INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the moat advanced technological meant to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality it heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Misting Paga(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent page);. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacen pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, _ is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find ^ good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. Whan a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning |s continued again — beginning balow the first row and continuing on untjil complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest valuir, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silvnr prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writir g the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author an specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed received.

University Microfilms International 300 North Zeob Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA St. John's Road, Tyler's Grean High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 8HR I I 77 -32,004 WEBB, Paul Lafayette, II, 1935- A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TH.E COMMON CAUSE: THE RESPONSE OF NEW YORK AND VIRGINIA TO THE COBR IVB ACTS. The Ohio State Universit Ph.D., 1977 History, United States

University Microfilms Internationa f Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

© Copyright by Paul Lafayette Weli>b, II

1977 A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE COMMON CAUSE: THE RESPONSE OF

' NEW YORK AND VIRGINIA TO . THE COERCIVE ACTS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Paul Lafayette Webb, II, B.A., M.A., M.Div.

* 4t * * H

The Ohio State University 1977

Reading Committee: Approved by Bradley Chapi n, Ph.D. Paul C. Bower s, Ph.D. Joseph H. Lynch, Ph.D. Adv er Department f Histdry ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

le assistance accorded while working on this project has be4n extensive. A word of thanks is due the staffs of the several libraries and societies for the use of their holdings which are cited in this paper. Appreciation is also offered to Dr. Michelle P. Figliomeni who permitted the personal use of her unpublished manuscript and the staff of the McFarlin Library of the University of Tulsa who granted special privileges in their microfilm col­ lection. I especially remain in debt to the interlibrary loan staff of the Muskogee, Oklahoma Public Library.

Without their help it would have been virtually impossible to complete the study.

. Deserving of special recognition are those indiv­ iduals who, for different reasons, contributed personal inspiration. The confidence placed in me by Professor

Bradley Chapin is very much valued. He patiently endured my many questions while freely offering his guidance.

The encouragement received from friends and colleagues helped, to keep me focused on my objective while fulfilling other responsibilities. A special word of gratitude is due my wife and two daughters for their patient under­ standing. 4

VITA

October 20, 1935 .... Born - Huntington, West Virginia

1958 ...... B.A., University of Redlands, Redlands, California

1961 ...... M.Div., Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Phila­ delphia, Pennsylvania

1961-1963 ...... Minister of Youth and Music, First Baptist Church, Wellington, Kansas

1964-1966 ...... Minister of Music and Christian Education, Trinity Baptist Church, Marion, Ohio

1968 ...... M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1968-1969 ...... Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1969-1970 ...... Academic Adviser, University College, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1970- Assistant Professor Social Sciences, Bacone College, Muskogee, Oklahoma

FIELDS OP STUDY

Major Field: The American Revolution and Early National The American Colonies. Professor Paul C. Bowers The Emergence of Modern America, 1865-1900. Professor Francis P. Weisenburger Tudor and Stuart England. Professor Clayton Roberts

iii TABLE OP CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... 11

VITA ...... ill

Chapter I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

II. THE HISTORICAL SETTING, 1976-1774 14

New York ...... 14 Virginia ...... 19 William Smith, Jr., Richard Bland and the Constitutional Conflict ...... 23 The Coercive Acts and the Issues of 1774 ...... 27

III. THE RESPONSE OP NEW YORK IN THE SPRING AND SUMMER OP 1774 37

New York City ...... 37 The Counties ...... 56

IV. THE RESPONSE OP VIRGINIA IN THE SPRING AND SUMMER OF 1 7 7 4 ...... 77

The House of Burgesses ...... 77 The Counties ...... 95 The August Convention ...... 124

V. THE RESPONSE OP THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS...... 1 ...... 152

The Problems of Becoming Acquainted..... 158 The Voting Procedure...... 165 The Debates over the Constitutional Relationship ...... 168 The Debates over Nonintercourse ...... 181 The Continental Association ...... 199 The Conclusion ...... 207

BIBLIOGRAPHY 224 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION *

The positions taken by the First Continental Congress in response to the Coercive Acts and other imperial issues which developed after 1763 were determined at the local level. This study not only affirms the truth of this statement but answers some significant questions in the light of a recent interpretation which has maintained the existence of a common consensus among colonists in response to the issues.'1 How were the positions determined at the local level? What were they? What was the rationale for determining them? What was their impact on choosing and instructing delegates to the Congress?

For a comparative study of local responses in 1774,

New York and Virginia were chosen because of the extreme contrast between their two basic positions. Hew York, divided as to what response to take as a colony, reluc­ tantly submitted to nonintercourse in Congress. In con­ trast, Virginia adopted its own economic boycott and a plan for enforcement which became a basis for the Con­ tinental Association. 2

As is imperative in any study, it is necessary to define the use of significant words and terms. In Vir­ ginia and New York, local responses to the Coercive Acts came from -towns and other rural localities as well as from the county level. Except where indicated, the word

”local" is used comprehensively to include counties as well as individual communities. In the colony of New

York extra— legal leadership fell to the New York City

Committee of Fifty-One. This committee, while handling local urban affairs, also provided central leadership for rural action which included towns, precincts, districts and counties. Virginia provided a different situation.

The House of Burgesses initiated central leadership and thus extra— legal activity followed the usual pattern for regular political procedure. This meant the regular constituencies of the Burgesses, sixty-five in all, were the main local levels of extra-legal action. Sixty-one of these constituencies were counties, four were towns and one the College of William and Mary. A few spon­ taneous responses from local communities, prior to the

Burgesses initiating leadership, are also available.

"Issue" is often used as synonymous with grievance, although grievances, such as the Boston Port Act, inten­ sified constitutional issues which had been present since 1764. "Response" is often used as synonymous with position, but is more apt to be used in reference to the individual resolves at the local level while

"position" usually denotes the decisions made at the pro­ vincial or intercolonial level. The responses or posi­ tions taken were in reply to the stated issues.

The terms radical, liberal, moderate and conserva­ tive are an integral part of this study. Since New York and Virginia represent two separate societies, it is un­ sound to permit general definitions of the terms to be applied to groups in either colony without qualification.

The term radical has generally been used to refer to the Sons of Liberty and their allies. In this study liberal or liberal Whig will designate this group while the term radical will serve for those who took a consti­ tutional position which distinctly rejected any form of parliamentary involvement in colonial government and trade. There is no evidence that the radical position as defined here was seriously considered in New York before the First Continental Congress. Virginia, however, provides a different story. The position was distinctly implied at the local level in the spring and summer of

1774 and was specifically stated by Thomas Jefferson in

A Summary View of the Rights of British America. This essay was written in the summer of 1774 as a response to the Coercive Acts and oppressive revenue measures. Jef­ ferson's position denied any right of Parliament over the colonies, including external taxes for the purpose of regulating trade. The position was a crucial start- 2 ing point for the events which led to independence.

The position so often associated with the liberal

element as defined here, the Sons of Liberty and their

allies, was the endorsement of immediate and, if neces­

sary, violent action against British infringements of

rights. The problem is that care must be taken to define

what the liberals called rights. The major rights they

protected consisted of the right to representative govern­

ment and to property. By property they usually meant money. Opposition was especially leveled against trade duties and other taxes passed by Parliament for the purpose

of raising revenue. Since liberals were willing to use

force to oppose these measures, their method may be

termed radical. Their constitutional philosophy, however, was not necessarily so. The New York Sons of Liberty

illustrate well this position. From the Stamp Act crises

to the First Continental congress they objected primarily

to the parliamentary violation of the right of self

taxation through their own representatives. They remained

silent on most other constitutional issues, including the

regulation of trade, but supported boycott agreements in attempts to force Parliament to recall its offensive revenue measures. The position taken by the Sons of t Liberty in Virginia differed little from those taken in

New York. Also conservative in principle, Virginia's Sons sought to protect the traditional constitutional rights of British Americans, not to agitate for a new 4 constitution. Led by Richard Henry Lee, 115 citizens of rural Westmoreland County signed an association on Febru­ ary 27, 1766, in defiance of the Stamp Act. Most of the prominent families in the county and many from surround­ ing counties signed the agreement. Although not desig­ nated by contempories as such, Pauline Maier has acknow­ ledged them, "for all practical purposes . . .," as constituting the local Sons of Liberty. Indeed, their 5 1 ideas were the same. In the summer of 1774 Lee's posi­ tion on parliamentary authority and an economic boycott differed little from that supported by the New York Sons of Liberty. Lee supported total nonintercourse. Parlia­ ment, he maintained, had a right to tax in order to regulate trade but not to raise revenue!6

The term moderate or moderate Whig is used in New

York to represent the cautious merchant element in the City allied with the Livingston political faction, also con­ sidered moderate. The New York moderates could support nonimportation if necessary, but preferred to try other less severe methods to keep from alienating the government and its conservative following, threatening local.security and property, and jeopardizing their own political 7 interests. They definitely supported parliamentary regu­ lation of trade but not of internal polity. New York moderates varied widely, however. Some, such as James

Duane, when compared to Virginia's moderates, were far more conservative and are considered so in the chapter on the First Continental Congress. The Virginia moder­ ates consisted of most Virginians who were not in the

Lee group. In the summer of 1774 they favored a post­ ponement of nonexportation, immediate nonimportation and the right of Parliament to regulate trade.

Conservative is reserved to designate those who either held royal patronage, were members of the government or felt their best interest lay with support of the govern­ ment. In New York they included merchants who. opposed any boycott in 1774, feeling that the destruction of the tea in Boston must be recompensed before they would join any opposition to the Coercive Acts. Conservatives held fears similar to moderates, that too much action from liberals would lend itself to the further destruction of property. However, conservatives differed from moderates in considering the threats of liberals as more dangerous than the threats from the government. Viewing the Boston

Tea Party as an unwarranted act, Benjamin Booth, one of

New,York's conservative merchants who had stepped down as a tea agent, lamented that "the liberties of this Country are in greater danger from the Arbitrary measures carried Q on in America, than from the British Parliament." New

York conservatives also included the Episcopalian clerical leadership of Myles Cooper, Thomas B. Chandler, Charles

Inglis and Samuel Seabury. They became the writers in the colony defending the government position. Also among the conservatives in New York were many tenant farmers from the estates of the Whig landowners who had put down the g tenant uprisings in the 1760s. In Virginia the conser­ vatives consisted of the Scottish merchants and a minority of colonials, including John Randolph and the Fairfaxes, who joined the governor as loyalists.

Two words are used in considering the rationale for determining the positions that were made on the local and provincial levels. They are interests and traditions.

Provincial interests and traditions included a combina­ tion of the beliefs and practices of political, economic and religious institutions. To intimidate or tamper with the structure or operation of any of these provincial concerns or their components, such as the local exercise of self-government or mercantile operations, could be a threat to special interests if not the whole of an aristo­ cratic society. New York and Virginia were mixtures of aristocratic and democratic traditions which sought to protect their interests. In the dialogue between the Progressive scholars and their revisionists over the aristocratic control of colonial society, the issue appears to have become one of the reason and the degree to which they controlled, hot If they did. Carl Becker contended aris­

tocracy controlled society because of the lack of demo­

cratic opportunity. Robert and Katherine Brown maintained,

to the other extreme, that aristocratic control was

severely limited because democracy prevailed.^*® In the

same vein as the Browns, Milton M. Klein has claimed that

the door to democratic opportunity in New York was never

shut. However, he concludes with a statement acknowledging

. . . the local aristocracy did occupy a command­ ing position in the colony's politics, and they continued to do so after independence; but the explanation for their political leadership must be sought in factors other than the strength of family ties, their economic power as landlords, or an excessively restricted franchise. ^

This "explanation" has been the subject of more recent in­ vestigations .

According to this new trend, something of a compro­ mise between Becker and Brown, interests and traditions were primarily determined by the social elite who paternal-

istically constituted the political and economic power groups. This elite was acceptable to the common man as an aristocracy qualified to lead and protect the masses who, although democratic procedure of sorts was used, 12 acquiesced in their behalf.

New York and Virginia operated under aristocratic societies, but there was one major difference between the structure of the two. Whereas there was a combination of landholders and merchants who led New York, Virginia was under the guidance of a landhol iing gentry,

As far as these two provinces are concerned, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the positions which were eventually adopted by the Cont inental Congress in response to the imperial issues were the results of local and provincial efforts under aristo cratic leadership to protect each colony's own interests and traditions,

Provincial positions were based on a colony's interests and traditions; the instructions td the delegates resulted from these positions. In turn, thq delegates supported their instructions in Congress.

This is not to say that there was no "common cause" shared by all the colonies, for there was. This cause, however, was not just the result of persuasive, inter­ colonial efforts by "radical" propagandists or attempts at democratization by lower class levelers. An embit­ tered loyalist, Josephy Galloway, for instance, believed 13 a conspiracy for independence was underway.

On the other hand, neither is: this to say, as David

Ammerman has written, that "the First Continental Congress 14 was not marked by dissension. ..." There was sig­ nificant dissension and it was based largely on differ­ ences in provincial interests and traditions, which influenced an understanding of the constitutional relation- ship of Britain and America. The Tcommon cause" (the

i felt need to protect basic constitutional rights) was interpreted from the perspective of each colony's concern 10 for protecting its own social system and institutions.

The priority of each colony, then, was its own security and welfare. Within the context of this priority, social and economic interests and traditions were interwoven with basic constitutional rights. The First Continental

Congress was a cooperative effort „t>y all the colonies to protect provincial interests and traditions from what appeared as a common constitutional threat. At the same time, the ensuing debates in the Congress, including those over a constitutional plan, were the result of marked provincial differences in interests and traditions.

Thus, with qualifications determined by these two con­ cerns , the protection of constitutional rights and even­ tually the fight for total "home rule" to guarantee them 15 was the fundamental question of the revolutionary period.

i 11

FOOTNOTES

*David Ammerman, In the Common Cause; American Response to the Coercive Acts of 1774, x-xi and 101. o A Summary View is found in William J. Van Schreeven, comp, and Robert L. Scribner, ed., Forming Thunderclouds and the First Convention, 1763-1774: A Documentary Record, Vol. I of Revolutionary Virginia: The Road to Independence, 243-256.

For the resolves of the Sons of Liberty in New York see Gaine's New York Mercury, February 24, 1766; I.N. Phelps Stokes, ed., The Iconography of Manhattan Island, 1489-1909, IV', 758-759 and 860; ''Constitution of the Albany sons of Liberty, 1966," in New York Div­ ision of Archives and History, The American Revolution in New York: Its Political, Social and Economic Signifi- cance, 1926, 307-308; "The Association of the New York City Sons of Liberty," November 29, 1773, in Larry K. Gerlach, ed.. The American Revolution; New York as a Case Study, 34-36; and Peter Force, ed., American Archives; A Documentary History of the English Colonies in North America, 4th ser., I, 312-212.

. ^"Resolutions of the Sons of Liberty of the Borough and the County of Norfolk," March 31, 1766, in Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 46-47. e "Westmoreland Association," Ibid., 23-26; and Pauline Maier, From Resistance to Revolution; Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to~ Britain, 1765-1776, 300.

® James Curtis Ballagh, ed., The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, I, 115 n.; and Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson, 25. Lee's position is discussed more fully in relationship to the Provincial and local events in Chapter III.

It is the moderates, as defined here, whom Jesse Lemisch has chosen to call liberals. See his "New York's Petitions and Resolves of December 1765: Liberals vs. Radicals," New York Historical Society Quarterly, XL 326. 12

g Booth to James and Drinker, June 8, 1774, James and Drinker Business Papers, The Historical Society of Pennsylvania (photocopy). Also see Booth to James and Drinker, August 26, 1774, Ibid.; a declaration of the New York conservative merchants, August 25, 1774, Ibid.;* William H. W. Sabine, ed., Historical Memoirs of William Smith, From 16 March 1763 to 9 July 1776, I, 157; the petition of Booth, Henry White and Abraham Lott to Gov­ ernor Tryon, December 1, 1773, in Francis S. Drake, ed., Tea Leaves: Being a Collection of Letters and Documents Relating to the Shipment of Tea to the American Colonies in the Year 1773, 305-306; and Calendar of Home Office Papers of the Reign of George III, VolJ IV, 1773-1775, ed. Richard Arthur Roberts, 165-166. q Editorial comments in Clarence H. Vance, ed., Letters of a Westchester Farmer (1774-1775), 3-19; Carl Lotus Becker, The History of Political Parties in the Province of New York, 1760-1776, 158-159; Irving Mark, Agrarian Conflicts in Colonial New York, 1711-1775, 158-159; Staughton Lynd, Anti-Federalism in Dutchess County, New York: A Study of Democratic and Class Con­ flict in the Revolutionary Era, 53-54; and Staughton Lynd, "The Tenant Rising at Livingston Manor, May 1777," New York Historical Society Quarterly, XXLVIII, 163-177.

