Libraru Quarterlu 20 (August 1356- 13573:321-341.

Kammen, Michael. Rooe of Sand: ThB Colonial Agents. British Politics, and the American Revolution. Ithaca, N.Y., 1968.

Katz, Michael. ’’Occupational Classification in History.” Journal of Interdisciolinaru Historu 3 (Summer 13723:6B-B8.

Kolb, EugenB J. A Framework For Political Analusis ■ Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1978.

Kulikoff, Allan. ’’The Progress of Inequality in Revolutionary Boston.” Ulilliam and Maru Quarterlu. 3rd ser. 28 (July 13713:375-412. 272

Labaree, Leonard Woods. Conservatism in Earlu American Historu. Ithaca, N.Y.,1959.

______• Roual Government in America: A Studu of the British Colonial Sustain before 17B3. Neu Haven, Conn., 1330.

Ilaier, Pauline. The Did Revolutionaries; Political Lives in the floe of Samuel Adams. Neu York, 1380.

Main, Jackson T. "Government by t h B People: ThB American Revolution and the Democratization of the Legislature." William and Maru Quarterlu. 3rd ser. 22 (July 13663:331-407.

------. "Social Origins of a Political Elite: The Upper House in Revolutionary America." Huntington Libraru Quarterlu 27 CFebruary 13643: 147-15B.

------. The Social Structure of Revolutionaru America. Princeton, 1365.

______. The Sovereign States. 1775-1733. Neu York, 1373.

------. "Government by the People: ThB American Revolution and the Democratization of the Legislatures.” William and Maru Quarterlu 3rd ser. 23 (July 13663:331-407. riartin, James K. Men in Rebellion: Higher Governmental Leaders and the Coming of the American Revolution. Neu Brunswick, 1373.

Namier, Sir Leuis. The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III. 2nd ed. London, 1367.

Patterson, Stephen E. Political Parties in Revolutionaru riassachusetts■ Madison,Wis., 1373.

Rutman, Darrett B. "People in Process: The New Hampshire Towns of the EightBBnth Century”. Journal of Urban Historu 1 (May 13753 : 26B-232. 273

Schlesinger, Arthur II. The Colnnial Merchants and the American Revolution. 1763-1775. Neu York, 191Q.

------• Prelude to Indenendence;IhB NeiiiaoaPBr War,, PD Britain. 17S4-1776. Neu York, 195B.

Shiptan, CliFFsard K. ”Ye Mystery aF the Ages Salved, or How Placing Worked at Colonial Harvard andYale.” Harvard Alumni Bulletin. 57 C1954-19553: 250-259, 265-253.

Stone, Laurence. "Prosopography.” Daedalus 100 CWinter 19713:46—97.

Warren, Mercy Otis. Historu oF the Rise. Progress and Termination oF the American devolution. 3 vols. Boston, 1605

Weis, Frederick L. The Colonial Clernu oF NeuEngland. Lancaster, Mass., 1936.

Williamson, Chilton. Vermont in Quandru: 1763-1925. Montpelier, Ut., 1949.

Wood, Gordon. The Creation oF the American Republic 1776- 1787. Chapel Hill, 1969.

______. ’’The Democratization oF Mind in the American Revolution." in Leadership in the American Revolution pp. 64-B8. Library oF Congress. Washington, D.C., 1974.

Zemsky, Robert. Merchants. Farmers, and River Gods; An Essau on Eighteenth Centuru American P olitics. Boston, 1971.

______. ’’Power, InFluence, and Status: Leadership Patterns in the Massachusetts Assembly.”William and Maru Quarterlu. 3rd ser. 26 COctober 19693:502- 520.

Neu Hampshire History

Aldrich, Edgar. ’’The AFFair oF the Cedars and the Service S74

oF Colonel Timothy Bedel in the (tier of the Revolution." Neui Hampshire Historical SociBtu Collections 3 C1895-1B995:194-231.

Andresen, Karen E. "A Return to Legitimacy: Neu Hampshire’s Constitution of 1776.” Historical Neu Hampshire 31 CWinter 19765:155-164.

Aykroyd, Elizabeth R. "Note on thB Raids on Fort Ulilliam and nary.” Historical Neu Hampshire 38 (Fall 19775:144-146.

Belknap, Jeremy. Historu oF Nbu Hampshire. 3 vols. Dover, N.H., 1612; reprint ed., 2 vols. Nbu York, 1970.

Bell, Samuel D. "Notices of the Courts and of the Bar oF the County oF Hillsborough.”N bu Hampshire Repository 1 COctober 1B45-19465:122-134.

Blake, Jeremiah. ”A sta tistic a l Account of the Congregational HinistBrs and Churches in Carroll County, N. H., From Its Settlement to the Present Time.” Neu Hampshire Repositoru 2 COctobBr 1846- 18475:47-56.

Boyleston, Eduard □. comp. Historical Sketch oF The Hlllsbououoh Countu Congresses. Held at Amherst. (Neu HamD3hire5. 1774 & 1775: Ulith Cither Revolutionaru Records. AmhBrst, N. H., 1SB4.

Butters, Avery J. ”Neu Hampshire History and the Public Career oF Meshech Wears”, 1713 to 17B6.” Ph.D. dissertation, Fordham University, 1961.

Cathers, Darryl. ’’Pouer to the Pbop I b: The Revolutionary Structure behind the Attacks on Fort Ulilliam and Mary, 1774.” Historical Neu Hampshire 29 CWintBr 19745:261-279.

Clark, Charles E. The Eastern Frontier: The Settlement oF Northern Neu England. 1610-1763. Neu York, 1970.

Crackel, Theodore, and Andresen, Martin. "FortWilliam and Mary: A Case Study in Croud Behavior.” 275

Historical New Hampshire S3 (Winter 19743:203-520.

Cushing, Harry A. "The People the Best Governors.” American Historical ReviBW 1 (January 10963:204- 207.

Daniell, Jere R. Colonial Neui Hampshire: A Historu. Millwood, N.Y., 1901.

______• Experiment in Republicanism. Neu Hampshire Politics and the-American Revolution. 1741-1794. Cambridge, Mass., 1970.

______. "Lady Wentworth’s Last Days in Nbw Hampshire.” Historical New Hampshire 23 (Spring 19503:14-25.

______. ’’Reason and Ridicule: Tea Act Resolutions in Neui Hampshire.” Historical New Hampshire 20 (Winter 19553:23-20.

Daniels, Bruce C. "Defining Economic Classes in Colonial Neui Hampshire.” Historical New Hampshire 28 (Spring 19733:53-52.

Dodd, Walter. ’’The Constitutional History ofNbw Hampshire, 1775-1792.” Proceedings of the Bar Association of the State of New Hampshire, n.s. 2 (1904-19003:379-400.

Downs, Deborah. ’’The New Hampshire Constitution of 1776: Ueathervane or Conservatism.” Historical New Hampshire 31 (Winter 19793:164-179.

Durel, John W. ’’Dividing the Province of New Hampshire into Counties.” Historical New Hampshire 32 CSpring/Summer 19773:2B-41.

Farmer, John. Collections. Historical and Miscellaneous; and Monthlu Literaru Journal. 3 vols. Concord, N.H., 1B22-1024.