^■®For the Brown and Becker Studies relevant to this paper see Robert E. and B. Katherine Brown, Virginia, 1705- 1786i Democracy or Aristocracy?, 238-239; Robert E. Brown, Carl Becker on History and the American Revolution, 30-57; and Becker, Political Parties, 10-iTI

**Milton M. Klein, "Democracy and Politics in Colon­ ial New York," New York History, XL, 240.

^J. R. Pole, "Historians and the Problems of Early American Democracy," American Historical Review,'LXVII, 626-646; Richard Buel, Jr., "Democracy and the American Revolution: A Frame of Reference," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XXI, 165-190. For New York see PatriciaUpdegraff Bonomi, "Political Patterns in Colonial New York City: The General Assembly Election of 1768," Political Science Quarterly, LXXXI, 432-437; and Staughton Lynd, "Who .Should Rule at Home? Dutchess County, New York in the American Revolution," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XVIII, 335-343. For Virginia see Charles S. Sydnor, American Revolutionaries in the Making: Political Practices in Washington’s Virginia, 60-73. 13

13 See the excerpts from his Historical and Political Reflections on the Rise and Progress of the American Rebellion in Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress, I, 54-55. For a similar view, held by Progressive historians, see Philip Davidson, Propaganda and the American Revolution, 1763-1783, 49-51; and Becker, Political Parties, 21-22.

*4Ammerman, Common Cause, 101. 15 Two recent studies, one on each colony, also sup­ port a conservative position, maintaining that the fight for "home rule" was to protect not only constitutional rights but also various aspects of the social order. See Jerome Joseph Gillen, "Political Thought in Revolutionary New York, 1763-1789" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Lehigh University, 1972), 2-3; and Dale E. Benson, "Wealth and Power in Virginia, 1774-1776: A Study of the Organ­ ization of Revolt" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni­ versity of Maine, 1970), 8-12. I

CHAPTER II

THE HISTORICAL SETTING, 1764-1774

I. New York

In the colonies, provincial positions on imperial

issues were conservative in intent, geared to protect the

integrity of the existing social system and its institu­

tions. The actions taken were moderate to liberal. In

New York the social system was controlled by the two elite

power groups, the landholders and the merchants. A third

group, the lawyers, was in close .competition. All three

were intricately related by family ties.. Political power

resided with those who held the land. Irving Mark has

demonstrated that from mid-century to the Revolution 80

percent of the colony's political leaders in all three

branches of the government "were large landholders or

related to such families. ..." Many of the remaining

20 percent also had ties with the land.^

Political rivalry in the New York General Assembly

was between two factions of this aristocracy, the Living­

ston and De Lancey "parties." In general, by 1763 the

Livingstons had come to represent the religious dissenters,

14 the landlords north of Westchester County, some New York

City merchants and upstate merchants. They were con­ sidered the Whig or Popular party since they traditionally supported the interests of the elected Assembly. The reknowned dissenter-lawyer triumvirate of William Living­ ston, William Smith, Jr., and John Morin Scott were in­ cluded in their ranks. The De Lanceys were representative of the established Anglican Church, a large segment of wealthy New York City merchants and lower New York land­ holders. They became aligned with the council, governor and royal officialdom, but not consistently, nor to the total exclusion of colonial rights. Most of the key members of the De Lancey faction, however, became 2 loyalist.

After 1763 competition for political power found the factions entangled in issues with imperial as well as domestic overtones. This was especially true in New York

City where a third faction emerged in the political strug­ gle. The Sons of Liberty, operating initially under the guidance of moderate Whig merchants and lawyers in op­ position to the Stamp Act in the fall of 1765, formed a

liberal faction consisting of a few merchants, lawyers, 3 mechanics, artisans and seamen. Between 1765 and 1774 the provincial political picture consisted of the Living­ ston and De Lanceys competing for power in the Assembly while in New York City the Sons of Liberty and their allies 16 sporadically "played the field" between the two aris­ tocratic factions. The Livingstons controlled the As­ sembly most of the decade. All three groups at one time or another attempted to better their local political status by exploiting imperial issues raised by the Town­ send Acts, the Anglican effort to obtain an American

Bishop and other seemingly hostile government actions.

The aristocrats learned quickly that they had to heed the power of a rising mechanic-artisan faction which was liberal.^ The situation was further complicated by the interests of the moderate and conservative merchants and lawyers, who, frightened by the Stamp Act riots in the fall of 1765, sought to protect local property and retain 5 social stability against the excesses of the liberal mob.

Consequently, although all factions were concerned about protecting constitutional rights, local political inter­ ests determined the method each advocated.

In the meantime, the Livingston dominated Assembly had not gone unheard. Aroused by the Sugar Act and angered and jealous over the apparent threat of Parliament to usurp their legislative rights with the Stamp Act, they petitioned the House of Commons in October of 1764, claiming "the Right of Taxing the Subject for the Support of the Government."6 The Assembly reasserted its position several other times during the following years, On

December 31, 1768, it issued a Declaration of Rights against the Townsend Acts, resolving

That . . . this colony . . . has and enjoys an internal legislature of its own, in which the crown and the people of this colony, are con­ stitutionally represented; and that the power and authority of the said legislature, cannot lawfully or constitutionally be suspended, abridged, abrogated, or annulled by any power, authority or prerogative whatsoever, the pre­ rogative of the crown . . . excepted.7 * * 8 Two days later the Assembly was dissolved for its actions.

The De Lanceys won the election in 1769 and continued in power until 1776.

In addition to the internal political struggle and the desire of the General Assembly to protect its trad­ ition, sectional strife, relevant to the New York social g system, existed between New Yorkers and New Englanders.

Major ingredients of this long standing rivalry was agrarian and politico-religious ideological differences.

New York landholders, according to Oscar Handlin, were challenged not by internal pressures but those from the outside. One source of pressure was New England immigrants who sought better land opportunity.10 Yankees brought with them ideas of a freehold land system and a dissenter ideology not pleasing to New Yorkers, especially those rooted in the Anglican Church. During the years prior to the Revolution Anne Grant, whose father held a New

York estate, wrote of the "vulgar, insolent, and truly disagreeable. . . " Yankees who came to bargain for land in a style to which her father was unaccustomed.11 She recorded unpleasant recollections of "Cromwellian 18

politics" and New Englanders

who came in without knocking; sat down without invitation; and lighted their pipe without ceremony; then talked of buying land; and, finally, began a discourse on politics, which would have done honour to Praise God Barebones, or any of the members of his Parliament.12

There were other instances of ideological strife.

Lewis Morris, Junior left prejudiced instructions in his will regarding the education of his son, Gouverneur.

Under no conditions was he to be educated in Connecticut

for fear he might "'imbibe in his Youth that Low Craft

and Cunning, so Incident to the People of that Coun- 1 3 try. . . .'" After the Revolution, an embittered Thomas

Jones, who had served as a conservative member of the

New York Council, recorded a biased indictment against

New England influences, including the education of the

Triumvirate at Yale. Jones drew a distinct connection between New England's republican principles and New York's 1 A liberal dissenters.

The destruction of merchant property in the Boston

Tea Party in December of 1773 could only further intimi­ date the conservative merchant interests in New York City,

cause them to heed anti-Yankee talk and eventually recoil

against New England extremes. Such would be the case as

the events of 1774 unfolded and many New Yorkers reacted

to protect their own interests and traditions from im­

patient local extremists as well as the imperial threats 19 of the Coercive Acts. The animosity against Mew England would carry over into the Congress.

By 1774 three distinct political factions existed in New York. They could be grouped into the moderately inclined Livingstons, the more conservative De Lanceys and the liberal mechanic-artisans led by the Sons of

Liberty. Each faction represented a different combination of mercantile interests, local political interests, ideological persuasion and a general concern over the threat to constitutional rights. Due to this variation / in local interests, the factions differed in what they conceived as the best approach to the developing consti­ tutional crises. The moderates, caught in the middle, would attempt to be the peace makers between two extremes that became more and more alienated as events unfolded during the year.

II. VIRGINIA

Contrasted with New York, political and economic » cohesiveness was the more dominant theme in Virginia.

Virginia's society was controlled by one aristocratic class, the planter, landholding gentry who constituted local and provincial political authority. There existed no major political or economic division over imperial issues within this aristocracy as existed in New York.

There were some differences' between the liberal West and the more conservative Tidewater, but the gentry, mostly Whig in intent, remained unified with common interests and goals when it came to preserving their rights and those of their society. On the constitutional issues the interests and traditions of the general populous were the same as those of the county gentry and the gentry con- 15 trolled legislature.

Of primary concern to the colony's welfare was the tradition of self government and the distinct economic interests of the planters. The gentry, through the Gen­ eral Assembly {the combined House of Burgesses and

Council) intently sought to protect the rights of pro­ vincial government against the threat of the Stamp Act, the Townsend duties and other parliamentary acts during the decade prior to the Coercive Acts. Petitioning the crown and Parliament on December 18, 1764 in regard to the impending Stamp Act, the General Assembly asserted the right of taxation by representation and continued by defending their "Right of taxing their own People. . . ."

Patrick Henry's famed resolutions against the Stamp Act, introduced in the House of Burgesses on May 29, 1765, not only supported that Virginians had the "Right of being . . . governed by their own assembly in the Article of their taxes and internal Police . . .," but concluded with a radical insinuation

that the General Assembly of this Colony have the only and sole exclusive Right and Power to lay Taxes and Impositions upon the Inhabitants 21 '

of this Colony and that every Attempt to vest such Power in any Person or Persons whatsoever other than the General Assembly aforesaid has a manifest Tendency to destroy British as well as American Freedom.17

By 1774 several similar resolves and petitions were passed by the Virginia Assembly against other parliamentary measures. These actions by the Assembly further indicate that the Virginians were concerned about the violations of constitutional rights and sought to protect their pro- 18 vincial tradition of self government.

Although the conflict with Great Britain was mainly a constitutional one, Virginia planters had distinct problems by 1774 which were related to incurred debts.

Planters imported most of their dry goods, books, glass, some furnishings .and other products through British merchants. They paid their debts to the merchants by exporting tobacco. Over the years many planters had be­ come heavily in debt. This has led some contemporaries, as well as historians, to support an economic interpre­ tation. They believed that the planters supported a liberal position favoring nonexportation and eventually 19 independence in order to escape the payment of debts.

Evidence speaks strongly to the contrary, although some no doubt succumbed to the temptation. Many planters were not only concerned over constitutional issues but were caught in an ambivalent situation. They realized that to agitate in defense of the right of self government 22

would leave them open to accusations that they sought

independence. This they knew was not true. It was for

this very reason that George Washington urged the payment

of debts. He wrote conservative Bryan Fairfax on July

20, 1774, affirming a staunch position on behalf of con­

stitutional rights and advocating nonimportation, but

convinced that

if we owe money to Great Britain, nothing but the last necessity can justify the non-payment of it; and, therefore, I have great doubts upon this head, and wish to see the other method [nonimportation] first tried, which is legal and will facilitate these payments.20

In what loomed as a near panic, many planters earnestly

sought to protect their credit.and reputation by making every effort to lower their debts in 1774 as nonexporta- 21 tion appeared a real possibility. If there was a major political-economic schism in the ranks of the Virginia aristocracy in the months preceding the First Continental

Congress, it was over the validity of nonexportation.

The liberals believed that the ethics of paying debts should take a back seat to the greater indignity foisted on them by arbitrary government. The moderates, sup­ ported by the conservatives, hoped to postpone or elimi­ nate nonexportation in order to pay debts.

Thus, two major interests confronted Virginians as

1774 unfolded. First, Virginians were concerned about protecting their own time honored legislative system and all it implied, the right to self government. This . 2 3 tradition and the violation of it laid the groundwork for an emerging radicalism in the colony. The other interest, involving debts, was principally an ethical one which conflicted with the oppressive British measures. Planters could export and pay their debts, thereby protecting their honor and credit. Or, they could stop exports as well as imports and intensify efforts to protect their rights.

They had to decide what their priority was. One thing was evident, those from the Tidewater and the West were united behind a single purpose, to protect provincial interests and traditions.

III. WILLIAM SMITH, JR., RICHARD BLAND AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT

The interests and traditions fostered by New York and

Virginia, which included basic positions on the constitu­ tional relationship of the Colonies to Great Britain, are depicted in two essays composed by highly regarded cit­ izens of their respective colonies. New York's version was composed by William Smith, Jr., a Whig of the Living­ ston mold. Smith became Chief Justice of New York in

1763 and a member of the Council in 1767. His Thoughts upon the Dispute Between Great Britain and Her Colonies was written between 1765 and 1767 in an attempt to go to the source of the problem rather than just express a con- 22 cern over the violation of colonial rights. Smith correctly saw the problem confronting the empire as a constitutional one, maintaining "the Question

. . . is not, what the Constitution was, or is, but what, 23 present Circumstances considered, it ought to be.n He evaluated the colony's claims to representative govern­ ment,..but also considered the whole empire wherein all would benefit. He recommended "that a Constitution be devised, friendly to every Branch of the great Whole, and linking Great Britain and her Colonies together, by the 0 A most indesoluble Ties." Smith proposed an American

Parliament with a Lord Lieutenant as overseer, a crown appointed Council and a Commons chosen by colonial legislatures.

The Crown to retain its antient Negative, and the British Parliament its Legislative Supremacy, in all Cases relative to Life Liberty and Prop­ erty, except in the Matter of Taxations for gen­ eral Aids, or the immediate, internal Support of the American Government.25

The plan thus provided for an American Parliament to deter­ mine matters common to all colonies, such as quotas for aid to support colonial government and defense. Each colony would be left to its own polity. The British

Parliament would retain supremacy in other matters, namely the regulations of trade. Smith's ideas still retained the mercantilistic perspective common to most in his time, especially the merchant community. His proposal differed little in structure from that which Joseph

Galloway would offer in Congress. 25

At the same time, the Virginia society was witnes­ sing the embryonic development of potentially radical constitutional ideas. These ideas were fostered by a planter society with its own political innovations, all part of the British constitutional tradition. Richard

Bland's An Inquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies, written in 1766, is representative of the early ideas in

Virginia giving rise to a radical interpretation. Bland was in his respectable twenty-fourth year as the Burgess from Prince George County. He was not a liberal for his time and place but considered a status quo conservative, having opposed Patrick Henry's Stamp Act Resolves in

1765 while favoring a retention of ancient constitutional 2fi traditions. However, what Bland recorded as traditional rights in 1766 contained the ingredients for real radical thought. An Inquiry was written as part of a literary debate over representative government which evolved out 27 of the Stamp Act crises.

Bland questioned the constitutionality of virtual representation espoused by Parliament and its supporters.

His question extended to the assumed right of Parliament to place internal taxes on colonists. He believed such practices were "contrary to the fundamental Principles 28 of the English Constitution." He based his argument on 29 British common law and the law of nature. 2 6 Like Smith, Bland was well aware of the constitu­ tional crises within the empire; unlike Smith, he proposed no revision of constitutional structure. To him, the colonies were entitled to self government by virtue of the natural rights of Englishmen. He sought to retain a tradition based on natural rights and royal compact.

The colonial legislatures were ample for the cause. Bland

saw no need for an intercolonial legislature. He acknow­

ledged the compacts the colonies had with the crown, but 30 questioned the nature and source of Parliament's rights.

.In a long argument, he sustained that Virginians and their 31 sovereign did enter into such a compact. Nevertheless, he never considered himself disputing

the Authority of the Parliament, which is without Doubt supreme within the Body of the Kingdom, and cannot be abridged by any other Power; but may not the King have Prerogatives which he has. a Right to exercise without the Consent of Par­ liament? If he has, perhaps that of granting License to his Subjects to remove into a new Country, and to settle therein upon particular Conditions, may be one.32

Bland's position left the way open for claiming that Par- I liament was void of any authority in the colonies.

The radicalism, which would -be espoused by Thomas

Jefferson in his Summary View and would be implied in many

Virginia county resolves during the spring and summer of

1774, had its forerunner in Richard Bland. Bland's views, as well as those contained in Henry's famous resolves in

1765, reflect the emerging position of Virginians on the 27 constitution. Local sovereignty and the right of self- determination was writ large in Virginia's elite agrarian 33 tradition. Indeed, the rationale for determining posi­ tions on the Coercive Acts rested primarily on local and provincial interests and traditions.

IV. THE COERCIVE ACTS AND THE ISSUES OF 1774

The Coercive Acts were the immediate source of the issues which confronted the colonist in the spring of 1774.

They carried with them threats which hertofore had not n j been as critical in the colonies. Three of these acts were the direct response of Parliament to the Boston Tea

Party the previous December. The Boston Port Act, passed

March 30, was designed strictly as a punitive measure for

Boston. It closed the port to commerce after June 1, 35 1774. The other two acts in response to the Tea Party were regulatory and concerned the whole colony. They were the Act for Better Regulating Massachusetts Government

* and an Act for the Administration of Justice in the Colonies.

Together the two provided a stronger control of provincial government by the home government. The first act pro­ vided that Council members be appointed by the king with advice from the governor and Privy Council. Other officers 36 were to be appointed by the governor. The Act for

Administration of Justice in the Colonies permitted the governor to transfer a trial of any civil official, indicted for a capital offense while carrying out his duty, 28 to another colony or Great Britain if it was felt a fair 37 trial could not be had in Massachusetts.

The Quartering Act passed Parliament on May 26. It applied to all the colonies. Since it was motivated by events in Massachusetts, it is often considered, one of 38 the Coercive Acts. Following a twenty-four hour notice, the act provided for the arbitrary quartering of troops in private dwellings, if deemed necessary for security 39 reasons, or where barracks were not available.

The Quebec Act passed on June 18, 1774. Although there is reason to doubt its purpose as a Coercive Act, the timing of its passage and its content was such that 40 the colonies could not help but consider it as such.

It touched three sensitive concerns of the coastal colonies.

They included the political arrangement of granting French civil law for Quebec, claims to western lands, and the 41 threat of Roman Catholicism.

The basic issue which resulted from these acts was part and parcel of that generally considered to be the major cause of the American Revolution. It consisted in part of a continuation of the struggle over the right to representative government and self determination, a con­

stitutional problem since the Stamp Act crises. The

Boston Port Act, being the first and a punitive measure,

touched off the immediate crises. The closing of the port was more than just a matter of representative government. It got to the root of the matter. To many colonists it was evidence that the home government actually intended to subvert the freedom of colonial

Englishman by tyrannical government.

The response of the more impetuous and liberal fac­ tions to the threat of the Port Act was to retaliate in like measure with economic coercion. They relied on the old practice of a boycott of trade which had helped alleviate the threat of the Stamp Act and the Townsend

Duties. The more conservative sought conciliatory meas­ ures in the form of a petition and a serious effort peacefully to resolve the longstanding constitutional problem. Some colonists felt trapped. They realized the need of solving the constitutional problem while at the same time feeling the pressing need to respond quickly to the awesome implications of the Boston crises. The time was too late, however, for consideration of a major revision of the constitution without first resolving the threat of the Coercive Acts.

During the winter and spring of 1774 New York and

Virginia were caught up with the other colonies by the urgent appeals for immediate action from supporters in

England. These supporters informed the colonists of developments in Parliament and the Privy Council. Much of this emotion filled correspondence was the product of the London based Lees, Arthur and William, brothers to 30

Virginia's Richard Henry Lee. The letters provided sug­ gestions and incentives for colonial actions in the coming months. "The Ministry are determined to put your Spirit to the proof," Arthur wrote Richard Henry on March 18.

He suggested breaking

off all commercial intercourse with [Great Britain as] . . . the only advisable and sure mode of defense. . . . If the Colonies in general permit this to pass unnoticed, a precedent will be estab­ lished for humbling them by degrees, until all opposition to arbitrary power is subdued.42

In a letter to Francis Lightfoot Lee on April 2, he main­ tained a similar position on nonintercourse and suggested A 1 "a general Congress of the Colonies. ..." On April

25, Richard Henry Lee, quoting the latest word he had received from London, wrote Landon Carter,

Tis not yet known what steps will be taken in consequence of the destruction of the Tea at Boston. Some folks here [London] are strongly inclined to violent measures, but fear restrains them, and I am well convinced if the Colonies are all united they will never [venture?] even if any instance to do a material injury to one. Let every American remember the Liberty song. By uniting we stand By dividing we fall. . , .

Some Englishmen had similar feelings. One wrote to a Mew

York correspondent in May, shortly after the Boston Port

Act was received there, "America, the last resort of retiring freedom, is now to be invaded. . . . A plan of despotism and arbitrary power has incessantly been pur- 45 sued during the present reign. . . ." * ■ 31

It is evident that by the end of May, 1774 that a concern for the protection of provincial interests and traditions, including constitutional rights, coupled with a real fear that deliberate British oppression was intended, motivated colonists to respond quickly to the

Coercive Acts. New Yorkers and Virginians were not exceptions. 32

FOOTNOTES

Mark, Agrarian Conflicts, 85-94. Also see Cadwallader Colden to the Lords Commission of Trade, September 20, 1964, Vol. I, The Colden Letter Books, New York Historical Society Collections, Vol. IX, 363- 364; Becker, Political Parties, 8-16.

2 Patricia U. Bonomi, A Factious People, Politics and Society in Colonial New York, 237-239? Virginia Harrington, The New York Merchants on the Eve of the Revolution, 37-42; Dorothy Rita Dillon, The New York Triumvirate; a Study of the Legal and•Political Careers of William Livingston, John Morin Scott, and William Smith, Jr., 47-49 and 91-92; Roger J. Champagne, "Family Politics versus Constitutional Principles; The New York Assembly Elections of 1768 and 1769," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XX, 58-59; and James S. Olson, "The New York Assembly, the Politics of Religion,and the Origins of the American Revolution, 1768-1771," Histori­ cal Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, XLIII, 22-23. 3 G. D. Scull, ed.. The Montressor Journals, New York Historical Society Collections, XIV, 339; Thomas Gage to Conway, December 21, 1765, Clarence Edwin Carter, ed., The Correspondence of General Thomas Gage with the Secretaries of State, 1763-1775, 1, 79; Sabine, Memoirs of Smith, I, 157; Herbert M. Morais, "The Sons of Liberty in New York," in The Era of the American Revolution, ed. Richard B. Morris, 272-273; and Maier, Resistance to Revolution, 302-302

^Champagne, "Elections of 1768 and 1769," 57-79; Roger J. Champagne, "Liberty Boys and Mechanics of New York City, 1764-1774," Labor History, VIII, 115-135; Bernard Friedman, "New York Assembly Elections of 1768 and 1769; The Disruption of Family Politics," New York History, XLVI, 3-19; Bonomi, Factious People, 254-255; and Herbert L. Osgood, ed., "The Society of Dissenters founded at New York in 1769," American Historical Review, VI, 498-507.

^Robert R. Livingston to Robert Monckton, Novem­ ber 8, 1765, Gerlach, American Revolution New York; 11-13; Gage to Conway, December 21, 1765, Carter, 33

Correspondence of Gage, 78-79; Isaac Q. Leake, Memoir of the Life and Times of General John Lamb, 15-16; and Champagne, "Liberty Boys and Mechanics," 120-123.

^Gerlach, American Revolution; New York, 2. Also see the Assembly's stamp Act Resolves, passed on December 18, 1765, Ibid., 14016.

7Ibid., 26. Q An interesting discussion of how factional politics in New York used the Townsend Acts for political purposes is found in Champagne, "Elections of 1768 and 1769," 68-72.

g For and extended discussion of the relationship be­ tween New York and New England, the classic study is Dixon Ryan Fox, Yankees and Yorkers.

'*‘°See his "The Eastern Frontier of New York," New York History, XVIII, 50 and 54. He is supported in his view by Bonomi, Factitious People, 200-211. Also see Chilton Williamson, Vermont in Quandary; 1763-1825, 5-23; and Mark, Agrarian Conflicts, 42-49.

^Anne {MacVicar) Grant, Memoirs of an American Lady, II, 219. Also see 252-254.

12Ibid., 221 and 232.

13 Quoted in Fox, Yankee and Yorker, 214-215.

"^Thomas Jones, History of New York During the Revo­ lutionary War, and in the Leading Events in the Other Colonies at that Period, 2-32.

^®Sydnor, American Revolutionaries, 74-99. Also see Thad W. Tate, "The Coming of the Revolution in Virginia: Britain's Challenge to Virginia's Ruling Class, 1763- 1776," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., IXX, 323- 343; and Hamilton James Eckenrode, The Revolution in Vir­ ginia , 14-30.

i ^John Pendleton Kennedy, ed., Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1773-1776, Including the Records of the committee of Correspondence, 302-304. For a drs- cussion of the Stamp Act period and its influence on the 34 development of liberal and radical ideas in Virginia,. see iLyon G. Tyler], "The Leadership of Virginia in the War of the Revolution," Part I, "Period of the Stamp Act," William and Mary Quarterly, 1st ser., XVIII, 155-164.

17 Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Vir­ ginia , I, 18.

18 Kennedy, Journals of Burgesses, 1766-1769, 165- 171 and 214-215. Also see John Page, Jr. to John Norton, May 27, 1769, "Norton Correspondence," Tyler’s Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine, III, 291-292; Tate, "Coming of the Revolution," 323 and- 341-343; and Tyler, "Leadership of Virginia," Part I, 150-164 and Part III, William and Mary Quarterly, 1st Ser., XIX, 219-237.

James Parker to Charles Steuart, February 11, 1775, "Letters from Virginia, 1774-1781," Magazine of History, III, 158; and Lawrence H. Gipson, "Virginia Planter Debts Before the American Revolution," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXIX, 259-277. A brief historio­ graphical summary ofthe economic interpretation is found in Emory G. Evans, "Planter Indebtedness and the Coming of the Revolution in Virginia," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., IXX, 511-513.

20John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745^ 1799, III, 235.

^William Carr to James Russell, May 30, 1774, Bundle 2, James Russell Papers, Coutts and Company, London (microfilm, reel 1, University of Virginia Library); Walter Brooke to James Russell, September 27, 1774, Bundle 1, Ibid.; and Francis Whittington to James Russell, October 24, 1774, Bundle 18 (reel 2), Ibid. Also see Evans, "Planter Indebtedness," 524-525; Tate, "Coming of the Revolution," 334-337; and Eckenrode, Revolution in Virginia, 39-40.

22 Smith's essay, with an introduction, has been edited by Robert M. Calhoon, "William Smith, Jr.'s Alter­ native to the American Revolution," William and Mary Quarterly, 34d ser., XXII, 105-118.

23Ibid., 113. 35

24Ibid., 114.

25Ibid., 115.

28Tyler, "The Leadership of Virginia,” Part II, "The Two Penny Act," William and Mary Quarterly, 1st ser., XIX, 18-26; [Lyon G. Tyler1, “Bland*s Constitutional Argument in 'The Colonel Dismounted,1 1763," William and Mary Quarterly, 1st ser., XIX, 31-41; and Clinton Rossiter, Seedtime of the Republic: The Origin of the American Tradition of Political Liberty, 253-259 and 266-279.

2 7 Bland's essay with editorial comments is found in Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 27-44.

28Ibid., 30.

29Ibid., 35.

30Ibid.

31Ibid., 35-39.

32Ibid., 39.

3 3 An interesting and relevant study of the influences on Jefferson and his ideas in his Summary View is provided by Anthony M. Lewis, "Jefferson's Summary View as a Chart of Political Union," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., V, 34-51.

34A general discussion of the Acts can be found in Lawrence Henry Gipson, The Triumphant Empire: Britain Sails into the Storm, 1770-1776, Vol. XII of The British Empire Before the American Revolution, 101-137.

3 5 The complete Act is found in Force, Archives, 4, I, 61-68. Lord North informed Parliament on March 14, 1774, that "the inhabitants of . . . Boston deserved punishment." Ibid., 37.

36Ibid., 104-112, contains the Regulatory Act. 36

3^For the Act, see Ibid., 129-132.

38 Gipson, Triumphant Empire, 131.

39Force, Archives, 4, I, 170, includes the entire Act.

4®Gipson, Triumphant Empire, 132-133.

4^For the Act see Force, Archives, 4, I, 215-220. For discussions of the three concerns as they contributed to the Revolution, see Carl Bridenbaugh, Mitre and Sceptre, 333; Jack M. Sosin, Whitehall and the wilderness, 239-255; and Thomas Perkins Abernethy, Western Lands and the American Revolution, 107 and 161.

43Force, Archives, 4, I, 228-229.

43Ibid., 237-238.

44Ballagh, Letters of Lee, I, 109. The second set of brackets are Ballaghs.

45Force, Archives, 4, I, 290. For other examples of similar correspondence, see Ibid., 230-231 and 241.

i CHAPTER III

THE RESPONSE OF NEW YORK IN THE SPRING AND SUMMER OF 1774

I. NEW YORK CITY News of the passage of the Boston Port Act was received in New York City on May 12, 1774.^ Over the next

48 hours the city was in a state of anxiety as the politi­ cal factions contrived various ways of handling the prob­ lem and, at the same time, gaining political advantage over opponents.

The De Lanceys and conservative merchant allies were in a precarious position due to popular sentiment. They desired to keep peace and defend rights> but also to protect their own local political and commercial inter­ ests. Many were quite anxious as Parliament's actions would no doubt agitate the populous to take drastic 2 measures. Concurrently, the conservative merchants sought to protect property rights and thus could not in 3 good conscience condone the destruction of the Boston tea.

Some proposed that if Boston paid for the tea, the matter would end there. Others felt mild opposition, such as a 4 petition, was in order. Popular violence was as much a threat to some as the Port Act. Conservatives, with the 38 help of many moderates, had voted to rescind the boycott over the Townsend Acts in 1770 as a result of too much violence from the Sons of Liberty. The latter had sought ^ 5 to enforce nonimportation. The conservatives simply did not want any recurrence of violence in 1774.

The moderates (the Livingston faction) desired to take some form of action to protect rights. Reflecting some ambivalence among them, however, the more cautious did not wish to see any rash, abrupt action which would show disunity and hinder success in the long run. Many, ' after all, had the same fears of violence as the conser­ vatives. Others must have realized that their middle position could lend itself to local leadership by way of compromise, if cool heads prevailed. William Smith, Jr., a moderate, advised Alexander McCougall, after reading a letter which the latter had received from one of the

Adamses advocating immediate nonimportation, "to postpone

Operations that we might act with Prudence. . . . If nonimportation was to be advocated, moderates felt it had to be better enforced and coordinated than previous agree­ ments. This meant smuggling and violence would not be condoned.

The popular element, the mechanics, artisans and more liberal Whigs advocated an immediate revival of the nonimportation agreement. They were led by Isaac Sears, 7 John Lamb and McDougall. On May 14, the Boston Port Act was published along with extracts from three letters from London on the back.

The letters denounced the Act as part of a series of legislation to force "every colony into a slavish obed­ ience to the tyrannical imposition of Great Britain? Q nothing less is intended." This conspiracy theory served to further agitate the general citizenry, something the conservatives and moderates feared.

On the same day the liberals stimulated the mer­ chants to unite with them in calling for a meeting on the q evening of the sixteenth. On the fifteenth, Sears and

McDougall wrote Boston, indicating their intent of achiev­ ing in the meeting a "general Non-importation, and Non­ exportation Agreement of Goods, to and from Great Britain, until the American Grievances are redeemed, under such

Regulations as may be agreed upon by Committees from the

Principal Towns on the Continent, to meet in a general

Congress. . . . The conservatives, aware of liberal intentions to close the port, drummed up support for their position. The result was a large meeting of about 300

"merchants and other inhabitants of the city." Sparked by a conservative-moderate majority and moderated by

Xsaac Low, a wealthy merchant, the meeting nominated a predominately conservative-moderate committee of 50.^ I The De Lanceys and their allies, including many of the

Livingston faction, had achieved their aim to gain control 40 of the extra-legal movement in order to prevent any abrupt, rash action by the liberals which might initiate noninter­ course and jeopardize New York's secure relations with the home government. This power play also provided the conservatives and moderates with a political base for the critical circumstances which were developing.

On the seventeenth, notice was made of a general meeting to be held on the nineteenth for public approval of the slate. On the nineteenth, however, further agita­ tion occurred as the liberals, inspired by several events, including the correspondence McDougall received from Boston urging nonintercourse,, presented an alternate ticket of

twenty-five names. The result was a compromise slightly

in the moderate's favor. A committee of fifty-one members was chosen.*2

Before the election, Isaac Low made a brief appeal

for reason and unity. His words reflected the nature of

the problem which would beset not only the Committee of

Fifty-One but also the Congress. "It is but charitable

to suppose we all mean the same thing, and th.it the only

difference amongst us is, or at least ought to be,, the mode of effecting it, X mean the preservation of our just 13 rights and liberties." It was implied in Low's words

that provincial political issues were also a motive in the

local struggle, not just colonial rights. The purpose of the Fifty-One, then, was "to cor­ respond with our sister Colonies upon all matters of moment ..." concerning "the preservation of our rights 14 and liberties." On this objective all were agreed. But in the long run, the Committee was saddled with other responsibilities, in part, these were the outgrowth of the alternative which it offered in place of the local liberal faction's desire for hasty economic retaliation and a conservative desire for a cautious, conciliatory response. The Fifty-One was also pressured by liberal desires on the part of other colonies, especially Massachu­ setts which served as a constant irritation to New York conservatives. The alternative offered by the Fifty-One was to call for a general congress and wait for action through it.

The Fifty-One made its suggestion in a reply to a letter from Boston which had urged nonintercourse. The

Committee wrote on May 23,

no remedy can be of avail unless it proceeds from the joint act and approbation of all . . . while the feeble efforts of a few will only be attended with mischief and disappoint­ ment .... Upon these reasons we conclude that a Con­ gress of Deputies from the Colonies in general is of the utmost moment; that it ought to be assembled without delay, and some unanimous resolution formed in this fatal emergency. . . .

Another letter was sent to Boston on June 7, correcting a Boston communique of May 30. The latter had expressed a hasty conclusion that New York would suspend trade. The New York Committee replied that "the idea is not even 16 conceived." Apparently, Boston, under Sam Adams' lead­ ership, had taken Sears and McDougall's letter of May 15 as being authoritative when it had not even been circu- 17 lated within New York's radical camp.

There is no indication, however, that the moderates would not accept some form of boycott. What was foremost to them was the desire to control local politics by offering a compromise between liberal rashness and conser­ vative caution while retaining the respect of both. This at least meant not accepting unilateral nonimportation but leaving the matter to the Congress. Thus, a moderate position was forming in the Fifty-One. The idea of a Con­ gress had already been proposed by the liberals and was acceptable to the conservatives who saw it as an oppor­ tunity for the more calm minded, colonial elite, free from extremism and mob agitation, to pose a rational, permanent solution to the crises. Lt. Governor Colden assumed in writing Lord Dartmouth on July 6, before the city had resolved its position on the issues, that "Congress . . . is to Petition for a redress of Grievances, and to con­ sider of a Plan for settling the Controversy with Great

Britain. ..." Colden did acknowledge, however, that 18 formal instructions had not been formed. * With Congress as a goal, two other responsibilities now confronted the Committee. The first was to determine 43

New York's position. The other was to find a process for choosing and instructing delegates to the suggested Con­ gress. The two were interrelated; whatever position New

York took via resolves would incorporate the instructions to the delegates.