French. Jonathan. ’’Complete List of Congregational Ministers in the Eastern Part of Rockingham County, New Hampshire, from Its Settlement to the Present 575

Tims; Together with Notes on the Ministers and Churches. " Neui Hampshire Reoositoru a CJanuary 18473:SB-110.

Fry, Ulilliam H. Neu Hampshire as a Roual Province. Studies in History, Economics and Public Law,Uol. S9, no. S. Neu York, 1908.

Gardner, Ulilliam M. Towns ftnainst Turannu: Hillsborouoh Countu. New Hampshire. Purine the American Revolution. 1775-17B3. Nashua, N.H., 137B.

Gemmill, John. ’’The Problems of Power: New Hampshire Government during the Revolution.” Historical New Hampshire 55 tSummer 19673:S7-3B.

Gilmore, George C. ’’New Hampshire Men at BunkBr Hill.” Nbw Hampshire, Secretary of State, Manual For the General Court, no. B. Manchester,N.H., 1BS9.

’’Government During the Revolution.” New Hampshire. Secretary of State. Manual of the General Court 1897. no. 5. Concord, N.H., 1897.

"Journal of Proceedings of the Convention at Dracut, in November, 1776.” New Hampshire Historical Societu Collections 5 C1BE73:53-60.

Kaplan, Sidney. ’’The History of New Hampshire: Jeremy Belknap as Literary Craftsman.” Ulilliam and Maru Quarterlu. 3rd ser. 51 CJanuary 13643:1B-3S.

Kelly, John. ’’Notices of the Superior Court of Judicature of the StatB of Nbw Hampshire, and of the Courts and Bar of the County of Rockingham.” New Hampshire Reoositoru 5 COctDber, January 1B46-1B473:34-45, 111-156.

Kinney, Charles B. Church and State: The Struggle for Separation in New Hampshire. 163Q-1B00. New York, 1955.

Kirsch, George B. “Clerical Dismissals in Colonial and Revolutionary New Hampshire." Church Historu 49 577

CJune 19B0):160-177.

Lacy, Harriet. ’’Emery Family Account Books.” Historical Nbu Hampshire 81 CSummer 19661:45-48.

Laurence, Robert F. The Neui Hampshire Churches: Comprising Histories of thB Conaregational_and Presbuterian Churches in the State, uith Notices of Other Denominations. ClarBmont,N.H., 1B55.

Lettieri, Ronald, and Wetherell, Charles. "The Neui Hampshire Committees of SafBty and Revolutionary Republicanism." Historical Neui Hampshire 35 C19803:241-583.

Lyford, James 0. "Town Histories." Proceedings of the Neu Hampshire Historical Societu 5 C190B1:582-270.

Marini, Stephen A. Radical Sects of Revolutionaru Neu England. Cambridge, Mass., 190E.

Martin, James Kirby. ”A Model for the Coming of the American Revolution: The Birth and Death of the Uentuorth Oligarchy in Neu Hampshire 1741-1776.” Journal of Social Historu 4 CFall 197011:41-60.

MitchBll, Harry Eduard, etal., comps. ThB Toun Register. 18 vols. Brunsuick and Augusta,Me., 1905, 190B- 1909.

Moore, Frank. Sonos and Ballads of the American Revolution. Neu York, 1856; reprint Neu York, 1S69.

Page, Eluin L. Judicial Beginnings in Neu Hampshire. 1583- 1700. Concord, N.H., 1959.

______. "The King’s Pouider, 1774” N b u j England Quarterlu IB CMarch 19451:83-98.

------. ’’What Happened to the King’s Pouder.” Historical Neu Hampshire 19 CSummer 18643:SB-33.

Parsons, Charles. ’’The Capture of Fort William and Mary, December 14, and 15, 1774.” Proceedings of the Neu 278

Hampshire Historical Societu 4 C19035:IB-47.

Potter, Chandler. The Militaru Historu of the State oF Neui Hampshire. 1B23-1B51. uiith Added IndBxes Prepared bu the StaFF oF the Neu Hampshire Historical Societu. C1886-1868?. Baltimore, Md., 1872.

Rice, John L. ’’Dartmouth College and the State of Neui Connecticut.” Papers and Proceedings of the Connecticut Ualleu Historical Societu 1 C1B76- 18B15:152-205.

Robinson, Maurice H. ft Historu of Taxation inNbui Hampshire. Publications oF the American Economic Association, 3rd. ser., Uol. Ill, no. 3. Neui York, 1902.

Saltonstall, W. G. Ports of the Piscataoua. Cambridge, Mass., 1941.

Scott, Kenneth. ’’Tory Associators oF Portsmouth.” William and Maru Quarterlu. 3rd ser. 17 COctober 19805:507- 515.

Shirley, John M. Earlu Jurisprudence oF Neui Hampshire . Concord, N.H., 1885.

Stackpole, Edward S. Histaru oFN bui Hampshire. 4 vols. New York, 1917.

Squires, J. Duane. The Granite State oF the United States: A Historu oF New Hampshire From 1G23 to the Present. 4 vols. New York, 1958.

------. The Storu oF New Hampshire. Princeton, 1984.

Suieet, Douglas. ’’New Hampshire on the Road to Revolution: Fort William and Mary; A Decisive Step.” Historical New Hampshire 29 CWinter 19745:229-280.

True, Ransom B. ’’The New Hampshire Committee oF Correspondence.” M.A thesis, University oF Neu Hampshire, 1989. 5 7 9

Turner, Lynn Warren. The Ninth State: Nein Hampshire’s Formative Years. Chapel Hill, 1SB3.

U.S. Work Projects Administration. N bih Hampshire Miscellaneous- Government and Officials. Banks. Records cF South Church, n.p., n.d.

Upton, Richard. Revolutionaru Neui Hampshire: An Account of the Social and Political Forces UndBrluino the Transition From Roual Province to American Commonmealth. Hanover, N.H., 1936; reprint ed., New York, 1971.

Uan Deventer, David E. The Emergence oF Provincial New Hampshire. 1653-1741. Baltimore, 197S.

Walker, Joseph B. "The Neui Hampshire Covenant oF 1774.” Granite Monthlu 35 COctobBr 19033 : 1BB-197 .

------. Neui Hampshire ’S-Five Provincial Congresses. Julu 51. 1774-Januaru 5. 1776. Concord, N.H., 1905.

Watson, Derek. "John Wentworth's Description oF The American Colonies in 1765.” Historical N bui Hampshire 57 CFall 19753:141-165.

Wentuiorth, John. ’’Seizure oF Arms and Pouider at Fort William and Mary. The Finale oF Provincial Government in Neui Hampshire.” New England Historical and Genealogical Register 53 CJuly 1B593:S74-S7B.

Whiton, John M. ’’Statistical Account cF the Congregational and Presbyterian Ministers in the County oF Hillsborough, New Hampshire.” New Hampshire Reoositoru 1 CApril 18463:179-501.

Wilderson, Paul W, ’’John Wentworth’s Narrative oF the Raids on Fort William and Mary.” Historical New Hampshire 35 CWinter 19773:55B-536.

. ’’The Raids on Fort William and Mary: Some New Evidence.” Historical New Hampshire 30 CFall 2 0 0

19753:178-202.