In the meantime, the De Lancey dominated General

Assembly and its Committee of Correspondence, appointed the previous January, had not taken any action in the matter. The Assembly was not in session and many people did not want or expect any help from its Committee. A broadside published on June 30 claimed the Assembly's

Committee of Correspondence represented the Assembly, not 19 the people. Delegates should be chosen by the people.

This public feeling had ample justification. On June 24, the Committee had written a letter to the Connecticut

Committee, claiming no immediate authority to join in a

Congress since its source of power, the New York Assembly, 20 was not in session. No effort was made by the Committee or Assembly members to call for a special convention. It would be January 31, 1775 before the Assembly would start action resulting in a Petition to the King, a Memorial to the House of Lords and a Representation and Remonstrance 21 to the House of Commons.

Since the Fifty-One lingered in determining their position'and choosing delegates, the first set of resolves stating the City's position were furnished by the liberal faction. The liberals called a general meeting on July

6, to present the resolves to the public for approval.

McDougall presided over the meeting and they were 22 accepted. The Boston Port Act was considered a threat

nto the liberties of British America. ..." Bostonians were thus "suffering in the common cause of these

Colonies." The resolves called for "a joint resolution to stop all importation from, and exportation to Great

Britain, till the Act of Parliament . . . be repealed

. . . ." the fifth resolve contained instructions for the delegates to the Congress. They "are hereby instructed, empowered, and directed to engage with a majority of the principal Colonies, to agree for this city upon a non­ importation from Great Britain . . . until . . . American grievances be redressed. . . The sixth resolve stated

"that this meeting will abide by, obey, and observe all such resolutions, determinations and measures, which the

Congress . . . shall come into . . . for obtaining and securing the important ends mentioned in the foregoing resolutions." The seventh called for a general meeting of deputies from the counties to form a convention in order to choose the delegates to the Congress. It per­ mitted that if the counties considered this impractical, that they be requested to approve of the delegates from

New York City. Following a resolve to obtain relief for

Bostonians, the list closed with instructions for the 45 city's Committee "to use their utmost endeavors to carry 23 these resolutions into execution."

The Fifty-One did not care for the Committee's auth­ ority to be so flagrantly violated, especially by one of their own members, which McDougall was. There was little the moderates would not accept in the long run, but neither they nor the conservatives had presented the resolves. The moderates jealously sought to protect their image of restraint and unity, as well as to retain a dominant position in local politics. Besides, there was constant fear from the conservatives that a civil war was 24 a real possibility if liberalism had its way. Conse­ quently, in their meeting of July 7, the Committee voted 25 21 to 9 to "disavow all such proceedings. ..."

The liberals did not give up immediately. They moved to appoint a subcommittee to draw up a second set of resolves. This passed unanimously and seven were appointed, including three liberals, Sears, McDougall and Francis

Lewis. The appearance of unity was short lived, however.

Another motion, reflecting some resentment as an after­ thought, or perhaps an attempt to take advantage of the mood, was made by conservative Charles McEvers to publish the resolve disavowing the meeting and actions taken on the sixth. It passed and the liberal faction walked out. 26 They resigned publicly on the eighth. 46

In the meantime, five candidates had been nominated as congressional delegates by the FiftyOne. They included

Philip Livingston, John Alsop, Isaac Low, James Duane and John Jay. They had been nominated by the Fifty-One on July 4, after a lengthy debate within the Committee over whether or not the Mechanics' committee, formed by the liberal element, had to approve the slate. McDougall had made the original motion on June 29,

to nominate five Deputies for the city and county of New York, to represent them in a Convention of this Colony, or in the gen­ eral Congress . . . if the other counties of this Colony approve of them as Deputies for the Colony; and that their names be sent to the Committee of Mechanics for the con­ currence. . . .2 '

The motion was not voted on until July 4, when it failed to carry. The alternative motion immediately offered by the conservatives and moderates was to.nominate five candidates and send circular letters to the counties ask­ ing them to choose delegates to the Congress. It carried, after Sears failed in an attempt to add five names to the motion. The five listed above were then nominated by voice vote. July 7 was set as the day for public approval 28 of the five or any others the public so chose. The

Committee of Mechanics, not giving up, met on July 5 and created their own ticket, adding Leonard Lispernard and

McDougall in place of Duane and Alsop. This was a com- 29 promise ticket, similar to the one Sears had offered. 47

With the two slates to be presented, it was decided on

July 7 that an official election be held by wards on the eighth. Unfortunately, the events of the seventh, in which the radical resolves were disavowed, so divided the Committee of Fifty-One that the election was post­ poned.^®

The resignation by the liberals from the Fifty-One on July 8 had left the subcommittee appointed to draw up a set of resolves short of its quota of seven. Thus, at its next meeting on July 13, the Fifty-One, boycotted by the liberals, decided to appoint another subcommittee.

The new members, mainly conservative, consisted of Isaac

Low, John Jay, John Thurman, Peter T. Curtenius, John 31 Moore, Charles Shaw and Theophilact Bache. Their ap­ pointment was only a formality by conservatives, as a set of ten resolves apparently had been written. This is evident by their hasty appearance and approval in the

Fifty-One. After a brief meeting of the subcommittee, immediately following their appointment, the resolves were presented to the Fifty-One. They were quickly adopted and ordered printed as a broadside to be dis- 32 tributed for public consideration. Noon of the nine­ teenth was set for a general meeting "for the purpose of auditing the resolves ..." and approving of the five candidates nominated as delegates to the general con- 33 gress.

I 48

As expected, these resolves supported conservative 34 Interests. They opened with an oath of allegiance to

George III. The second resolve limited itself to denounc­

ing the Boston Port Act in strong terms as an unneces­

sary act of oppression. The third resolve contained definite conservative overtones, implying in an ambiguous

statement that all would be better off if Bostonians paid

for the tea, for after all, the administration had been

given an excuse for their arbitrary actions.

That the Destruction of the Tea at Boston, was not the ONLY Motive for bringing such unexampled Distress on that People; because the Alternative of suffering it, or paying for the Tea, had otherwise been left in their Option. It is therefore truly to be lamented by all the Colon­ ies, that Administration were furnished with any Pretext for the violent Measures now carrying into Execution.

The fifth and sixth resolves condoned the Congress as "the most prudent Measure that could have been devised. . .

but that "it would be premature . . . to anticipate their

Conduct by resolving what ought to be done. ..." The

seventh resolve maintained "that nothing less than dire

Necessity can justify, or ought to induce the Colonies

to unite in any Measure that might materially injure our

Brethren the Manufacturers, Traders, and Merchants in

Great Britain. ..." The resolve continued, however, by

stating that "the Preservation of our inestimable Rights

and Liberties . . . ought to supersede all other Con­

sideration. ..." The eighth resolve contained the 49 conservative-moderate position on nonimportation.

That if a Non-Importation Agreement of Goods from Great Britain, should be adopted by the Congress, it ought to be very general and faith­ fully adhered to; and that a Non-importation partially observed, like the last, would answer no good Purpose; but on the contrary, only serve to expose all the Colonies to further Injuries.

Vague instructions for the delegates followed. "That the

Delegates to the Congress, ought to be so chosen, or in­ structed, that they may 'be able not only to speak the

Sentiments, but so pledge themselves for the good Conduct of the People of the Colonies, they respectively rep­ resent. '"

A poor showing occurred at the general meeting on noon of the nineteenth. In addition, the resolves were rejected and the delegates received an indecisive vote.

This caused the Fifty-One, meeting that evening, to pro­ pose compromise amendments to the second, third and seventh resolves. The resolves, as admended, comprised the third set in the city. They were ordered published 35 as the Committee's official position. The second resolve was enlarged to include "That all Acts of the

British Parliament imposing taxes on the Colonies, are unjust and unconstitutional. . . ." The third resolve was amended by deleting the last sentence and adding another which maintained that Parliament had ulterior motives for passing the Boston Port Act. "But we truly lament that the enforcing the right of taxation over the Colonies seems to have been the main design of the said Act of

Parliament." Changes in the seventh resolve were insig­ nificant. A position more favorable to the moderates had come to dominate in the Fifty-One. The Conservatives' desire of requesting that Boston pay for the tea was omitted and a stronger assertion of rights and violations were included.

The liberals, inspired by a speech made by John Morin

Scott at the noon meeting on the nineteenth, appointed a committee to draw up a fourth set of resolves. These resolves were milder than their first ones. Allegiance to the crown was included, need for unity asserted and a congress was claimed as "highly expedient ..." and that its decision be adhered to. No mention was made of non­ importation. Another appeal for a provincial convention 36 to choose the delegates was included.

No mutually accepted resolves were ever adopted.

Moderates and conservatives ignored the latest liberal ef­ fort and remained with the amended resolves of the nine- 37 teenth. After all, the liberals had removed themselves from the Fifty-One. Furthermore, no desire was expressed by the De Lanceys to create a provincial cqnvention which would threaten the authority of the De Lancey controlled

General Assembly. The moderates in the Fity-One had achieved a compromise in the amended resolves to the extent that the struggle was dropped without any publicly accepted 51 instructions regarding the use of nonimportation. Time was expiring and the major concern, in the words of

Isaac Low, "the preservation of our just rights and liberties," was looming ever larger as a more critical issue than local politics. A broadside, signed "An

Honest American," and published on July 25, state "The

Resolves are not material; whether we approve of the one Set or the other, is of no Consequence . . . a

Reconciliation 01 Parties . . . is essential, in order to procure a proper Delegation, and convince the Enemies 38 of America we are not to be cajoled. ..." In cor­ respondence with the Charleston, South Carolina Committee on July 26, the Fifty-One maintained that it had the of­ ficial set of resolves, but allowed for the variations 39 expressed in the others.

It still remained for New York City to elect its delegates to the Congress. On July 25 the Committee met and set the twenty-eighth as the date to vote on the dele­ gates. This was ..o be a regular election with both fac­ tions presenting ;.ieir tickets. On the twenty-sixth, a group of liberals chose a committee- of five to write the nominees of the Fifty-One to see if they, if elected, would work for a nonimportation agreement in Congress.

If not, this group promised it would support another ticket. Livingston, Low, Alsop and Jay replied, we will use our utmost endeavours to carry every measure into execution at the proposed Congress that may then be thought conducive to the general interest of the Colonies; and, at present,'are of opinion that a general non-importation agreement, faithfully observed, would prove the most efficacious Qgans to pro­ cure a redress of our grievances.

Despite the equivocal, vague reply and the lack of Duane's signature, the liberals agreed to support the five. They were unanimously elected on the twenty-eighth. The lack of Duane's signature, for reasons unknown, did not mean he opposed the statement. On the contrary he probably endorsed it. The reply could be interpreted so as to be acceptable to moderates and conservatives. "A general non-importation agreement, faithfully observed . . . meant nonimportation, if accepted by the delegates, would extend to all European goods and permit no smuggling. The moderates and most conservatives were relieved over the 41 apparent victory in the choice of delegates.

The conservative merchants, however, became appre­ hensive over the lack of clear concise instructions to the delegates. This apprehension was primarily the result of confusion in the press over the meaning of the delegates' position, as stated in the reply to the liberal group.

The confusion probably resulted from a different inter­ pretation of the reply rendered by the liberals. The delegates were cited as having declared "that a non- 42 importation agreement will be necessary. ..." 53

Benjamin Booth feared the delegates were playing with words with the different factions as "trimming against

the general elections ..." for the Assembly in the coming spring.^3

As a result, a last minute effort was made by the

conservative merchants to reaffirm their position on a boycott and instruct the delegates accordingly. At a meeting on Thursday evening, August 25, about thirty merchants debated for three hours over a formal declara­

tion supporting three basic principles in their inter- I ests. Booth summarized these in a letter to the James

and Drinker firm in Philadelphia. In line with the

conservative resolves of July 13, they maintained

"1. That the Bostonians should pay for the Tea," before

any consent to nonimportation would be considered.

2. That a Non-importation agreement should never be adopted but upon the last extremity, and not till every other measure had proved ineffectual for redressing our preivances. 3. That Smuggling should be stopt at the same time, and we should have no advantage over each other, by importing large parcels of goods before hand.44

The meeting adjourned for twenty-four hours, allowing a

committee appointed for the purpose, time to finish the

declaration for presentation to the merchant community.

However, it was decided to forego the route of a merchant

endorsement and present it directly to the Fifty-One for

approval on Monday evening, August 29. In this way, the 54 conservatives not only excaped the accusation of forming a group of their own to counter the liberals, but hoped to "officially" instruct the delegates to abide by their 45 desires. The declaration was formally presented to the Fifty-One on Monday and endorsed. Only twenty members attended the meeting, including Alsp, Low and Duane, the 46 more conservative of the five congressional delegates.

According to Booth, the three were "highly pleased with a discussion of these important points." Concerning non­ importation, "They were entirely of our opinion, that such an Agreement should extend to every European Commod- 47 ity, and that all Smuggling sh[ould] be stopped."

This final conservative effort to sustain their position was weakened by two factors. First, attendance at the meeting was poor and not all the delegates were present to endorse the declaration. Second, the position taken regarding nonimportation still rested on one's own interpretation of the amended resolves of the Fifty-One.

Booth admitted "that we disagreed more about words than things. . . . Furthermore, McDougall had developed a different understanding of the conservative position than the conservatives had. This was evident in his con­ versation with the Massachusetts delegates who stopped in New York from August 20 to 26, while enroute to

Philadelphia. He cautioned the New Englanders to avoid sensitive conversation related to General Thomas Gage's activities related to enforcement of the Boston Port Act since certain local conservative merchants had reason to support the General but, in the words of John Adams, were also professing "attachment to the American Cause."

MacDougall was convinced "there is a powerful Party here, who are intimidated by Fears of a Civil War, and they have been induced to acquiesce by Assurances that there was no Danger, and that a peaceful Cessation of Commerce would effect Relief. " 4 9

The three factions had compromised, if it could be

i called such. They had agreed on words they could each interpret in its own way. Conservative merchants cau­ tiously accepted the moderate resolve on nonimportation, but insisted on an endorsement of their declaration as an appropriate interpretation. Liberals construed the reply of the delegates to their inquiry prior to the election as being more supportive of nonimportation than intended.

As a result of these many interpretations and variations due to the internal power struggle, there were no clear instructions for the delegates. The Fifty-One's amended resolves, proposing a moderate position, were "official," but their instructions were vague and inconclusive.

Decisions would be left to Congress, and each faction felt it would have the upper hand in Philadelphia. If any one faction dominated, however, it was the moderates who sought to keep peace between the extremes. With a few of the delegates of their persuasion (Livingston and to some

extent Jay, as events would show) and the conservatives cau­

tiously agreeing to their position o n .nonimportation, the moderates were satisfied that their position on a boycott would be heard at the Congress. Thus, New York City moderates, by virtue of being in the middle in the dispute, held a precarious control of the local extra-legal politi­

cal organization.

II. THE COUNTIES

Part of the pressure which had influenced the accept­

ance of a more moderate position had come from the rural

county areas. On May 31, the Fifty-One had ordered that

a circular letter be sent to the counties and their local

communities and districts through the county treasurers.

There were 288 copies divided among the counties. They were not sent until at least June 3, when Low, as chairman, 50 wrote a letter of explanation to accompany them. The

circular letter requested that local committees be estab­

lished to correspond with the New York Committee on matters

of importance. Another letter was sent on July 29, asking

for the counties to appoint their own delegates to the

Congress or designate New York's delegates to represent

them.5 1

Between June 27 and September 5, there were about

twenty responses to the two letters. Sixteen are known

to have included resolves and/or proceedings. Eight of 57 these are extant. They include South Haven# Easthampton and Huntington in Suffolk County; Orange Town in Orange

County; Poughkeepsie Precinct in Dutchess County; Hye and

Westchester in Westchester County; and the Palatine 52 District in Tryon County. It is likely that the twenty responses were not all that were received over this period of time# even though the response was probably not large.

Lieutenant Governor Colden# sensitive to New England ideology# wrote to Lord Dartmouth on August 2# that

Great pains have been taken in the several counties of the Province# to induce the people to enter into resolves . . . but they have only prevailed in Suffolk County# in the east end of Long Island, which was settled from Connecticut# and the inhabitants still retain great similarity of manners and sentiments.53

Although accurate in his political geography, Colden was not altogether correct regarding responses from the other counties.

Seven of the twenty responses came from Suffolk

County and its towns. The extant resolves from the three

Suffolk communities and those from Orange Town were the only ones to favor some form of economic sanctions. The

South Haven and Easthampton resolves were brief. They maintained that the Boston Port Act was unconstitutional and necessitated some form of united action. "A non­ importation agreement through the Colonies is the most likely means to save us from the present and further trou- 54 ble," the Easthampton town meeting concluded. 58

Huntington, on June 21, drew up a more comprehensive set.

They claimed that taxation without representation is a violation of property rights. The Port Act was a sub­ version of these rights by attempting to force parlia­ mentary taxation on the colonist. Since Bostonians were

"suffering in the common cause . . all colonies must

'unite in some effectual measures for the repeal of the said Act . . . and every other Act of Parliament whereby they are taxed for raising a revenue. That it is the opinion of this meeting, the most effectual means for obtaining a speedy repeal of the said Acts will be to break off all commercial intercourse with Great Britain^ Ireland, and the English West India Colonies.