Biographies

Akers, Charles Ul. ’’New Hampshire’s ’Honorary’ Lieutenant Governor: John Templs and the American Revolution.” Historical New Hampshire 30 CSummer 19753:79-99.

Adams, Charles, Matthew Thornton oFN bui Hampshire: A Patriot of the American Revolution. Philadelphia, 1903.

’’American Revolutionary Naval Service.” New Hampshire Genealogical Record 5 CDctoher 19083:151-170.

Atherton, Charles. ’’Memoirs oF UJyseman Claggett.” New Hampshire Historical Societu Collections 3 C1B323:2H-39.

Baer, Annie Ui. ’’Colonel John Wentworth and his Salmon Falls House.” Granite Monthlu 5S CApril 19273:103- 111.

Baker, Henry. "General Nathaniel Folsom." Proceedings oF the New Hamnshire Historical Societu 4 C1B99- 19053:253-267.

Beane, Samuel C. ’’General Enoch Poor.” New Hampshire Historical Societu Collections 3 C1995-18993:435- 472.

Bell, Charles H. The Bench and Bar oF New Hampshire. Boston, 1894.

Bradley, Cyrus P. ’’Memoirs oF General Nathaniel Folsom oF Exeter.” New Hampshire Historical Societu Collections 5 C1B373:216-221.

Brown, Ulilliam Howard. Colonel John GoFFe. Eighteenth Centuru New Hampshire. Manchester,N.H., 1950.

Burnham, E. J. ’’John Dudley.” Proceedings oF the New Hampshire Historical SociBtu 4. p t. 1 C15033:233- 5B1

5 5 1 .

Carter, Rev. N. F. NativB tlinistru of Nein Hampshire. Concord, N.H., 1306.

Corning, Charles. Samuel Livermore. Concord,N.H., 1BBB.

□exter, Franklin B. Biographical Sketches oF the Graduates oF Yale College, uith Annals of the Cq II b p b Historu. E vols. Neu York, 1BB5-1315.

Eastman, Charles, Jr. ”Josiah B artlett, Patriot Practitioner.” Nb u Hampshire Profiles 5 3 CApril 19743:55-55, 65-66.

Foss, Gerald D. comp. St. John’s Lodoe: Bulaus and Membership 1736-1365. Portsmouth, N.H., 1365.

Fairchild, Byron. Messrs. Ulilliam PeccBlXBl.l: Merchants at Piscataaua. Ithaca, N.Y., 1354.

Garvin, James L. and Garvin, Donna-Belle. ’’Stephen Webster, Gravestone Maker.” Historical Neu Hampshire 59 C13743:33-104.

Gifford, George E., Jr. ed. Phusician Sinners of the Declaration of Independence. Neu York, 1376.

Hammond, Otis G. ”ThB Tories of Neu Hampshire." Proceedings of the Neu Hampshire Historical Societu 5 C1305-1315):5B3-335.

Ham, J. R. The Dover CN.H.3 Phusicians. read bBfore the Neu Hampshire Medical Society, June 17, 1673. Concord, N.H., 1B79.

Kirsch, George. ’’Jeremy Belknap and the Coming of the Revolution.” Historical Neu Hampshire 59 CFall 1974):151-175.

L ittle, Arthur. ’’William Whipple, Signer of the Declaration of Independence.” Proceedings of the Neu Hampshire Historical Societu 3 C1B95-1B99):BIB- 333. 2B2

Mayo, Lawrence Shaw. John Lanodon of New Hamcahire. Concord, N.H., 1937.

______• John Wentworth. Governor of New Hampshire. 1757- ^775. Cambridge, Mass., 1951.

’’Memoir of the Hon. Joseph Badger.” Neui Hampshire Historical Societu Collections E (10503:124-131.

Morahan, John 0. "A Prosopagraphical Study of the New Hampshire Committee of Safety.” M.A. thesis, University of New Hampshire, 1977.

Moses, John. ’’Early Settlers of East Northwood.” GranitB Monthlu 49 (February-March 19173:37-42.

------. "Early Settlers of Northwood.” Granite Monthlu 49 (November-December 19173:209-215.

“New Hampshire Medical Society. The Stnru of the New Hampshire Medical Societu. Told to 1B54. Nashua, N.H., 1941.

Newell, Oliver P. "Biographical Notices of Physicians in Nelson.” Nb w Hampshire Reoositoru 1 CJuly 15453:277- 270.

Ryan, Walter. "A Note on a Founding Father: Newport’s Benjamin Giles, Twice a Rebel.” Historical New Hampshire 32 (5pring/Summer 19773:19-27.

Saltonstall, William G. John Phillips. 1719-1795. Merchant. Shipowner. Landed Proprietor, and Founder Of- Phillips Exeter Academu. New York, 1951.

5cales, John. "General Thomas B a rtle tt.” Proceedings of the New Hampshire.Historical Societu 5 C190B- 19123:131-1BB.

Scott, Kenneth. "John Houston, Tory Minister of Bedford.” Journal of the PrBsbuterian Historical Societu 22 (December 19443:172-197. EB3

______. "Colonel Stephen Holland of Londonderry • ” Historical Nbui Hampshire 3 CMarch 19473 :15-27 .

______. "The Tory Associators of Portsmouth.” I»)illiam and Maru Quartarlu. 3rd sor. 17 COctober 19603:507- 517.

Sibley, John L., and Shipton, Clifford K. Biooraohical Sketches of Graduates of Harvard Universitu. 1713- 1771. 17 vols. Cambridge Mass. and Boston, 1673- 1975.

"Sketches of Alumni of Dartmouth College.” Nbui Hampshire Reoositoru 1 COctober 1B453:10B-114.

Siebert, Wilbur H. "The Loyalist Refugees of New Hampshire.” ThB Ohio State Universitu Bulletin 21 COctober 19163:23 P.

Spaulding, Charles S. An Account of Some of the Earlu Settlers of West Dunstable, flonson. and Hollis. New Hampshire. Nashua, N.H., 1915.

Spofford, Charles B. "Col. Samuel Ashley. A Frontier Soldier and Statesman-Notable FigurB in Claremont’s Early History.” Granite Monthlu 14 CMay 1B9E3:141- 147.

______. "ThB Grantees of Claremont.” Granite Monthlu 15 CJuly, August, September, October 19933:206-212, 241-247, 282-2B4, 318-323.

Stearns, Ezra. Earlu Generations of the Founders of Old Dunstable. Boston, 1911.

------. Thirtu Dunstable Families. Boston, 1911.

Thompson, Mary P. A. A Memoir of Judoe Ebenezer Thompson of Durham. New Hampshire. Concord,N.H., 1BB6.

N.H., 1960. -SSShBCh

Wells, N. F. "Colonel Israel Morey.” Proceedinns of the New Hampshire Historical Societu 5 C1905-19123:59- 5B4

75.

Whittamore, Charles, ft Gsnsral of the Revolution. John Sullivan oF N bui Hamnshirs. Neu York, 1SB1.

Wilderson, Paul U). ’’Prataganist of Prudence: ft Biography □f John Wentuorth.”Ph.D. dissertation, University of Neu Hampshire, 1977.

Wingate, Charles E. L. LiFe and Letters of Pain Wingate. One of the Fathers of the Nation. 5 vols. MedFord, Mass., 1930. blode, Mason. ’’Odyssey oF a Loyalist Rector.” Uarmont History 49 CSpring 19B03:96-113.

Woodbury, Charles H. ’’Mattheu Thornton.” FroceBdinos oF the Neu Hampshire Historical Societu 3 C1B95- 1B993:76-109.

Woodbury, Gordon. ’’The Scotch-Irish and Irish Presbyterian Settlers of Neu Hampshire.” Proceedings of the Neu Hampshire Historical Societu 4 C1B99-19053:143-165.

Worthen, Samuel C. ’’The Story oF a Kensington Warrior and Legislator.” Granite Monthlu 55 CSeptember/October 19533:459-433, 4B4-490.

Bibliographies, Directories, and Finding Guides

Bolton, Ethel Stanuood. Immigrants to Neu England. 17QQ=. 1775. Baltimore, 1979.

Boston ftthenaeum. Index oF ObituariBs in Boston Neusganers 1704-1795. 5 vols. Boston, 196B.

Bosuorth, Timothy. "The Genealogy as a Source For Research on Migrants beFore 1850: ft Research Note.” Historical Methods 5 CFall 197B3:117-179. EB5

Brigham, Clarence S., ad. Historu and Bibliooraphu of American Newspapers. 1S30-1B50. E vols. Worchester, Mass., 1347.

Crandall, Ralph J. Genealogical Research in Neui England. Baltimore, 1984.

Carter, Hosea B. Nbik Hampshire Official Register With an Enitome of Official Succassions For Two Centuries. East Hampstead, N.H., C187973.

”8 Catalogue of the Ministers of Different Religious Denominations in the State of Neu Hampshire, from the Year 1638 to 18E1, with the Time of Thsir Settlement, Removal or Death, and Their Ages Ulhere They Could Be Ascertained, with the Number of Communicants in the Several Churches in 1BE1.Hill ” S Moore's Improved Edition of the NBW-Hamoshire Register, and United States’ Calendar, for the Year of Pur Lord. 185S. Concord,N.H., 1BEE.

Evans, Charles. American Biblioaraphu; A Chronological Dictionaru of All Books. Pamphlets and Periodical Publications Printed in the United States of America From the Genesis of Printing in 1B3S Down to and Including the Year 1BSQ with Bibliographical and Biographical Notes. New York, 1941.

Evans, Helen F. Abstracts of the Probate Records of Strafford Countu. Neu Hampshire. 1771-1799. End ed. Bowie, Md., 1983.

Farmer, John. Ecclesiastical Register of New Hampshire. Concord, N.H., 1BE1.

Farmer, John, and Moore, Jacob B. Gazetteer of the State of New Hampshire. Concord, N.H., 18S3.

Fowls, Daniel and Fowle, Robert. A Civil and Ecclesiastical Register of the Province of New Hampshire, for the Year 1772. Portsmouth, N.H., 1771. 28B

Hammond, Otis Grant. Notices from the Neui Hampshire GazettB. 1755-1B00. Lambertville, N.J., 1970.

Haskell, John Jr. and Bassett, T. □. Seymour, eds. Nbui Hampshire: ft Biblioaranbu of Its Historu . Boston, 1973.

Holbrook, Jag hack. Nbui Hampshire 177B Census. Oxford, Mass., 1976.

Hunt, Elmer riunson.Nbui Hampshire Touin NamBS and UhBnce Theu Came. Peterborough, N.H., 1970.

"Judges of the Superior Court of Judicure, For Neui Hampshire, From 1699 to 1B33." The Nem-Hamoshire Annual Register and United States Calendar, comp, by John Farmer. Concord, N.H., 1B33.

Mevers, Frank C. comp. Guide to Earlu Documents Cc. 16BQ- c. 13003 at the Neui Hampshire Records Management and Archives Center. Neui Hampshire, Dept, of State, Division of Records Management and Archives, 19B1.

______• Guide to the Microfilm Edition of the Papers of Josiah Bartlett (1729-17951. Concord, N.H., 197B.

Mein, John nd Fleeming, John, flein and Fleming's Register for Neui-Enoland and Nova Scotia. Uith all the British Lists; and an Almanack For 176B. Boston, 1767.

------• Hein and Fleeming’s Register for Neui England and Nova-Scotia. Ulith Alll the British Lists: and an Almanack for 1769. Boston, 1769. Boston, 17BB.

Mills, Nathaniel, and Hicks, John.Mills and Hicks British and American Register; with an Almanack for the Year 1774. Boston. 1773.

------. Mills and Hick’s British and American Register: uilth an Almanack For the Year 1775. For a ll the Neui- Enaland Province. Boston, 1774.

Neui Hampshire’s Role in the American Revolution. 1763- 17B9: A Bibliooraohu■ Concord, N.H., 1974.

’’Portsmouth Town QFFicBrs.” Neui Hampshira GBnBalooical Record 2 C1904-19055:97-104, 157-165.

T oui I b , Laird C., and Broun, Ann N. Nbu Hampshire Genealogical Research Guide. Bouie, rid., 1993.

UlalkBr, J. B. An Index oF Historical hatter Contained in the Neu Hampshire Registers From 1775-1995: in the Political Manuals From 1S57..to 1S75; and in the People Land-Books Fpr 1874. 1976. and 1S77. Concord, N.H., 1892.

Uallace, R. Stuart. ’’The State Papers? A Descriptive Guide.” Historical Neu Hampshire 31 CFall 19765:119- 1 2 0 .

Genealogies

Balch, Galusha. Genealooij oF the Balch Families in America. Salem, Mass., 1097.

Brigham, Theda Page. Descendants oF John Pane C1614-1507 5 oF Hinoham and Haverhill. Massachusetts. Together uith Genealogical Records oF Certain Branches of the Mead. JeFFers and Hunkins Familiese. Haverhill, Mass., 1972; Appendix, 1979.

Burleigh, Charles. The Genealogu oF the Burleu or Burleigh Familu cF America. PortlandMe., 1980.

Burrage, Rev. Henry S., and Stubs, Albert Roscoe. Genealogical andFamilu Historu oF the State oF Haine. Neu York, 1909.

Chamberlain, Ulillis Brooks. One Branch oF the Descendants □F Thomas Chamberlain oF iiioburn. 1644. Weymouth, Mass., 1897.

Cutter, William R. Neu England FamiIies__Genealogical and Memorial. A Record oF the Achievements oF Her EBB

People in thB llakinn of Commomwealths and thB Foundino of a Nation.4 vols. Nb w York, 1314.

Dudley, Dean. Hietoru of the Dudleu Familu. with Benealooical Tables. PediorBes. Sc.. E vols. Wakefield, Mass., 1BBE.

Estabrook, William Booth. Genealoou of the Estabrook Familu. Including the Esterbrooks snd Easterbrooks on thB United States. Ithaca, N.Y., 1091.

Gilman, Arthur. The Gilman Familu Traced in the Line of Hon. John Gilman oF ExetBr. N.H.. with an Account of Hanu Dther Gilmans. Albany,N.Y., 1009.

Howard, Cecil HampdBn Cutts. Genealoou oF the Cutts Familu in America. Albany, N.Y., 103E.

Johnson, Carol Clark. A Genealogical Historu of thB Clark and Worth Families and OthBr Puritan Settlers in the Massachusetts Bau Colonu.n.p., 1370.