The Huntingtonians indicated their desire "to enter into

these or such other measures as shall be agreed upon by

a general Congress of all the Colonies. . . ." Another

response, not found in the other extant resolves, was for

the Congress to take some form of action to prevent prices

going too high on those goods presently in the colonies.

Orange Town citizens accepted their resolutions on

July 4. They opened with a statement expressing their

desire to remain loyal, supportive subjects of the King

and the Constitution. Parliamentary taxation and the

resulting Boston Port Act, however, were judged unconsti­

tutional. Bound to use such lawful measures as necessary

to obtain repeal of these arbitrary acts, the meeting

resolved unanimously "That the stopping [of] all exporta­

tion and importation to and from Great Britain and the

West Indies, would be the most effectual method to obtain 59 a speedy repeal." Hope for reconciliation was also 57 stressed and a committee of correspondence chosen.

Other than Suffolk County and Orange Town, conserva­ tive or moderate sentiments predominated In the colony.

This did not encourage active participation. In some

Instances It created local tension and Indecision. Colden wrote to Dartmouth In his letter of October 5, concerning the choosing of delegates to Congress,

In Queen's County . . . six persons have not been got to meet for the purpose. . . . In the counties that have joined in the measures of the city, 1 sun informed the business has been done by a very few persons. . . . In Orange County . . . there were not twenty per­ sons at the meeting . . . and I am told the case was similar in other counties that are said to have joined in the Congress.5 8

The remaining four sets of resolves and the known stories behind them reflect similar conclusions. Major differences existed in Rye, Westchester County. Here free­ holders and inhabitants met on August 10, to choose a committee and resolves declaring Parliament's taxation over the colonies and the Boston Fort Act as unconstitu­ tional and despotic. They favored unity of action in the colonies and concluded that a general congress would be the best means to achieve this. They resolved to abide 59 by the Congress's decisions. It appears, however, that this revolutionary meeting in Rye was not well attended and was masterminded by John Thomas, Jr., a member of a

fairly well-known family of officeholders. John Thomas,

Sr. was a member of the General Assembly.6** On September 60

24, a declaration signed by 83 freedholders and inhabi­ tants of Rye, denouncing all patriot activities as "like­ ly to ruin this once happy country . . .," was published in New York City.*’* On October 17, fifteen of the signers of the declaration claimed that they were "suddenly and 62 unwarily drawn in to sign. ..."

In the borough of Westchester, freeholders and inhabitants met on August 20, in respone to the Fifty-One letter of July 29 requesting the counties to choose dele­ gates. They chose a committee of three to meet with the representatives from the other "towns and precincts ..." on the 22nd, in order to decide on delegates. They then proceeded to draw up resolves that did not differ much from the Fifty-One*s in basic content. Swearing alleg- ance to the King came first. Next was an indictment of parliamentary taxation of the colonies "without their con­ sent, or by their representatives. ..." The meeting also resolved to choose a person to collect donations for the needy in Boston. As with all other resolves, unanimity among the colonies was urged in opposing Parliament's acts.

It followed that a general congress would be the most appropriate method "to obtain a redress of grievances . . ." and that they would cheerfully "acquiesce in any measures 63 they may jjudge shall be proper. ..."

There was confusion and indecision evident in

Dutchess County. A meeting of citizens in the Poughkeepsie 61

Precinct on August 10 resulted in mild resolves denouncing

lack of representation as unconstitutional and hindering

liberty. Definitely "averse to breaking their connection with the mother county . . .," a petition and remon­

strance to the King from the General Assembly was resolved

as the best method for handling the situation. The

resolves were to be published and sent to the New York 64 Committee of Correspondence. Zephaniah Platt, chosen

as chairman of the precinct committee, wrote the Fifty-One

something different on the twentieth. He sent a set of

resolves and instructions for the New York City delegates 65 to represent the Poughkeepsie Precinct in Congress.

Apparently the original resolves were changed by the local

committee. It is doubtful that Platt or another group

acted contrary to the committee, as the publication would

have exposed them.

The district supervisors of Tryon County, in response

to the circular letter of May 31 from New York, refused

to enter the dispute since it did not interfere with

"their civil or religious rights. ..." It was concerned

with "a single article of Commerce ..." and no one was

required to purchase it. The supervisors considered

Boston's act was "an outrageous attack . . ."on property

and they deserved what they got.6** In spite of these

actions, on August 27 some inhabitants of the Palatine

District in Tryon held a meeting. Although not 62

representative of the county, they drew up resolves and

appointed the New York City delegation to act on their

behalf. In an attempt to organize a county committee,

they appointed four persons to meet with representatives

from the other districts "to compose a Committee of Cor­

respondence. . . . " 6 7 The district's resolves differed

little from most of the others that came down the Hudson.

It recognized the sovereignty of the crown and swore

allegiance to the King, but denied the right of Parliament

to lay internal taxes on the colonies. To do so is

"unjust and unconstitutional. ..." The Boston Port Act was declared arbitrary and oppressive. The district

resolved to unite with others in giving support to Boston.

A congress was considered "a salutary measure, and abso­

lutely necessary. ..." They agreed to abide by its 68 regulations.

Cumberland County supervisors failed to carry out

the request in the circular letters from the Fifty-One.

Word of the letters leaked out to two town leaders in

September. One was from Westminister and the other from

Rockingham. The towns organized committees and forced CQ the supervisors to surrender the contents of the letters.

Consequently, on October 19 and 20, there were 12 towns

represented in a county meeting where resolves were

accepted and a committee of correspondence appointed.

The resolves came too late to be of benefit to the First 63

Continental Congress. No mention was made of delegates or a congress. They did give allegiance to the King and condemn Parliament's acts as unjust. In conservative- moderate terms, they recognized "a uniform, manly, steady, and determined mode of procedure . . ." as necessary against the acts, promising to "discourage all riotous, tumultuous, and unnecessary mobs. ..." The meeting resolved to "treat those persons whose abominable prin­ ciples and actions show them to be enemies to American liberty, as loathsome animals not fit to be touched or to 71 have any society or connection with."

Cumberland was one of three counties out of which the New York Assembly had divided the New Hampshire

Grants. The other two, Gloucester and Charlotte, were apparently not heard from.

Aside from New York City and County, only Orange

Suffolk and Kings Counties sent their own delegates to

Congress. Local committees in Orange convened on August

16 as a committee for the whole county. It appears their purpose was to decide on delegates for the Congress.

They decided to elect their own. Henry Wisner and John

Haring were chosen. Both were members of the county 72 committee. Wisner, a farmer and land speculator from

Goshen, New York, had served in the Assembly from 1759 to 1769. Politically, he was aligned with the interests 73 of the Livingston faction. John Haring, also a

Livingstonite, was from Tappan in the lower part of 64

Orange County. Haring ran for the Assembly in 1769 with

Wisner, but both men lost. In March of 1774, Haring was 74 appointed a county judge by Governor Tryon.

The two men's instructions were brief and non­ committal, probably due to discord that existed in the committee. They were to meet in Congress "to consult on proper Measures to be taken for the provisioning the 75 Redress of our grievances. . . ." Wisner and Haring were known for their liberal tendencies and likely leaned

in support of an economic boycott. As it was, non- i importation and nonexportation had been included in the 7 6 resolves of Orange Town on July 4. This liberalism created local opposition. The choice of Wisner was chal­ lenged by a more conservative-moderate group from his own area. The leaders were Vincent and David Mathews and

William Wickham of Goshen. As a result, another meeting was held of the Goshen and Cornwall Precincts in North

Orange on September 3 to reconsider Wisner as a delegate.

By a slim margin of only 2 and with Vincent Mathews in the chair, Wisner was reconfirmed and granted instruc- 77 tions similar to those issued on August 16.

Wisner embarked for Philadelphia where he arrived

on September 9, but the matter did not end there. William

Wickham and David Mathews wrote Isaac Low on September 16, complaining of the election of the liberal delegates and

the circumstances surrounding Wisner's victory. The New

York delegation, upon reviewing Wisner's credentials and 65 evaluating the evidence, in Low's words, "could not with any prospect of success oppose Mr. Wisner*s qualifies- 78 tion. ..." As it was, Wisner had been seated on

September 14, probably after some questions about the double credentials. 79 Haring, according to Low, had already made one appearance, but for some reason, pos- sibly his credentials or personal reasons, did not take 80 his seat until September 26.

Suffolk County sent William Floyd who was probably chosen about August 10. The New York Committee received a letter from the Suffolk, dated August 11, "acquainting

[them] that Colonel William Floyd is appointed a Dele­ gate. . .

Kings County's response has been considered ridicu­ lous. It was the only county to respond to a late request by the Fifty-One, sent on September 19, to send delegates to Congress. Four conservative counties were contacted.

Besides Kings, they included Richmond, Queens and Tryon.

Kings chose Simon Boerum, the more liberal of the 82 county's two assemblymen. Boerum's "election" was prob­ ably a decision by a handful of the more active moderates 83 and liberals in Kings.

In addition to the Palatine District of Tryon County and Dutchess County, Ulster, Albany and Westchester auth­ orized the New York City delegation to act on their behalf. Albany had trouble making its decision. 66

Correspondence from Albany arrived in New York about

August 24. It told of two county meetings in Albany, on the tenth and thirteenth, to decide on Robert Yates,

Peter Sylvester and Henry Van Schaack as nominess for delegates to Congress. The three had to be approved by the district committees in the county before being 84 official. The decision was not unanimous, however, so the Albany County Committee chose one person on the twenty-third, Philip Schuyler, to represent them. Unfor­ tunately, Schuyler could not attend due to illness. With time running out, the Committee decided on the thirtieth to rely on the New York City delegation. Jacob Lansing, chairman of the Albany Committee, wrote Congress of the decision.8 5

In Westchester County, the meeting called for August

22 elected Frederick Philipse, a conservative member of the Assembly, as chairman of the county committee. The decision was made to let the New YOrk City delegation represent Westchester County. After considering the results of the First Continental Congress, Philipse signed a statement a year later denying the authority of any 86 extra-legal organization.

Several town meetings in Ulster County and a general county meeting resolved to have the New York City dele- \ gation represent them. Letters from Kingston, dated

August 19, and New Windsor, dated the 26th, were presented 67

to the Fifty-One on the 29th, "approving of the Dele- 87 gates ..." from New York City. The general meeting

took place on August 31* Those present accepted the pp City's position.

In the course of the decisions in the late spring

and summer of 1774, the New York Assembly and its Commit­

tee of Correspondence had played no role. Without the voice of an official representative body, a decisive

and united response from New York was lacking. The

Fifty-One and the local meetings did not represent any

unified, officially acknowledged action. Adequate

representation had been complicated by the competition of

local interests and traditions. There was the tendency

of conservatives to relate extra-legal action by liberals

to New England radical republicanism. After the Congress,

feelings ran high in New York that New England forced

the decisions on the colonies. "A great majority . .

Colden wrote Darmouth on November 2, "are very far from

approving of the extravagent and dangerous measures of 89 the New England Governments. ..." Local political

interests, as in New York City and Orange County, ham­

pered unity as did merchant and popular interests, espec­

ially in New York City. Plagued by these differences,

there existed anything but internal unity and systematic

organization in the colony. 68

On the other hand, if any assertion did appear

unanimous in the few resolves that were offered, it was

the necessity that a common course of action, decided

through a general congress was essential in order to preserve Americans' rights and liberties. Most resolves

contained a pledge to abide by a congressional decision.

An intercolonial response, then, was considered the

surest and safest method for dealing with the problem of

British oppression. However, this decision for a congress

conveniently put the burden elsewhere than on a divided

New York. Each faction felt Congress would support its

position and was willing to leave the decision to it in order to prevent further local dissension.

Besides a call for a congress, there were other

important positions taken in the colony. Of the eight

extant resolves, the most liberal were the four from the

Suffolk communities and Orange Town. They supported an

immediate response in the form of economic coercion.

Two were for a total boycott and two only endorsed non­

importation. Conservatives and moderates, however, gen­

erally sought peaceful reconciliation and the establish­ ment of a permanent, constitutional plan of union which

assured Parliament, as well aB the colonies, certain

basic rights in colonial government. This position was

in line with William Smith's plan as recorded in his

Thoughts upon the Dispute. Although most conservatives would have preferred working through the legislature, only one set of resolves from Dutchess County concluded that the best response was a petition from the Assembly.

These resolves were changed in favor of the delegate from

New York City, representing them in Congress. Conserva­ tives had not controlled all the rural meetings.

The five New York City delegates, all conservaties or moderates, held an edge in numbers and ability in the colony's delegation. There were nine delegates from the

Colony. For the most part, the city delegates would dom­ inate the colony's influence in Congress. Perhaps this was justified since they had been designated to represent most of New York. Their compromised instructions, how­ ever, were open to interpretation. The lack of a single, precise set of instructions for the entire delegation handicapped capable leadership. The colony's delegation went to Congress realizing the importance of cooperative intercolonial action to stop British oppression, but without specific instructions were divided over the best method to use. Political, ideological and economic interests and traditions had prevented unity, but these interests would be represented in the Congress as the delegates sought to protect them and related concerns. 70

FOOTNOTES

Political Memorandums relative to the Conduct of the Citizens on the Boston Port Bill" May 12, 1 7 7 4 , Alexander McDougall Papers, Vol. I, New York Historical Society {microfilm, reel 1) . Portions of the "Political Memorandums" are found in Gerlach, American Revolution: New York, 39-44. Also see Force, Archives, 4, X, 289 n. 2 Lt. Gov. Colden to Lord Dartmouth, June 1, 1774, TheColden Letter Books, II, 339-340.

Benjamin Booth to James and Drinker, July 26, 1774, James and Drinker Business Papers; and Force, Archives, 4, I, 316.

^"Political Memorandums, 11 May 12 and 13, 1774, McDougall Papers.

^Harrington, New York Merchants, 342-343.

^Sabine, Memoirs of Smith, I, 186.

7 For discussions of New York politics during the spring and summer of 1774, see Becker, Political Parties, 111-141; Bernard Mason, The Road to Independence; The Revolutionary Movement in New York, 1773-1777, 24-37; and Roger Champagne, "New York and the Intolerable Acts, 1774," New York Historical Society Quarterly, XLV, 195-207. O Force, Archives, 4, I, 289 n. and 292. g "Political Memorandums," May 14, McDougall Papers.

■^Stokes, Iconography, IV, 853. Also see "Political Memorandums," May 15, McDougall Papers.

^Force, Archives, 4, I, 293.

^■2 Ibid., 293-295 and 372; and Sabine, Smith Memoirs, I, 187. McDougal provides an interesting discussion of the events and confusion between conservatives and liberals 71 over choosing the Fifty-One. See "Political Memorandum," May 19, 1774, McDougall Papers. Also see Benjamin Booth to James and. Drinker, May 20, 1774, James and Drinker Business Papers? and Champagne, "New York and the Intol­ erable Acts," 195-207. Becker, Political Parties, 116-117, gives the political breakdown of the Fifty-One. There 11 of McDougall's lib­ eral mold, about 2 2 became loyalist and the remaining 18 were in between, moderates for the most part, who be­ came patriots when the decision had to be made.

^ Riyington' s New York Gazette, May 26, 1774? and Force, Archives, 4, I, 294.

1 5 Ibid., 297-298. 16 Ibid., 303. Also see Stokes, Iconography, IV, 856? and Benjamin Booth to James and Drinker, June 3, 1774, James and Drinker Business.Papers. 17 Samuel Adams to Elbridge Gerry, May 20, 1774, Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed., The Writings of Samuel Adams, III, 119-120? and Stokes, Iconography, IV, 853. IB Lt. Gov. Colden to Lord Dartmouth, July 6 , 1774, The Colden Letter Books, II, 347. Such appears to have been the understandingof many New York conservatives who were later disappointed. See Benjamin Booth to James and Drinker, September 14, 1774, James and Drinker Business Papers? Vance, Westchester Farmer, 74-99? and Jones, History of New York, 34-35.

^"New York Broadsides, 1762-1779," Lenox Library Collection, summarized in Bulletin of the New York Public Library, III, 39.

20 Force, Archives, 4, I, 306.

2 1 A11 three are printed in Ibid., 1314-1321.

2 2 Ibid., 312.

23Ibid., 312-313 72

24 Benjamin Booth to James and Drinker, September 14, and June 8 , 1774, James and Drinker Business Papers; and L. H. Butterfield, ed., Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, II, 106. 25 Force, Archives, 4, I, 310-311.

2 6 Ibid., 312-314; and Rivinqton's Gazette, July 14, 1774.

27 Force, Archives, 4, I, 307.

2 8 Ibid., 308-309.

29 Becker, Political Parties, 123.

30 Froce, Archives, 4, I, 310-311 and 315; and Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence in New York, July 13, 1774, in American Antiquarian Society, Early American Imprints (microcard). This is a broadside published by the Fifty-One and is hereafter cited as Fifty-One Broad­ side.

31 Ibid. Also see John Jay to John Morin Scott, July 20, 1774, Richard B. Morris, ed., John Jay; The Making of a Revolutionary, I, Unpublished Papers, 1745-1780, 134-

2 2 Fifty-One Broadside.

33 Ibid.; Stokes, Iconography, IV, 860; and Force, Archives, 4, I, 315.

34 The resolves make up the bulk of the Fifty-One Broadside.

35 The amended resolves are found in Rivington1s Gazette, July 21, 1774; and Force, Archives, 4, I, 316-317.

8 8 Gaine's New York Gazette and Weekly Mercury, July 25, 1774; and Stokes, Iconography, IV. 860.