Libby, Charles T., ed. Genealogical Dictionaru of Paine and New Hampshire. 5 vols. Portland, 13EB-133B.

March, Ellen Gates. March Genealonu. Baltimore?, 1B93.

Merrill, Samuel. A Merrill Memorial: An Account of the Descendants of NathanielMerrill, an Earlu Settler of Newburu. Massachusetts. Cambridge, Mass., 1917- 13S9.

Nb w Hampshire Genealogical Record. 7 vols. Dover, N.H., 1903-1310.

Noys, Sybil; Libby, Charles; Davis, kJalteer. Genealogical Dictionaru of Maine and New Hampshire. Portland, Me., 13E0-1333.

Perley, Sidney. ThB Plumer Genealoou: Francis Plumer. who Settled at Newburu. Massachusetts and Some of His Descendants. Salem, Mass., 1917.

Pierce, Frederick Clifton. Batchalder. Batcheller 589

Sanaaloau. Chicago, 10SB.

Pope, Charles Henry, comp. The HavBrhill Emersons. Part F irst. Boston, 1313.

Pope, John Mason, ft Pattinoell GBnaaloou ■ NPtB5 ConarninaThose oF the Name Compiled bu the Late John Mason Pettinoall. Boston, 1906.

Prescott, William. "Philip Welch of Ipswich, Ms., and His □ascendants.” New England Historical and Genealogical Register 53 (October 10633:417-453.

______■ The Prescott Memorial or a Genealogical Memoirs oF the Prescott Families in America. Boston, 1070.

Rix, Guy S. Genealoau oF the Foss Familu. Concord, N.H., 1317.

Rollins, John R. Records oF Families aF the Name Rawlins or Rollins, in the United States. Lawrence, Mass., 1074.

Savage,James, ft Genealogical Register oF the First Settlers oF New-Enoland Showing Three Geenerations oF Those Who Came beFore Mau 1635. on the Basis oF Farmer’s Register. Boston, 10GO-13E5R.

Sanborn, U. C. Genealogu oF the Familu oF Samborne or Samborn in England and ftmsrica. 1134-1030.n.p., 1093; reprint ed., Boston, 1363.

Scales, John, ed., Piscataoua Pioneers. 1653-1775. Register oF Members and Ancestors. Dover, N.H., 1313.

Sias, Azariah Boody. ThB Sias Familu in America 1677 to 1355. The First 575 uears. 3 vols. Orlando, Fla., 1955.

Stearns, Ezra S. Genealogical and Familu Historu oF the State oF New Hampshire. 4 vols. New York, 1300.

Thompson, Franklin C., ed., Winoin Genealoou.n.p., n.d. 2 9 0

Thwing, Walter Eilat. The Livermore Familu of America. Boston, 1902.

U.S. Work Projects Administration. Nam Hampshire Genealoou. 7 vols. n.p., n.d.

Ward, Azuba Ruth, comp. ThB Auers Familu Descendants of William EauBr3 of LondondBrru. New Hamoshire. Bellevue, Wash., 19B0.

Wentworth, John. The Wentuorth Genealoou. 3 vols. Boston, 1078.

Ulhyte, Donald, comp, and ed. A Dictionaru of Scottish Emigrants to the United StatBS of America. Baltimore, 1901.

Wingate, Charles E. L. comp. Historu oF the Winoate Familu in England and in America. Exeter,N.H., 1006.

Town and County Histories

Adams, Nathaniel. Annals oF Portsmouth. Comprising a Period oF Two Hundred Years From the First Settlement oF the Town: With Biooraohical Sketches oF a Few oF the Most Respectable Inhabitants. Portsmouth, N.H., 1025.

Aldrich, George. Walpole as It Was and as It Is. Claremont, N.H., 1080.

Annett, Albert, and Lehtinen, Alice E. Historu oF JaFFreu middle MonadnockP. New Hamoshire. 2 vols. Peterborough, N.H., 1937.

Barney, Jesse, comp. Rumneu. ThBn and Now. Rumney,N.H., 1967 .

Barnum, Louise Noyes. Atkinson-Then and Now. Somersworth, N.H., 1976. 391

Bath, New Hampshire Bicentennial Committee on History. Historical Notes of Bath. New Hampshire. 1765-1955; Ramblinos bu Edwin Chamberlin Cand Others], Littleton, N.H., 1955.

Bartlett, John Henry. The Storu of Synapse. Washington, B.C., 1941.

Bassett, William. Historu of thB Town of Richmond. Cheshire Countu. New Hampshire. From Its First Settlement to 1B3S. Boston, 19B4.

Bell, Charles. Exeter in 1775. Exeter, N.H., 1075.

______• Historu of the Town of Exeter^.New Hampshire. Boston, 1999.

Bemis, Charles Austin. Historu of the Town of Marlborough. Cheshire Countu. New Hampshire.With the Report oF its Centennial Celebration in 1975: Also Embracing GenBalooies and Sketches oF Families From 1754 to 1990. Marlborough, N.H., 1974.

BittingBr, John Quincy. Historu of Haverhill. New Hampshire. Haverhill, N.H., 10BB.

Blood, Henry Ames. The Historu of Temple. New Hampshire. Boston, I960.

Brewster, Charles W. Rambles About Portsmouth First and Second Series. A Facsimile of the 1969 Edition First Published in 1959 bu Lewis W. Brewster. Somersworth, N.H., 1972.

Brown, David Arthur, comp. The Historu oF Penacook. New Hampshire. From its First Settlement in 1734 U p to 1900. Concord, N.H., 1902.

Brown, Warren. Historu of the Town oF Hampton Falls.N b w Hampshire From the Time oF the First Settlement Within its Borders 1640 Until 1900. Manchester, N.H., 1900. 292

Browne, George Waldo. ’’Derrryfield in the Revolution.” Manchester Hietorical Societu CollBctione 3 C1902- 1903D:110-117.

______• The Historu of Hillsborough. New Hampshire 1735- 1951. 2 vols. Manchester, N.H., 1921.

Bundy, David A. 100 Acres More or Less. A Historu of the Land and People of Bow. New Hamoshire. Canaan, N.H., 1975.

Carter, Rev. N. F., and Fowler, T. L. Historu oF Pembroke. New Hampshire 1730-1995. 2 vols. Allenstown and Pembroke, N.H., 1975.

Cassedy, Mary, and Perkins, Sue. A BrisF Historu oF Earlu PlainField. Plainfield,N.H., 1375.

Catalfo, Alfred, Jr. The Historu of thB Town of Rollinosford. New Hampshire. 1653-1973. Rollingsford, N.H., 1373.

Chandler, Charles Henry. The Historu of New Ipswich. New Hampshire. 1735-1311, With genealogical Records of the Principal Families. Fitchburg, Mass., 1914.

Chase, Benjamine. Historu of Old ChasterCN.H.l From 1719- 1BS9. Auburn,N.H., 1859.

Child, Hamilton. Gazetteer of Grafton Countu. New Hampshire. 1709-1BB6. Syracuse, N.Y., 1B85.

Child, William H. Historu of the Town of Cornish. New Hampshire..,,.W.i,,th...genBa;LPHical Record 1763-1310- 2 vols. Concord, N.H., n.d.

Clarke, John. Manchester: A Brief Record of its Past and Picture of its Present. Manchester,N.H., 1B75.

Cochrane, Rev. Warren Robert. Historu of Francestcwn. Nbw Hampshire. From its Earliest Settlement in April. 1759 tp January 1. 1931- Nashua, N.H., 1B95.

Cochrane, Rev. Warren Robert. Historu of the Town of 533

Antrim. Manchester, N.H., 1BOO.

CoFFin, Charles Carleton. The Historu oF Boscawen and Webster From 1733 ta 1B7B. Concord, N.H., 1B7B.

Cogswell, E lliott. Historu oF New Boston. New Hampshire. Boston, 1864.

______• Historu oF Nottingham. DeerField. and Northuiood. Manchester,N.H., 187B.

Cogswell, Leandar W. Historu nF the Town aF Henniker. Merrimack Countu. New Hamoshire. A Facsimile oF the 1BB0 Edition With a New Foreward bu Francis Lane Childs. Somersworth, N.H., 1373.

Cogswell, William. ’’History cF Atkinson." New Hampshire Historical Societu Collections B C1050) : 5B-B5.

Cole, Luane, ed. Patterns and Pieces: Lume. New Hampshire, 1751-1975- Canaan, N.H., 1376.

Conrad, Justus. ’’The Town oF Woodstock.” Granite Monthlu 53 CJuly 1037): 11-53.

Conway, New Hampshire. Commemorative Booklet. Bicentennial oF Conuiau. New Hampshire. 1765-1365. Conway, N.H., 1365.

Cooper, Lemuel P. "Historical Sketch oF Croyden.” New Hampshire Historical Societu Collections 6 C1B50):515-543.

Crosby, Jaazaniah. "Annals oF Charlestown in the County oF Sullivan, New Hampshire.” New Hampshire Historical Societu. Collections 4 C1034 ): 101-133 .

Currier, Stanley P., and ClemBnt, Edger T. Historu oF LandaFF. New Hampshire. Littleton, N.H., 1366.

Cutter, Daniel. Historu oF the Town oF JaFFreu. New Hampshire. Concord, N.H., 1BB1 .

Daughters oF the American Revolution, Mary Butler 234

Chapter, Laconia, Neui Hampshire. Old Meredith and Uicinitu. Concord, N.H., 1326.

Dearborn, John J. The Historu of Salisbury. New Hamoshire From Date of Settlement to the Present Time. Manchester, N.H., 1B30.

□ow, Joseph. Historu of thB Town of Hamoton. New Hampshire. From Its Settlement in 1636. to the Autumn of 1832. 2 vols., 2nd ed. Somersworth, N.H., 1370.

□owns, Charles. Historu of Lebanan. New Hampshire. 1761- 1BB7. Concord, N.H., 130B.

Donavan, Rev. D., and Woodward, Jacob .’I. The Historu of thB Town of Lundeborouoh. New Hampshire. 1735-1305. 2 vols. Medford, Mass., 1306.

Eastman, Benjamin Durgin. North Conwau: Its Surroundings. Its Settlement bu English People. CNorth Conway, N.H., 133?.:

Eastman, John Robie. Historu of the Town of Andover. New Hampshire. 1751-1306 Concord. N.H., 1310.

Eaton, F. B. Historu of Candia. Manchester, N.H., 1352.

Emerson, Ruth, and Greenway, Florence Philpott. Rollinsford’s Heritage. 1623-1376. South Berwick, Me ., n . d .

Emhardt, Mary C., and Williams, Louise F,, eds. Barrington. New Hampshire. 1722-1372. Barrington, N.H., 1732.

Evans, George C. Historu of the Town of Jefferson. New Hampshire. 1773-1327. Manchester, N.H., 1327.

Fitts, Rev. James Hill. Historu of Newfields. New Hampshire. 163B-1311. Concord, N.H., 1312.

Fox, Charles J. Historu of the Old Township of Dunstable: Including Nashua. Nashville. Hollis. Hudson. 295

Litchfield, and Merrimac. Neui Hampshire. Nashua, N.H., 1846.

Frizzell, Martha, ft Historu of Walpole. Nam Hampshire. 2 vols. Uaipole, N.H., 1963.

Fullonton, Joseph. The Historu of Raumond. Neui Hampshire. Dover, N.H., 1B75.

George, NelliB P. Old Newmarket. Neui Hampshire: Historical Sketches. Exeter, N.H., 1938.

Gilbert, Edgar. Historu of Salem. Nbui Hamoshire. Concord, N.H., 1907.

Gould, Isiah. Historu of Stcddard. Cheshire Countu. Neuj Hampshire. . From the Time of its Incorporation in 1774 to 1854. a Period of BO Years: With Some Sketches From its First Settlement in 17GB. Marlboro, N.H., 1897.

Griffin, S. G. ft Historu of thB Touri of Kaana From 1732. Ulhen thB Township Was Granted bu Massachusetts to 1B74. When it Became a Citu. Keene, N.H., 1904.

HadlBy, GeorgB Plummer. Historu of the Toiun nf GoFfstouin 1733-1920. S vols. Concord, N.H., 1922.

Hall, M. 0. Rambles ftbout Greenland. Boston, 1900.

Hanaford, Mary Elizabeth Neal, comp. Meredith. Neu Hampshire, ftnnals and Genealogies. Concord, N.H., 1932.

Harkness, Marjory Gane. The Tammorth Narrative CNeui Hampshire)■ Freeport, Me., 195B.

Harriman, Walter. The Historu of Warner. Neui Hampshire. for One Hundred and Fortu-Four Years. From 1735 to 1B79. Concord, N.H., 1B79.

Harris, Amanda B. ”ft Sketch of Warner: Historic and Otherwise.” GranitB Monthlu 19 CDecember 1BB5):411- 439. 296

Hay ley, John William. TuFtonbo. Nam Hampshire: Pin Historical Sketch. Concord, N.H., 1523.

Hayward, Silvanus. Historu of the Town of Gilsum. Nb w Hampshire. From 1752 to 17B3. Manchester, N.H., 1881.

Hayward, William Wallis. The Historu of Hancock. New Hampshire. 1764-1888. Lowell, Mass., 1BBS.

Hazelton, Philip A . Historu of Hebron. New Hampshire. Hebron, N.H., 1978.

Hill, John. Historu of the Town of Mason. New Hampshire From the First Grant in 1749 to the Year 1858. Boston, 1958.

Historu oF Bedford. New Hampshire From 1737-1903. Concord, N.H., 1903.

Historu oF Coos Countu. ft Facsimile of the 1BBB Edition With a New Foreward bu J. Duane SauirBS. Somersworth, N.H., 1972.

The Historu oF Dublin. New Hampshire. Boston, 1B55.

Historu oF New loswich. New Hampshire From its First Brant in MDCXXXWI. To the Present TimB: With Genealogical Notices oF the Principal Families, and Also the Proceedings of the Centennial Celebrations. September 11. 1850. Boston, 1852.

The Historu of Sutton. New Hampshire: Consisting oF the Historical Collections oF Erastus Walsioh. Esa.. and A . H ■ Worthen ■ HE3,^UHUSta Hafveu Worthen. comp. C1B903. Button, N.H., 1975.