37 Rivington's Gazette, July 21, 1774; and Force, ArchivesT 4, I, 317-318. 73

38 Stokes, Iconography, IV, 861. 39 Force, Archives, 4, I, 320.

4 0 Ibid., 319. r.-

4^Benjamin Booth to James and Drinker, July 28, 1774, James and Drinker Business Papers.

4 2 Force, Archives, 4, I, 320.

i 4 3 Booth to James and Drinker, August.1, 1774, James and Drinker Business Papers.

44Booth to James and Drinker, August 26, 1774, Ibid. A copy of the declaration which was enclosed with the letter is also found in Ibid.

45 Ibid. Also see the report of the merchant committee to the Fifty-One. The report was enclosed with a letter, Booth to James and Drinker, August 31, 1774, Ibid.

46 Ibid.; Rivington's Gazette, September 2, 1774; and Force, Archives, 4, I~ 325.

A *7 Booth to James and Drinker, August 31, 1774, James and Drinker Business Papers. Also see Force, Archives, 4, I, 325.

4®Booth to James and Drinker, August 26, 1774, James and Drinker Business Papers.

4 ^ButterfieId, Diary of Adams, II, 106.

^^Force, Archives, 4, I, 300-301.

5 1 Ibid., 322.

5 2 Ibid., 407-408, 420, 453, 506, 702-703, 726-727 and 740-741. For references to the remaining responses received by the Fifty-One see Ibid., 307-309, 324-326 and 802-803. It is possible the earliest recorded corres­ pondence in the colony to the Fifty-One was sent before 74 the sender had had time to receive the first circular letter. The reply was from Shelter Island, Suffolk County and was dated June 7. It included resolves.

CO Ibid., 670. Also see similar letters from Colden to Dartmouth, dated September 7 and October 5, 1774, Ibid., 774 and 819.

Ibid., 420. South Haven's resolves are found on 407.

5 5 Ibid., 453.

5 6 Ibid.

5 ^Ibid., 506; and Franklin Burdge, "A Notice of John Haring," no. 55 in Budke Collection, New York Public Library (microfilm). Burdge*s paper is a typed manuscript, not paged.

9 9 Force, Archives, 4, I, 819. Colden's conclusion on Orange County is a misrepresentation of the facts. The county meeting was actually a meeting of members of local committees and thus fewer were in attendance. See Ibid., 322 n.

5 9 Ibid., 703

^9Henry B. Dawson, "Westchester County, New York, During the American Revolution," in J. Thomas Scharf, comp., History of Westchester County, New York, I, 205-206.

61 Force, Archives, 4, I, 802-803.

62 Ibid., 803; and Dawson, "Westchester in the Revolution," 208-209.

63 Force, Archives, 4, I, 726-727; and Dawson, "Westchester in the Revolution," 182, 188, 207 and 233. Dawson claims the meeting was probably well attended, but as with Rye, was controlled by one person. In this case it was Lewis Morris.

64 Force, Archives, 4, I, 702. 75

65Ibid., 324.

8 8 Ibid., 4, II, 151. This reply from Tryon County to the Fifty-One was likely the letter dated June 22 which the New York Committee received on the 29th. Ibid., I, 307.

6 7 Ibid., 741.

6 8 Ibid., 740-741. «

6 9 Ibid., 4, II, 218-219.

7 0 Ibid., 1065.

7 1 Ibid., 1066.

7 ^Ibid., 4, I, 322 n.; The Credentials of Henry Wisner and John Haring, August 16, 1774, Goshen, New York Histor­ ical Society (photocopy). The credentials are on display in the Goshen, New York Library. Also see Franklin Burdge, A Second Memorial of Henry Wisner, 14-15; Burdge, "Notice of Haring," Budke Collection; and Michelle P. Figliomeni, "Henry Wisner: Profile of a Revolutionary," (unpublished paper), 8 .

7 3 Ibid., 3-5; Franklin Burdge, A Memorial of Henry Wisner, 2-3; and Burdge, Second Memorial of Wisner, 5 and 9-11. Burdge's first Memorial is reprinted in G. Franklin Wisner, The Wisners in America and Their Kindred, 32-40.

7 ^Burdge, "Notice of Haring," Budke Collection; and Burdge, Memorial of Wisner, 2-3.

7 5 Credentials of Wisner and Haring, August 16, 177 4, Goshen Historical Society.

76 Force, Archives, 4, I, 506; and Burdge, Second Memorial of Wisner, 15.

77 The Credentials of Henry Wisner, September 3, 1774, Goshen, New York Historical Society (photocopy). These credentials are also in the care of the Goshen, New York Library. Also see Figliomeni, "Wisner," 8 ; and Burdge, Second Memorial of Wisner, 15. 76

78 Low to William Wickham and David Mathews, Sep­ tember 20, 1774, in Ibid., 15-16? Figliomeni, "Wisner," 9; and Wisner, Wisners in America, 61.

79 Worthington Chauncey Ford, ed., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, I, 30-31.

80 Low to Wickham and Mathews, September 20, 1774, in Burdge, Second Memorial of Wisner, 15? and Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 42.

81 Force, Archives, 4, I, 324.

8 2 Ibid., 326.

83 Becker, Political Parties, 139-140.

84 Force, Archives, 4, I, 322 n.

DC A brief but good discussion of the whole problem in Albany is provided in Don R. Gerlach, Philip Schuyler and the American Revolution in New York, 1733-1777, 238- 239. For Lansing's letter see Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 19.

86 Force, Archives, 4, I, 1189? and Dawson, "West­ chester in the Revolution," 207-208 and 248.

87 Force, Archives, 4, I, 325.

8 8 Becker, Political Parties, 141 n.

89 Force, Archives, 4, I, 957. Also see Ibid., 969. CHAPTER IV

THE RESPONSE OF VIRGINIA IN THE SPRING AND SUMMER OF 1774

I. THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES

The initiative for Virginia's response to the Coer­

cive Acts in 1774 came from two sources. One was the

local spontaneous response to the Boston Port Act and re­ lated developments in other colonies, especially Massachu­

setts. The other came from the leadership of the House of Burgesses, including its role as an official part of the Assembly and its extra-legal meetings or conventions.

Whether official or extra-legal, local action acknowledged

the Burgesses as the legally constituted representatives of the people.

In contrast to New York, the Virginia moderate Whigs, represented by the planter aristocracy, dominated the

House of Burgesses. The more liberal Whigs, also of the aristocracy, made up a small but aggressive and respected part of the membership.

The initial struggle over the issues and responses in Virginia took place within the confines of the House and included a few of the membership's social and political allies among the county gentry. The relationship between the Burgesses and their gentry allies is easy to trace.

77

i 78

A study of the names of the moderators of the county meetings during June and July of 1774 indicates that most were referred to as esquire or gentleman.^ These "titles" were granted to those who served or had served as jus­ tices of the peace and on the powerful county courts.

Some had served as representatives. According to Charles

Sydnor, "These men of wealth, social position, and great power in county government also had much influence in

Burgess elections and therefore in provincial govern- ment." As a result of all of these factors, the Virginia

Whigs were more successful than their New York counter­ parts in organizing to effect peacefully a significant portion of their goals before the Continental Congress convened.

When the Virginia Assembly convened on Thursday, 3 May 5, 1774, tension was high. It was due in part to the agitation between the House of Burgesses and the governor over the past several years, culminating in the creation 4 of the Committee of Correspondence in March of 1773.

Governor Dunmore, in his opening address to the Assembly on May 6 , 1774, singled out the Burgesses pointedly to let his desires be known. "I have not at this time any­ thing to require of you; but I hope that your resolutions on the various matters, which shall be the subject of your deliberation, may be influenced by prudence and 5 Moderation." Other factors, including the news of the 79

Boston Tea Party and the anticipation of the govern­ ments reaction to it kept Virginians aware and further

intensified matters. "Gentlemen here in general applaud

and honour our Northern Colonies for so manly, and

Patriotic Resistance," recorded Philip Fithian in West- g moreland County on January 24. Letters from other

colonies received by the Virginia Committee of Corres­

pondence during the winter and spring of 1774 helped 7 keep the legislature informed. On their convening, the

Burgesses were aroused with the news of "the Nefarious

proceedings of the Privy Council" which had flatly

rejected the Massachusetts House of Representatives' peti­

tion to have Governor Hutchinson and Lieutenant Governor

Oliver removed. Richard Henry Lee wrote, "The deter­

mination of the Council is viewed here with horror and

astonishment1" Thus, the catalyst was present which in­

cited the more liberal Virginia Whig leaders to take

anticipatory action. Recommended positions, evident in

the inflammatory London correspondence mentioned in the

first chapter, were the need for maintaining unity, a

call for a general congress and agi-tation for adopting

a total nonintercourse measure.

Under the liberal leadership of Richard Henry Lee,

supportive ground work was laid in the House for non­

intercourse. Lee was among the top Virginia elite in g 1774. An attempt was made to prevent passage of a key

piece of routine legislation, the fee bill. In addition 80

to the fee bill, expected business included bills pro~

vlding for the militia and defense, the repair of bridges

and roads and other routine legislation which had or

would soon expire.2,0 A fee act was essential to keep

the courts properly functioning. It determined and

regulated fees and fines for settling civil cases, includ­

ing the collection of debts,^ If the courts were not

operating, British merchants felt the pressure, for they

could not successfully file suits against debtor planters 12 who refused to export. Thus, lack of a fee bill would

provide an incentive for heavily endebted planters to

support nonexportation.

Most of the routine bills, including the fee bill, were destined for failure. They were all originally as­

signed to the Committee of Courts and Justices, chaired

by Richard Henry Lee. On May 10, Lee reported a negative

recommendation from the committee for reviving the Fee

Act. The other important bills received a positive recom­ mendation. Reflecting a division in the Burgesses, the

negative recommendation was rejected. The committee was

ordered to draw up a fee bill to revive the act. Al­

though the bill was presented on May 11 and reassigned

to the Committee of Propositions and Grievances for con- 13 sideration, it was never passed. The presence of t liberals and their allies, including Richard Henry Lee,

Robert Carter Nicholas, Patrick Henry, Richard Lee and

i 81

Francis Lightfoot Lee, on the latter committee did not enhance the chance of the bill reaching the floor In 14 short order.

The division over a fee bill did not start with

Lee's committee. The previous act had expired on April

1 2 and agitation over the situation was In the air before the Assembly convened. The arguments used for or against the bill at first avoided the subjects of paying debts and nonexportation. On May 4, Edmund Pendleton, who was for paying debts and exporting, had written a favorable

"Opinion on the Power of the General Court to Establish

Fees," without a fee act. He Indicated nothing about economic Intercourse, and closed In the following words:

Was there ever an instance of a court so degrad­ ing the purpose of their institution as to make fees the primary consideration of their sit­ ting. . . . This may be a popular argument for aught I know, but as X consider the stopping of courts of justice (except in cases of in­ vasion) as fixing an indelible mark of infamy on a country I hope it will never take place here.'15

Although a specific attempt to kill the fee bill in order to support nonexportation is evident, it was hoped by the liberals that a slow procedure on all the routine bills would stall the governor from dissolving the As­ sembly until they were passed. This would give the lib­ erals time to formulate a plan in reply to the Coercive

Acts, prepare the Burgesses for it and present it to the House for action. George Mason, a nonmember of the 82

House, but an attentive, liberal Whig observer, who was in Williamsburg on personal business, believed that "a dissolution of the House of Burgesses . . ." was expected; but would not happen before the routine bills were enacted. * 6

In the meantime, the liberal Whig element had crystallized into a small, informal caucus, meeting out­ side the normal confines of the House. Some form of liberal gathering was probably initiated within the first three or four days after the Assembly convened. In lan­ guage presumptive of a plan, Richard Henry Lee wrote

Samuel Adams on May 8 , "We are likely to have a long

Session, and before we part, I hope we shall declare our strong approbation of our Sister colonies repelling the revenue act with the Tea ships, and animadvert on some 17 other tyrannic proceedings of Administration." The caucus considered the issues and possible responses in an attempt to formulate a strategy. Mason, in his letter of May 26 to Martin Cockburn, revealed the existence and intent of the liberal group. "Whatever resolves or measures are intended for the preservation of our rights and liberties, will be reserved for the conclusion of the session. Matters of that sort here are conducted and prepared with a great deal of privacy, and by very few 18 members. ..." Thomas Jefferson recorded a similar view years later in which he indicated how many were involved in the liberal group. He listed Patrick Henry,

Richard Henry Lee, Francis L. Lee "three or four ..." others and himself as active after news of the Port Bill 19 was received. Although not a member of the House,

Mason was definitely involved in the activities of the caucus. "At the request of the gentlemen concerned," he wrote Cockburn, "I have spent an evening with them upon the subject. . . . " 2 0

By the time verified news of the passage of the

Boston Port Act had reached Williamsburg, on or about

May 19, the liberals had a rough idea for a plan of 21 action. The response to the Port Act, including a state­ ment of the major issue, entailed some form of the follow­ ing: 1 ) support for nonimportation and nonexportation measures, 2) a call for a general congress, 3) an appeal for unity in opposing the arbitrary actions of the

British government, 4) an assertion of the rights of rep­ resentative government and 5) an appeal for the nonuse of Bast India tea.

The caucus felt it was imperative to get some form of action adopted by the House, but they were confronted by a major devisive force not easily resolved. It was over the extent of nonintercourse. The liberals wanted to include their "trump card," nonexportation, which, i of course, would block payment of debts. One volatile member of the Assembly, likely a member of the caucus, overly optimistic, wrote on May 20 to a party in London.

Infinite astonishment, and equal resentment, has seized every one here on account of the war sent to Boston. It is the universal deter­ mination to stop the exportation of tobacco, pitch, tar, lumber, etc., and to stop all im­ portation from Britain while this act of hos­ tility continues.22

In the midst of the turmoil and confusion over the

Port Act, the caucus met on Monday, May 23, in order to initiate some immediate action. What was desired was something that would reflect unity but also prepare the way for the more liberal position of nonexportation. As

Jefferson wrote later, they wanted to "take an unequiv­ ocal stand in line with Massachusetts . . . arousing out people from the lethargy into which they had fallen, as 23 to passing events. ..." As of yet, no word had been heard from Boston on the Port Act. It was anticipated that news of Boston's actions would enhance the Virginia liberals' position. "We every day expect an express from Boston," wrote the liberal assemblyman on May 20 to his London friend, "and it appears to me incontestably certain, that the above measures [nonimportation and 24 nonexportation] will be universally adopted."

The result of the May 23 meeting was a resolve designating June 1, 1774 "as a Day, of Pasting, Humilia­ tion and Prayer. ..." It passed the House of Burgesses 25 the following day by virtually a unanimous vote. 85

Having achieved a common expression of concern, the liberals were anxious to establish a more definitive statement of the issues and responses through the duly constituted House of Burgesses, before the apprehensive

Dunmore dissolved them. On the twenty-fifth Richard

Henry Lee, probably in conference with the caucus and optimistic over the acceptance of the Fasting Resolves, 26 proposed a set of seven resolves. The right of taxa­ tion by representation was the subject of the first two.

The third denounced taxation "for the Support of Govern­ ment, Administration of Justice, and Defense of his

Majesty's Dominion in America . . ."as tending to intro­ duce arbitrary government. The next three resolves included an appeal to unity and patriotism, denunciation of the use of taxed East India Company tea, and acknow­ ledgment of the action against Boston as an attempt to destroy the rights and liberties of all the colonies.

These six resolves contained ideas acceptable to an overwhelming majority of the House members. Edmund

Pendleton, a moderate Whig, viewed the Boston Port Act

as a common Attack upon American Rights; For tho' it should be granted that the Bostonians did wrong in destroying the tea, yet the Piament giving Judgment and send­ ing ships and troops to do Execution in a case of Private property is [an] Attack upon constitutional Rights, of which we could not remain idle Spectators, but indeed we had too much reason to believe It was a preconcerted Scheme between the Ministry and East India Company to send the Tea for the very purpose -7 of producing the consequences which* happened. In the seventh resolve, Lee and his liberal col­ leagues combined as one two separate possible responses to the Port Act. One, a general congress, was apt to be acceptable to a large majority of the Burgesses. The other was the controversial nonexportation measure. In

Lee's words, the liberals suggested a general congress

"to consider and determine on ways the Most effectual to

Stop the Exports from North America and for the adoption of such other Methods as shall be most decisive for 28 securing the Constitutional rights of America*. . . ."

If accepted in this form, nonexportation would be adopted by the Virginia House as an official position of the people's chosen representatives. With the stimulation of the immediate shock and anxiety created by the Port Act, the liberals hoped to persuade the moderates to accept what would normally be for them a nonpalatable position.

The attempt to conceal their liberal intentions did not work. The moderates and conservatives were hesi­ tant, and with just reasons and alternatives, put off all of Lee's resolves. He was "prevented from offering them by many worthy Members who wished to have the public business first finished, and who were induced to believe, from many conversations they had beared [sic], that there was no danger of a dissolution before that had happened."