Historu oC Washington. New Hampshire. From 176B to 188B. A Facsimile the 1BBS Edition With a New Foreward bu Ronald Jaoer and Grace Jaaer. Washington, N.H., 1978.

Hale, Salma. ’’Annals of the Town of Keene, From its First 297

Settlement, in 1734, to the Year 1790.” Nam Hamoshire Historical Societu Collections 2 C1B27):71-136.

Hobbs, Stillman Moulton, and Hobbs, Helen. The Wau It Was in North Hamoton. Seabrook, N.H., 197B.

Hodges, George. Holderness; Pin Account of the Beginnings oF a Neui Hamoshire Touin. Boston, 1907.

Hodgson, Alice Doan. Thanks to the Past. ThB Storu oF □rford. Neui Hamoshire. Orford, N.H., 19ES.

Horton, Louise S., Underhill, Elizabeth H., and Deal, Eleanor □. Fiermont. N buj Hampshire. 1764-1947. Bradford, Ut., C19483.

Hoskins, Elkanah Barney. Historical Sketch oF Luman. New Hampshire. Lisbon, N.H., 1903.

Hopkins, Henrietta, and Ledward, Ruth. Brief Historu of Greenfield. Neui Hampshire. 1791-1941. Leduiord, N.H., n.d.

Horne, Ruth. Conuiau Through the Years and Uhither. Conway, N.H., 1963.

Hgut_ls Historu of Uentuiorth. Nbuj Hampshire, transcribed by Francis A. Muzzey. Littleton, N.H., 197S.

Hurd, D. Hamilton, ed. Historu of Cheshire and Sullivan Counties. FhiladBlphia, 1806.

------, ed. Historu of Hillsborough Countu. New Hampshire. Philadelphia, 1865.

------, ed. Historu of Merrimack and Belknap Counties. Neui Hampshire. Philadelphia, 1BB5.

______. comp. Historu of Rockinoham and Stafford Counties. New Hampshire. Philadelphia, 18B2.

Jackson, James. Historu of Littleton. New Hampshire. Including Genealoau. 3 vols. Cambridge, Mass., s s a

1 9 0 5 .

Jennings, Ellen Cloutman. The Hi stem oF New Durham. Neui Hamaehira: From the First Settlement to the Present Time. Including That Part of Alton Which Was Formerlu Neui Durham Gore. Neui Durham, N.H., 19G2.

Jeuiett, Jeremiah Peabody. Historu of Barnstead from Its First Settlement in 1757 to 1B75. Lowell, Mass., 1872.

Johnson, Frances. Ihe_Historu of Monroe. Neui Hampshire 17B1-1954. Littleton, N.H., 1955.

Jones, Elgin A., comp. Notes on Ethel Historu of the Town oF Marlow. New Hampshire. KBene, N.H., 1941.

King, H. Thorn. Sliotown: the Historu oF Sharon. Neui Hampshire. 1739-1941. Rutland, 0t ., 1955.

Kingsbury, Frank Burnside. Historu oF the Town oF Surru. Cheshire Countu. New Hampshire. From Date oF Severance From Gilsum and Westmoreland. 1759-1952. with a SenBalonical Register and hap oF the Town. Surry, N.H., 1925.

Lancaster, Daniel. The Historu oF Gilmanton. Embracing the Proorietaru. Civil. Literaru. Ecclesiastical. Biographical. Genealogical and Miscellaneous Historu. From the First Settlement to the Present Time: Including Ulhat Is Now GilFord. to .the Time It Was Disannexed. Gilmanton., N.H., 1B45.

Leonard, Rev. Livi, and Seward, Rev. Josiah. The Historu oF Dublin. Neui Hampshire. Dublin, N.H., 1920.

Little, William. The Historu oF lilarren. Manchester, N.H., 1B70.

______• ThB Historu oF lileare. Neui Hampshire 1735-1BBB. Lowell, Mass., 18BB.

LivermorB, Abiel Abbot, and Putnam, Sewall. Historu oF the Town oF Wilton. Hillsborough Countu. New 2 9 9

Hampshire, with a Genealogical Register. Lowell, Hass., 1B8B.

Lord, C. C. LiFB and Times in Hopkinton. Nbuj Hampshire. Concord, N.H., 1BS0.

Lord, John, ft Historu of the Town of Hanover. Hanover, N.H., 1928.

LyFord, James Otis. Historu of Concord. New Hampshire. From the Original Grant in Seventeen Hundred and Twentu-Five to the Opening of the Twentieth Centuru. 2 vols. Concord, N.H., 1303.

______• Historu of the Town of Canterburu. New Hampshire. 1727-1312. ft Facsimile oF the 1912 Edition with a New Foreward bu Leon Id ftnderson. 2 vols. Canterbury, N.H., 1973.

HcDuFfee, Franklin. Historu of the Town of Rochester. New Hampshire From 1722 to 1890. 2 vols. Manchester, N.H., 1892

Merrell, Georgia Drew, e d . Historu of Carroll Couuntu. New Hampshire. Boston, 1899.

Merrell, Margaret. Shelburne. Neui Hampshire: Its First Two Hundred Years. 1769-19E9. Berlin, N.H., 19BB.

Merrill, J. L. Historu of ftcworth with the Proceedings oF the Centennial ftnniversaru. Genealogical Records, and Register of Farms, ftcworth, N.H., 1BB9.

Merrill, Richard Eastman. ’’Early Settlers of Conway: Personal Recollections of the Latee Richard Eastman Merrill.” Granite Monthlu 39 CJuly 1907 5:216-227.

Merrimack Historical Society. The Historu of Merrimack. New Hampshire, with Genealogies oF Merrimack Families. Merrimack, N.H., 1975.

Metcalf, HBnry Harrison. ’’Lempster Celebrates the One Hundred and Fiftieth ftnniversary of Its Charter.” GranitB Monthlu 49 (September 19175:172-192. 300

Moore, J. Bailey. Historu of the Touin of Candia. Rockingham Countu. Neui Hamoshire. From Its First Settlement to the Present Tima. Manchester, N.H., 1833.

Morison, George, and Smith, Etta. Historu oF Pererborouoh. Neui Hampshire. Rindge, N.H., 1354.

Morrill, Mildred T., Kenney, Harrietts U). , and Forsyth, Lee-Ann, comps. Hill, the Did and the Neui. n.p., 1365.

Nelson, Charles B. Historu of Stratham. Neui Hampshire. 1631-1300. Somersiuarth, N.H., 1365.

Neslson, Walter. Historu oF Goshen. Neuj Hamoshire. Concord, N.H., 1357.

Norton, John Foote, and Uittemare, Joel. The Historu oF Fitzuilliam. New Hampshire. From 1752-1BB7. Neui York, 1BBB.

Noyes, Harriette E. A Memorial of the Touin oF Hampstead. Netu Hampshire. 2 vols. Boston, 1899.

Oedel, Herbert Tredennick. ’’Portc.T.outh, New Hampshire: The Role of the Provincial Capital in the Development oF the Colony, C1700-17753 . ” Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1360.

Parker, Benjamin Franklin. Historu oF UJolFeborouoh CNew Hampshire 3. Cambridge, Mass., 1301.

Parker, Eduard. The Historu oF Londonderru. Comprising the Touns oF D e r m and Londonderru. Netu Hampshire. Boston, 1B51.