A consensus on the subject of nonexportation was far from being found. Nevertheless, Lee was convinced that the resolves would have passed nby a great majority ..." had they been introduced.30 Washington felt they would have been 31 adopted unanimously. Unfortunately, Lord Dunmore had similar feelings. On Thursday, May 26, he dissolved the

Assembly. He hid his fears from the House; his reason to them for dissolution was that the fasting resolve reflected "highly upon his Majesty and the Parliament of 32 Great Britain. ..." In a letter to Dartmouth on

May 29, however, he revealed some apprehension over "other * 33 resolutions ..." being adopted.

Antagonized and disappointed by the turn of events, a large majority of the late Burgesses met at the Raleigh

Tavern on the morning of May 27 for further delibera- e i tions. It is not difficult to determine the issues or the direction the debates took in resolving them*

According to Richard Henry Lee, "the conduct of the

Members [subsequent to dissolution] was surely much too feeble an opposition to the dangerous and alarming state 35 which despotism had rapidly advanced." The liberals still wanted decisive action in order to make the colony's position clear to the British government. They sought the adoption of some form of Lee's resolves, but differ­ ences still existed. The question was not over the necessity or reasonableness of supporting American rights.

British action was acknowledged as unconstitutional. 88

The division was due to propriety and priority. Regard­ ing the latter, which should come first, the moral obliga­ tion to pay debts or immediate and convincing action, evidenced by an extensive nonintercourse measure? The former Burgesses realized they had to reach some form of compromise on this difference quickly, even if it was temporary.

Propriety also prevented any decisive action. Lee proposed "the plan of a Congress, but a distinction was set up between their then state, and when they were a 36 House of Burgesses." The question raised was if the dissolved Burgesses could legally call for a congress.

Thus the question of extra-legal authority was interposed.

The liberals had hoped to avoid this legitimate block, intentional or not, by having Lee's resolves adopted while the House was in session.

As a result of the desire for a show of unity, an association was adopted the same day. Of the 103 former members of the House who were present in the recent session, 37 89 signed it. The concern over extra-legal authority as well as the violation of their basic legislative rights is evident in the opening sentence of the document.

We his Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the late representatives of the good people of this country, having been deprived by the sudden interposition of the executive part of this government from giving our countrymen the advice we wished to convey to them in a legislative capacitv, find ourselves under the hard necessity of adopting this, the only method we have left,

I 89

of pointing out to our countrymen such measures as in our opinion are best fitted to secure our dearest rights and liberty from destruction. . . .

The intent of Lee's first six resolves, with one revision, were contained in the Association of the former

Burgesses. Lee had recommended that East India Company tea not be used until the revenue tax on it be removed.

The Association extended this to include "any kind of East

India commodity whatsoever, except saltpetre and 39 spices. ..."

Nonexportation was dropped. Lee could not gather the support he needed. Even Jefferson, a member of the caucus, maintained in December that "nobody thought at that time of extending our Association further . . ., or if it was proposed by any (which I do not recollect) it was condemned by the general sense of the members who formed that Association."^ Jefferson's second thought was prob­ ably nearer the truth. Although differences did exist, they were probably settled by a calmer majority. The

Williamsburg merchant, James Parker, maintained

there was some violent debeats [sic] her about the Association. George Mason, Pat. Henry, R. H. Lee, the Treasurer [Robert Carter Nicholas]. . . were for paying no debts for Britain, no exporta­ tion, and no courts here, Paul Carrington was for paying her debts and exporting; in this he was joined by Carter Braxton, Mr. Pendleton, Thos. [Nelson!. Junr., and the Speaker [Peyton Ran­ dolph] . 41

The liberals could afford patience; "an express from Bos­ ton" was daily expected and its contents would most likely 42 be to their advantage. 90 The desire for a general congress was made in the

form of a recommendation to the Virginia Committee of

Correspondence, "that they communicate, with their sev­ eral corresponding committees, on the expediency of ap­ pointing deputies from the several colonies of British i *3 America, to meet in general congress. ..." Letters were prepared by the Committee of Correspondence on the

twenty-eighth for the other committees, "requesting their

Sentiments on the Appointment of Deputies . . . to meet 44 annually xn general Congress. . . . " According to

Robert Scribner, this was not inconsistent with the action other colonies took. In reference to the activities of the committees of correspondence, he reminds us that

"if the leaders elsewhere agreed to the convocation of a general congress, attendance thereat need not depend upon

the humor of a royal or a proprietary governor or upon 45 an assembly's being in session." As indicated, however, caution over extra-legal power was still very much evident.

To recall, the New York Assembly's Committee of Corres­ pondence, controlled by conservaties, had succumbed to the

logic of political impotence. Without the Assembly in

session, they felt they had no authority to act.

The former Burgesses, uneasy over the "unofficial"

nature of their actions as well as their .internal differ­

ences, were not ready to assume intercolonial leadership.

Having done what they could, they returned home. 91

The news from Boston was not long In coming. On

Sunday, May 29, a packet was received by Peyton Randolph,

Speaker of the late House, moderator of the May 27 meet­ ing and chairman of the Committee of Correspondence. It contained "the Resolve of Boston and the determinations of Maryland, Pennsylvania and some other northern Colon­ ies. "4® Randolph and a few of the other former Burgesses who were immediately available called a meeting of those who were near enough to convene on short notice. Twenty- 47 five met at 10 a.m. on May 30. The news gave them the impetus needed to recommend what the Association had not.

Included in the packet were a brief letter by Samuel

Adams and resolves from Boston. The resolves were couched in terms which would play upon the fears, dignity and guilt of the recipients. "It is the Opinion of this

Town," read the resolves,

that if the other Colonies come into a joint Resolution, to stop all Importations from Great Britain and Exportations to Great Britain and every part of the West Indies . . ., the same will prove the Salvation of North America and her Liberties; on the other hand if they con­ tinue their Exports and Imports there is high Reason to fear, that fraud, Power, and the most odious Oppression, will rise triumphant over Right, Justice, social Happiness and Freedom.*8

In supportive language, Adams wrote in the letter that "a

Thought so dishonorable to our Brethren cannot be enter­ tained, as that this Town will now be left to struggle alone. " 49

I 92

The con-bent of the correspondence from the Maryland towns and Delaware also recommended nonintercourse. Dela­ ware also proposed a congress as a necessity but looked to Virginia for leadership. "We are persuaded that

[your] Resolutions . . . will have great Weight here, and we shall be glad to have your Sentiments thereon."5® Bal­ timore and Annapolis also looked to Virginia for leader- 51 ship while waiting for the consensus of their own colony.

Conservative Pennsylvania adhered to the proposal of a congress as a good way to state American rights and peti­ tion the crown. Nonimportation and nonexportation were 52 to be used as a last resort.

After absorbing the news, the Twenty-Five concluded that further nonimportation measures should be included in the Association adopted on the twenty-seventh. They still remained divided on the subject of nonexportation, but it was considered a threat to be used in the future, if necessary. In either case, as a fraction of the assoc- iators, they did not consider themselves im a position

"to make any Alteration in the Terms of the general Assoc­ iation, and therefore resolved to invite all the Members of the late House of Burgesses to a general Meeting in 53 this City on the first Day of August next." The re­ quest was made for the late members to collect "the sense of their respective Counties" on the issues and responses 54 to them. This action of the Twenty-Five, moving but still cautious, was taken without the presence of key liberals Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, They had returned home. The action taken in their absence indi­ cates how well the liberal position was enhanced by the traumatic news from Boston and the neighboring colonies.

By the time the Twenty-Five had dispersed, the decisions reached during the previous three weeks of agitated activity reflected an inconclusive position.

Most evident was the indecisiveness of the former Bur­ gesses. This was apparent in their concern over their lack of authority. It was compounded by their hesitancy to commit Virginia to unilateral action. The call for a congress was not assured by the Association. It was only recommended to the Virginia Committee of Corres­ pondence to gauge the responsiveness of other colonies to the proposition. The nonintercourse measure was not as extensive as the liberals had desired. It failed to

include nonexportation, and nonimportation was limited to East India Company goods. Nonexportation was mentioned by the Twenty-Five as a possibility for future use if necessary. No provision was made to enforce nonimportation.

It was only strongly recommended to Virginians.

There were some bold aspects in what was done. The

Twenty-Five had unequivocally established that violations of the right of representative government through colonial

legislatures would not be tolerated, especially after the 94

Boston Port Act convinced many of a conspiracy to destroy

this and other rights. The position on taxes was mod­

erate. What the dissolved Burgesses concluded in May

of 1774 was that it was unconstitutional for Parliament

to lay any tax on the colonies, including that for commer­

cial reasons, if for the purpose of raising revenue. This'

was internal taxation. The right of Parliament to lay

duties on commerce in order to regulate it (external

taxation) was generally implied by nothing being indi­

cated to the contrary. Richard Henry Lee's resolves, for

instance, had distinctly implied that internal taxation

was an unjust violation of representative government.

But Lee had avoided any comment on external taxes. Jeffer­

son was to maintain that the Lees and other Virginians

"stopped at the half-way house of John Dickinson, who ..." supported the right of parliamentary taxes to 55 regulate commerce, but not to raise revenue. If par­

liamentary claims to the right of both external and

internal taxation were rejected, it would mean advocacy

of total self government, with the exception of royal

authority. Few in Virginia considered the idea at this

point, let alone recommended it.

Among the bolder measures taken was the Twenty-

Five's call for the August Convention. Of special sig­

nificance was the request for the former representatives

to determine local sentiment. It was this sentiment which 95 would grant the Convention its extra-legal authority and inspire the decisions which it would make. Through such action, Virginians would come a step closer to shedding parliamentary authority.

II. THE COUNTIES

The groundwork had been laid. The differences over strategy which had existed among the Whigs at Williamsburg were carried to the counties for further debate and action.

The decisions which were hammered out at the county level during late May, June and July were inspired primarily by the leadership of the late Burgesses and other gentry.

An important influence was the news of development in Boston and the neighboring colonies. Also influential were sub­ sequent reports of the passage of the other Coercive Acts and the literary debate carried on by tr.actarians, of whom the major ones were recent Burgesses.

Extant minutes, resolves and correspondence result­ ing from the May, June and July meetings are known to exist for thirty of the sixty-one counties in Virginia.

Some minutes, resolves and correspondence from the towns of Alexandria, Dumfries, Norfolk and Portsmouth (jointly) and Fredericksburg are also available. The borough of

Norfolk was a constituency, but joined with Norfolk

County in responding to the appeal of the Twenty-Five.56

There are many similarities in the resolves. Among

the more noticeable: Dunmore County adopted the same resolves a week after they were agreed to in Frederick 57 County on June 8 . The resolves of Prince George County, adopted in late June, were influential in Nansemond, New eh Kent, and probably in Culpeper. Those of Westmoreland, adopted on June 22 and probably inspired or written by

Richard Henry Lee, were relied on in the composing of the 59 Richmond resolves a week later.

Numerous other resolves, whose contents can only be conjectured, were adopted in the colony during the two month period. In July a young James Madison enthus­ iastically informed a friend in Philadelphia that "the

Natives . . . are making resolves in almost every

County. . . . William Reynolds, a York merchant, wrote after the Convention that he "never knew people more unanimously resolute, than every class here are, to oppose the very corrupt measures. . .

Some local resolves in response to the Port Bill were underway before the request for a "senses" from the dissolved Burgesses reached the counties. The earliest resolves and correspondence, primarily from the Northern

Neck communities in late May and early June, were spon­ taneous responses to the news from Maryland and the other colonies to the North. On May 28, packets from Baltimore and Annapolis arrived in Alexandria, Fairfax County.

They contained the same information Peyton Randolph and 62 the Committee of Correspondence received a day later. The day following arrival, the community held a meeting, appointed a committee of correspondence, voiced sympathy for Boston, applauded the Annapolis resolves, but declined to adopt a formal response to the issues. They preferred to wait until the sentiments of the House of 63 Burgesses were known. Their reason for hesitancy was not one of doubt over the issues or possible responses, but an instinctive sense to strive for unity through the colony's official representative body. "We cannot help thinking," they wrote the town of Dumfries in Prince

William County and the Virginia Committee of Correspond­ ence, "that the determination of the Inhabitants of Vir­ ginia, when Authenticated by the resolutions of their

Assembly will be more decisive than any partial and local resolves. " ® 4

The response in Dumfries on May 31 was more reveal­ ing of the town's feelings, but was not formally resolved.

Awaiting word from Williamsburg, the town followed Alex­ andria's example and "deferred ent'ring into any partic­ ular Resolves. . . . 1,65 However, the meeting explicitly denounced the Port Act as a threat to the freedom of all, confidently declared for common action, chose a committee of nine for correspondence, called a county meeting for

June 6 and expressed a determination to stop at that time all economic intercourse with Great Britain and the West indies.®® On June 1, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County received the news by way o£ Dumfries and immediately called a town meeting. The meeting responded by adopting a brief

set of resolves which included the appointment of a com­ mittee. The basic content of the resolves implied unity and withheld any local unilateral response. They assured support for "every proper Measure that may be thought 67 Expedient by our Sister Colonies. ..."

To the South, in Norfolk and Portsmouth, activity was also well underway by the end of May, although the official resolves of the Borough and County of Norfolk in response to the request of the Twenty-Five would not be 68 adopted until July 9. On May 30 a meeting of merchants and other inhabitants of the two communities formed a 69 joint committee. Thomas Newton, Jr., a Norfolk County

Burgess, was chosen as moderator of the meeting. The cor­ respondence and resolves from the north, as well as the

House's fasting resolve and the Association of May 27 were presented. The circular letter from the Twenty-Five

had not yet arrived with its request for determining local

sentiment. The two communities gave verbal support to

the cause of Boston, rejected the ministry's violation

of the rights of representation and approved "the exped­

iency of a Congress. ..." They were not ready, how­

ever, to propose specific measures for economic retal­

iation, but looked to "other large commercial towns ..." 70 for leadership. 99

From the evidence contained in these early respon­

ses, it appears that the local communities, influenced

from sources other than just the Whig leadership of their

representatives, arrived at about the same position as

had the dissolved Burgesses. By the end of May a cau­

tious "wait and see" attitude prevailed throughout much * of the colony. The issue was obviously the violation of rights and liberties. Any possible response was con­

ceived as only a means peacefully to convince the ministry

to respect them.

Potential liberal responses, all having been debated

by the House, existed on the local level as revealed in

the meetings at Dumfries and Norfolk. The local commun­

ities did not feel safe or adequate acting unilaterally without a knowledge of what others, especially the legis­

lature, were doing. The latter's leadership was needed

and desired. At the Dinwiddie County meeting on July 15,

the inhabitants in their resolves left no doubt "of their

Desire to be advised and instructed relative to the

Difference . . . between Great Britain and her Colon- 71 ies* . . ."On the other hand the dissolved Burgesses,

plagued by internal divisions and questions over their

own constitutional authority, had been hesitant to respond

decisively.

The two areas complimented each other, however. One,

the dissolved Burgesses, in an extra-legal convention. could offer leadership for local activity and a represen­ tative body through which to express provincial unity.

The constituencies, responding to the dissolution of the

Assembly, could rationalize the granting of authority to an extra-legal convention. This latter approach was im­ plied by an individual present at the Westmoreland County 72 meeting as the only constitutional road to follow. As it was, the dissolved Burgesses had decided to look at the constituents for their sentiments on the issues and responses, including extra-legal authority.

Throughout June and July correspondence related to the crises was received in Virginia. It was addressed primarily to the Virginia Committee of Correspondence.

Virginians were informed of actions being taken elsewhere and encouraged to follow suit. Obviously, the Old Dominion was not the leader at this juncture. Maryland, South

Carolina, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey had all sent their resolves and/or names of their delegates to Virginia well before the end of July. Included in some of the resolves were recommendations for a time and place for the Congress.

County meetings responding to the request of the

Twenty-Five were generally called at the request of the late representatives. The minutes of the Dinwiddie,

Princess Anne and Spotsylvania meetings specifically 74 stated that the representatives called the meetings.

Of the thirty extant county resolves, eighteen list the 101 name o£ their moderators. Seven of these, none from the three named counties, were former representatives and probably were instrumental in calling the meetings. All seven meetings were held in July which gave ample time 75 for the representatives* involvement.

In some counties where leadership was not able to be immediately undertaken by former Burgesses, other active gentry, closely in touch with events, asserted themselves. Such was the case in Richmond County where the aging Landon Carter impatiently waited for the rep­ resentatives to call for a county meeting. At the county court on June 6 , he "endeavored to Convince the People

. . ." that Boston's cause was the cause of all. He shared the resolutions received from Philadelphia and

Maryland and urged total nonintercourse. Except for the

Scottish merchants in the county, whom he chastised, 76 Carter felt his proposals were well received. A county 77 meeting was eventually held on June 29.

The Norfolk Borough and County meeting on July 6 was called by the joint committee of the borough and

Portsmouth. The former representatives from the borough and the county responded publicly. They were in total agreement with the call and assured their presence at the meeting.

The call for the first known county meeting which would reply to the circular letter was actually issued 102 before the letter was received. This was the Prince

William meeting, called for June 6 by the Town of Dumfries.

By June 6 , news of the circular letter had arrived. The two representatives, Henry Lee and Thomas Blackburn, had signed the letter on May 31 and could have been present at the meeting.

It was George Mason, however, having likely arrived home prior to Lee and Blackburn, who probably provided local leadership. Mason left Williamsburg about May 27 .

The day before, he wrote of growing "heartily tired ..." of Williamsburg and hoped to leave the following week after his business was finished with the Assembly. 7 9 ' When the

Assembly was dissolved the same day, Mason had no reason to remain in town. His name is npt among those who signed the Association of the May 27, yet twenty-one non- 80 members did. If in town, he probably would have done so.