Parker, Eduard E. Historu oF Brookline. Formerlu Rabu. Hillsborough Countu. New Hampshire, with Tables oF Familu Records and Genealogies. Gardner, Mass., 1314.

Parsons, Langdon B. Historu oF the Toun oF Rue. New 3 0 1

Hamoshire From Its Discoveru and Settlement to December-31- 1903. Concord, N.H., 1305.

Peabody, Mrs R. P. Historu cf Shelburne. New Hampshire. Gorham, N.H., 1082.

Phillips, James Duncan. Salem in the Eighteenth Centuru . Boston, 1337.

Pickwick, Hazel Ash. Lisbon's 10 Score Years. 1763-1963. Lisbon, N.H., 1963.

Pierce, George W. "Winchester: Earlington, Arlington, Winchester.” Granite Monthlu 51 (November 1B963:26B- 283.

Plummer, George Franklin. Historu oF the Town oF Wentworth. New Hampshire. Concord, N.H., 1330.

Poling, Evangeline Klee. Welcome Home to Peering. New Hampshire. Canaan, N.H., 1377.

Potter, c . e. The History of Manchester■ Formerly Oerrufield in New Hamoshire. Manchester, N.H., 1856.

Potter, Natalie, and Craggy, Donna, comps. 1751. Pur Bicentennial Year. 1361. Northumberland. New Hampshire. Lancaster, N.H., C19613.

Ramsdell, George A. The Historu of MilFord. Concord, N.H., 1901.

Randall, Oran Edmund. Historu of Chesterf-ield. Cheshire Countu. New Hampshire. From thB Incorporation of "Township Number One." bu Massachusetts in 1736. to the Year 1BB1: Together With Familu Histories and GenealoniBS■ Brattleboro, U t . 1BB2.

Ramson, Marion Nicholl. New Hampshire Borns A Town. New York, 19H2.

Read, Benjamin. The Historu oF Swanzeu. New Hampshire From 1734 to 1B90. Salem, Mass., 1B92. 305

Runnels, M . T. Historu of Sanbornton. New Hampshire. 5 vols. Boston, 18B2.

SaundBrson, Rev. Herry H. Historu of Charlestown. New Hampshire. thB Old No. 4 Embracing the Port Borne bu Its Inhabitants in the Indian. French and Revolutionaru Wars, and the Uermont Controversu Also Genealogies and Sketches of Families. Claremont, N.H., 187B.

Scales, John, ed. Historical Memoranda Concernino Persons and Places in Old Dover. Neui Hampshire. Dover, N.H., 1300.

------. Historu of Dover. Neui Hampshire. 2 vols. CTercentenary Edition} Manchester, N.H., 1353.

Sawyer, Rev. Roland □. The Historu oF Kensington. New Hampshire 1B63 to__1345. Farmington, Me., 1346.

Secomb, Daniel. Historu of the Town of Amherst. Hillsborough Countu. New Hampshire. Concord, N.H., 1883,

Shattuch, Bernard F. ft Little Historu oF a Small Town. Alexandria. New Hampshire, n.p., 13B2.

Sleeper, Ralph, ed. Revolutionaru Sanbornton. Tilton, N.H., 1S76.

Smith, Albert. Historu of the Town of Peterborough. Hillsborough Countu. New Hampshire. Boston, 1B7E.

Somers, Rev. A. N. Historu of Lancaster. New Hampshire. Concord, N.H., 1833.

Stackpole, Everett S. Historu oF the Town oF Durham. New Hampshire. 2 vols. Somersworth, N.H., 1373 Creprint of 1313 ed.).

------• Old Kitteru and Her Families. Lewiston, Me., 1303. 303

Stark, Caleb. Histnru oF the Touin of Dunbarton, Merrimack Countu. Neui Hampshire. From the Brant bu Mason’s Assigns. in 1751. to the Year I960. Concord, N.H., 1QG0.

Stearns, Ezra S. Earlu Generations of the Founders of Old Dunstable. Boston, 1911.

______• Historu oF Plumoutb. New Hampshire. 5 vols. Plymouth, N.H., 190S. m

______• Historu of the Touin of Rindae. Nbuj Hampshire. From thB Date oF the Romleu Canada or Massachusetts Charter, to the Present Time. 1736-1B74. Boston, 1B75.

Stinson, UJilliam H. ’’Dunbarton.” GranitB Monthlu 32 CApril 1905):IBS-255.

Struthers, Parke Hardy, ed. A Historu oF Nelson. Nbuj Hampshire. 1767-1967. Keene, N.H., 196B.

Thompson, Jeanette. Historu oF the Touin oF StratFord. Neui Hampshire 1773-1925. Concord, N.H., 1925.

Waite, Dtis F. R. Historu oF the Touin oF Claremont. Nbuj Hampshire For a Period oF PnB Hundred and Thirtu Years. From 1764 to 1B94. Manchester, N.H., 1B95.

Webster, Kimball. Historu oF Hudson. Neui Hampshire. Formerlu a Part oF Dunstable. Massachusetts. 1733- 1741; District of Nottingham. 1741-1746: Nottingham West. Neui Hampshire. 174G-1B30: and Hudson. Neui Hampshire. 1B3Q-1912. Manchester, N.H., 1913.

Welch, Sarah N. Brooks. A Historu oF Franconia. Neu Hampshire. 1772-1972. Littleton, N.H., C19721.

Westmoreland History Committee. Historu oF Westmoreland CGreat MBadouO . Neui Hampshire. 1741-1970 and Genealogical Data. Westmoreland, N.H., 1975.

Wheeler, Edmund. The Historu oF Nemgort. Nbuj Hampshire From 1756 to 187B. Concord, N.H., 1079. 304

Whitcher, William Frederick. ’’Haverhill in the War of the Revolution.” Granite Monthlu 44 CMay 19123:133- 140,

______• Historu oF the Touin of Haverhill. Neui Hamoshire. Concord, N.H., 1913.

______• Some Thinos about Coventru-BBnton. New Hampshire. Woodsville, N.H., 1905.

Wiggin, Morton K. ft Historu of Barrington. Neui Hampshire, p.p., 1966.

Willey, Rev. Issaac. Earlu Historu of the Touin of Camoton. Nbuj Hampshire. Prepared For the Centennial Celebration. Which Occured September 15th. 1857 . Concord, N.H., 1865.

Woodbury, Peter P., Savage, Thomas, and Patten, William. Historu oF Bedford. Neui Hampshire. Boston, 1051.

Worcester, Samuel T. Historu of the Touin of Hollis. Neui Hampshire. From Its First Settlement to the Year 1B79. Nashua, N.H., 1B79.

_____ . "Holis, New Hampshire, in thB War oF the Revolution.” N buj England Historical and Genealogical Register 30 CJuly 1B763 : 2BB-59B, 31 CJanuary 18773:23-27, 31 Cftpril 1877 3:169-174.

Wright, David P., e d . Neuton. N suj Hampshire. 1749-1974: 225th ftnniversaru Celebration Historical Booklet, n.p., C1974?].

Wyman, Helen L. "Keene—on the ftshuslot. ” Granite Monthlu 41 CNovember-December 19083:351-308.

Young, Harold. Historu of Pittsfield. Nb uj Hampshire. Manchester, N.H., 1953.