A resident of Fairfax County, he lived across the Occoguan

River from Dumfries which was in Prince William. Mason was well known in Dumfires and owned property in Prince

William. Robert Rutland makes a good argument on behalf of Mason's authorship of the Prince William resolves, relying largely on similarities in style between the

Prince William resolves and other writings, especially the Fairfax resolves in which Mason had a significant hand.®’1'

Most county resolves, in replying to the request for a consensus, contained three or four parts to them. First

i 103 was a statement of allegiance to the king. Next was a statement of issues or grievances brought on by oppressive measures, primarily the Coercive Acts. The third was recommended responses to these issues and oppressive acts. The fourth part was instructions to the delegates who were to appear at the August Convention. These in­ structions, implied or stated, abided by the statement of issues and responses.

Eighteen counties adopted resolves of allegiance to g n the king. In no way did Virginians conceive of separat­ ing from royal authority. The crown was not the problem and independence was not the objective. On the contrary,

Virginians feared their actions would be misinterpreted and sought to prevent any misunderstanding. Fairfax

County explicitly stated, but with an ominous qualifica­ tion, its intention of not aiming for independence.

It is our greatest wish and Inclination, as well as Interest, forever to Continue our Connexion with, and dependence upon the British Government; But tho we are its Sub­ jects, we will use every means, which Heaven hath given us, to prevent our becoming its slaves.83

Caroline County considered independence as unwanted as oppression. They resolved that those who attempted "to deprive the Colonists of their Rights . . . or to effect

their independence . . . ought ever to be considered as 84 a common enemy to the whole Community." 104

The ministry's violation of the rights and liber­ ties of the colonist was the chief issue expressed in the county resolves, as it has been in the Burgesses and the late May town meetings. The issue had two aspects to it. They included the violation of represen­ tative government and arbitrary acts on the part of Par­ liament.

The right to representative government had been the crux of the problems between Britain and America since the Stamp Act crises. All the county resolves adopted during June and July, except those of James City County, contained specific statements on representative govern­ ment. Fairfax County, in the first ten of its. twenty-six resolves, developed the right of representative govern- 85 ment in detail. Concern over it, however, was twofold in Virginia. Representative government involved the constitutional right of self government through a duly elected legislature as well as the specific objection to taxation without representation.

In Virginia, dissolution of the House of Burgesses

» while considering colonial grievances had violated the right of self government through elected representatives.

This right was a complex issue and involved both the rights and privileges of the ruling class as well as the rights and security of the general public. It was not just the position of one class which was threatened, but the values and structure of an accepted social order. A whole way o£ life was believed to be under attack. At . . • least one representative of the system, convinced of this threat, was sure the lower classes would follow the acknowledged aristocratic leadership. In an essay, printed on August 4, he addressed his fellow Virginians concerning nonintercourse. "Let gentlemen of the first rank and fortune amongst us set the example; they will be cheerfully and eagerly followed by the inferior classes."86

On July 14, Caroline and Chesterfield Counties resolved in separate meetings that the General Assembly had a right to consider freely all threats to the rights

and liberties of the people. To dissolve the Assembly while involved in such deliberations was reason to sus­ pect, in the words of the Caroline resolves, "the fixed

Intention of the Ministry to reduce the Colonies to a 87 State of Slavery." The Chesterfield meeting approved

of the actions of the dissolved Burgesses and expressed

fear of an attempt "to destroy the ancient, constitutional, 88 legislative Authority in the Colony. ..." The

resolves thus implied that extra-legal meetings, such as

the dissolved Burgesses, were condoned in order to protect

the right of representative government.

The Prince William County meeting of June 6 , under

George Mason's leadership, explicitly justified extra-legal

action in a brief set of resolves. It was decided, 106

that as our late representatives have not fallen upon means sufficiently efficacious to secure to us the enjoyment of our civil rights and liber­ ties, that it is the undoubted privilege of each respective county (as the fountain of power from whence their delegation arises) to take such proper and salutary measures, as will essen­ tially conduce to a repeal of those acts, which the general sense of mankind, and the greatest characters in the nation, have pronounced to be • unjust.89 .

Prince William was not the only county to adopt this measure. At the York County meeting on July 18, a sim­ ilar resolve was adopted. Since the Assembly, by its dismissal, was prevented from protecting the people's rights, "that Right again reverts to the People, as the

Fountain from whence all Power and Legislation flow; a 90 Right coeval with human Nature. . . ."

The message of these resolves is obvious. If the representatives could not convene by existing law to pro­ tect the people's rights, then the responsibility fell to the constituencies, the political bodies that had chosen them. It followed from this reasoning, and for the sake of unanimity and strength, that the constituencies should act collectively through a convention of representatives.

Thus, extra-legal government was condoned as "legal" and authoritative. The previous decisions of the dis­ solved Burgesses, including their call for a convention in August, would be recognied and honored. Jefferson stated the issue well in his Summary View, composed for the August Convention. 107

While those bodies are in existence to whom the people have delegated the powers of leg­ islation, they alone possess and may exer­ cise those powers; but when they are dis­ solved by the lopping off one or more of their branches, the power reverts to the people, who may exercise it to unlimited extent, either assembling together in person, sending dep­ uties, or in any other way they may think proper.91

The full implication of this position had yet to

crystallize in the minds of most Virginians. The argu­

ment was founded on the principle of natural rights.

Government was to be by the consent of the governed. Local

as well as popular sovereignty was the issue. The con­

stituents, for the most part the counties and their fl inhabitants, were considered the "fountain of power . . ., not the governor, not Parliament, and eventually, not even the king. In a way the idea was not new. The county

from very early had been the chief source of popular 92 power in the colony. It was now becoming evident to many that parliamentary actions as well as those of the governor were seriously challenging the county and its

gentry leadership by threatening its representatives in 93 assembly.

Gentry leadership, then, was well rooted in Virginia society. The local units, under this leadership, justified the extra-legal decisions of the aristocratic former

Burgesses and thereby supported the socio-political order, including self government. The concern over self 108 government as an issue was, in part, a conservative move­ ment to protect the social order. For the gentry it amounted to a movement, based on natural as wall as con­ stitutional rights, to retain control over the colony's political and social institutions. The Revolution would not be the last war Virginia would fight for local sovereignty. On the other hand, the concern over self government was writ large with radical implications deny­ ing parliamentary authority.

The other concern over violation of representative government was taxation without representation. Taxation 94 and representation were viewed by most as inseparable.

Many accepted self taxation as the common right of

British subjects, which Virginians considered themselves.

In Accomack County it was resolved on July 2 "That all his

Majesty's subjects in America, are, by birth-right, en­ titled to all the rights and immunities of British born subjects; one of which . . . is, that no tax, aid, tallage,

• ■ * **. or other imposition, shall be laid upon them but by 95 their representatives.

Most counties expressed the issue in terms of a parliamentary violation or rights. Put simply, "any act of parliament laying a tax on them [British subjects in

America] is subversive of their natural rights, and con- 9 6 trary to the first principles of our free constitution."

A distinction between internal and external taxa­ tion varied from county to county. The Albemarle resolves, In radical overtones, implied a denunciation of all taxation. The county, questioning the authority of Parliament and supporting the House of Burgesses, maintained "that no other legislature whatever may right­ fully exercise authority over them. ..." Among those acts for which repeals were sought were those which restricted American commerce. These resolves were prob- 97 ably wrxtten by Thomas Jefferson. Some counties made a clear distinction between internal and external taxes.

Middlesex County, for instance, resolved "that we acknow­ ledge a constitutional Dependence on the Parliament, conceiving it not incompatible with the Condition of 98 Colonies to submit to commercial Regulations. . .

Other counties were opposed to legislation regulating the 99 "internal policy of North America. . . ." Slight varia tions in the other resolves on the regulation of commerce are so numerous that it does not warrant the time nor space to list them here. These many differences were to have repercussions in the Virginia Convention and again in the First Continental Congress as an attempt would be made to achieve a common agreement on the issue. The question again reverted to what constitutional authority or rights Parliament had in colonial government, if any.

It was not unreasonable, under the circumstances, for many Virginians to deduce that parliamentary acts were intended to subvert colonial constitutional rights 110 and liberties. It was the Boston Port Act, however/ and

subsequent Coercive Acts which served as proof for many.

They were the source of the issues raised. The Port Act convinced a significant number of apprehensive Vir­

ginians that a conspiracy was evident and serious action had to be taken in order to preserve basic liberties*

All the counties except one, James City# denounced the Port Act and the other Coercive Acts, as knowledge of

them became known in late June as being tyrannical and

oppressive.100 Although not an issue as such, the people were motivated in part by the fear of suffering Boston's dilemma. The cause of Boston was considered a common cause as many county meetings concluded in seeking mutual

support. "We read our intended Doom in the Boston Port Bill, in that for altering the mode of Trial in criminal

Cases, and finally in the Bill for altering the Form of

Government in the Massachusetts Bay," resolved Hanover

County on July 20.^*^ The nature and intensity of the gentry's influence on the people was affected by these oppressive acts.

Even moderately inclined Washington, who questioned the conduct of the Bostonians in destroying the tea and was for paying debts and exporting, wrote Bryan Fairfax on July 20, "I observe, or think I observe, that govern­ ment is pursuing a regular plan at the expense of law and justice to overthrow our constitutional rights and

I I l l 102 liberties. . . ." Only two days earlier, Washington, with George Mason at his side, had moderated the Fairfax

County meeting in which extensive resolves were adopted.

In the local resolves that were passed during June and July, the recommended responses to the Coercive Acts and the issues they raised generally followed the state­ ment of the issues. The objective of the responses was stated differently from county to county. In some it 103 was to restore harmony with the mother country. In 104 others it was to achieve a redress of grievances.

Others sought to preserve rights and liberties.The intent was the same, to instruct the individual delegates how peacefully to achieve a repeal of the offensive measures and determine a plan to bring permanent peace to the British Empire. It is possible to extract eight basic responses from the local resolves and some indiv­ idual replies. The responses, in the order they are dis­ cussed, are nonimportation, nonexportation, the request for a congress, the request for a plan of organization to enforce an anticipated boycott, offering help to Boston, an ambiguous request that the tea be paid for and the radical position of total rejection of all parliamentary authority.

The response most generally adopted in the thirty counties was some form of nonimportation. Only two counties, Accomack and Dinwiddie, did not mention it. 112

They left any decision regarding economic intercourse to the August Convention. Accomack confided "in the prud­ ence and abilities of their Representatives . . . [to] cheerfully submit to any measures which may be concluded ||106 upon• • • •

The major difference over nonimportation appears to have been the extent of its application. More con­ servative Middlesex County opposed unlimited nonimporta­ tion, but was willing to abide by an association to prohibit unnecessary British manufactured goods and 107 commodities from the East Indies, Nine counties spec­ ifically felt that trade should be cut off or restricted with those counties and localities that refused to abide 108 by a concluded agreement. The importation of slaves and other forced labor was denounced by five counties on economic grounds. The trade discouraged the emigration 109 of freemen, manufacterers and skilled craftsmen.

Two counties included the moral issue as well as the economic. The most outspoken was Fairfax. They resolved to "take this Opportunity of declaring our most earnest wishes, to see an entire Stop forever put to such a

Wicked, Cruel, and [unnatural] Trade. Although non­ importation generally included all goods shipped from

Great Britain, eight counties specifically included a boycott of East India Company goods in their resolves.

Eleven counties listed exceptions to nonimportation. 113

The outstanding exceptions were gunpowder, saltpetre, 112 medicine and various types of fabrics. Three other counties left it to the impending August Convention or 113 the Congress to determine the exceptions..

The position of nonexportation gained support at the local level due to the building momentum following the news from Boston, Maryland and the other colonies. The

Twenty-Five had hinted at the possible use of rionexpor- tation at a later date. There were twenty counties that adopted it with variations. With the debate over pay­ ing debts ever present, nine of these counties desired to postpone nonexportation until a later date. Most of the nine left it to the Convention or to the Congress to decide on a specific time. A few proposed dates in the fall of 1775. Albermarle, for instance, recommended Octob- 115 er 1, 1775, while Fairfax preferred November 1, 1775.

Some counties, although willing to accept nonexportation as a recourse, decided to leave its adoption and any specific position to the August Convention or the Congress.

York County, for example, resolved "that what relates to

Exports be left to the Determination of the Convention in August.This was a more conciliatory move than the county's former Burgess, Thomas Nelson, Jr., had preferred.

Nelson felt nonexportation should be withheld so debts could be paid.'*'^ 114

Of the remaining ten counties, two refused to adopt a nonexportation measure. Hanover, Patrick Henry's con­

stituency, surprisingly resolved that "Nothing but the direct Necessity shall induce us to adopt that Proceeding, 118 which we shall strive to avoid as long as possible."

Thus, Henry's support for nonexportation was rejected by his planter constituents. Middlesex decided that non- 119 exportation in any form was inpractical. Accomack and

Dinwiddle counties, as with nonimportation, left the 120 decision of a response to the Convention. The other six counties ignored the subject and resolved only for non­

import a ti on .■** 2 ■**

There were diametrically opposed views over export as well as import trade with the West Indies. Three coun­ ties requested that any nonimportation agreement should 122 include the West Indies. Princess Anne County instruc­

ted her deputies to the August Convention to vote against 123 any attempt to restrict West Indies trade. Richmond made no mention of importing from the islands, but rejec- 124 ted exporting to them. Fairfax, thinking in terms of an intercolonial association, sought to prohibit expor­

tation of lumber to the West Indies if the other colonies agreed.125

In order to carry out nonintercourse successfully, i domestic industry had to be encouraged. Ten counties pro- 12 6 vided for stimulating industry and manufacturing.

I 115

Twenty-one counties requested a congress or assumed 127 that one would be called. Of the twenty-one, eleven 128 called for some type of an intercolonial association.

Of the remaining ten, five definitely implied the need for cooperative intercolonial action. Gloucester, for instance, resolved "that we will firmly unite with . . . the other colonies on this continent, in every measure that may be thought necessary on this alarming occa- 129 sion." The position of the remaining five is not clear, but it can be assumed they favored intercolonial action inasmuch as they looked to a general congress for help.

The concern for cooperative action was so great that no constituency offered fixed and absolute resolves on how to achieve their objectives. James Madison, in shar­ ing local news with his Philadelphia correspondent, recorded "The Natives are very unanimous and resolute . . . and I believe are willing to fall in with the Other Colon­ ies in any expedient measure, even if that should be the ion - universal prohibition of Trade." In a similar vein,

Philip Fithian informed his uncle that "the people here 131 wish for the union of all the Colonies. . . ." The

Hanover County resolves, stated as instructions to their deputies, provide the most dramatic expression from the counties of the intense desire for cooperation in order to preserve rights and security.

Let it therefore be your great Object to obtain a speedy Repeal of those Acts, and for this 116

purpose we recommend the Adoption of such Meas­ ures as may produce the hearty Union of all our Countryman and Sister Colonies. United, we stand; divided, we fall. To attain this wished for Union, we declare our Readiness to sacri­ fice any lesser Interest arising from a Soil, Climate, Situation, or Productions peculiar to us.132

The desire for a congress and intercolonial coopera­

tion did not prevent the counties from recommending im­

mediate unilateral action for Virginia. It is evident

from the various resolves adopted on nonimportation and

nonexportation that some form of immediate action by Vir­

ginia was preferred. Again, the Hanover resolves, al­

though excluding nonexportation, illustrate this position.

The county recommended a congress "to form a Plan . . .,"

but also thought it proper "for the present . . . to form

a general Association against the Purchase . . . of Goods

imported from Great Britain. . . ,"^33

The fourth response from the local level was a desire

for an intercolonial organization, built around an ac­

cepted compact or association for an economic-and enforced

boycott through a committee system. The idea was stim­

ulated by the concern over the weakness of earlier assoc­

iations adopted by individual colonies in response to the

Townsend Acts. The Virginia Associations of 1769 and 134 1770, largely George Mason's products, were no exception.

The associators of 1770 had sought to enforce their agree­ ment by county committees. These committees were auth­

orized to publish the names of offenders, inspect

4 117 importations into the counties and request the reship­ ping of goods violating the Association. Those who refused to return illegal merchandise were to have "an 135 account of their conduct . . . 11 published. That the associations were not too effective was generally acknow­ ledged. Mason had already expressed his reasons for the failures. He felt the many associations adopted in the colonies were hastily and idealistically composed. In

Virginia too many goods were in demand by the people and the British had not given in as easily as had been hoped.

"Men sanguine in an interesting Subject," he wrote,

"easily believe that must happen which they wish to happen,

[and] thus the Americans enter'd into Agreements which few were able to perform even for the Short Time at first 136 thought necessary." Furthermore, he deemed the scheme impractical and with too many differences "between the 137 Plans adopted in the different Provinces." Mason con­ sequently made suggestions for revisions in any future nonimportation agreement. They included a "general

Plan . . . exactly the same for all the Colonys . . . restraining only Articles of Luxury [and] Ostentation to­ gether with the Goods at any Time taxed, and . . . giving all possible Incouragement to American Manufactures. .,138 • * •

Of the responses from all the Virginia constituen­ cies, the Fairfax County resolves, adopted on July 18, 118 provided the most extensive system o£ enforcement. Much of the content of the resolves was a revision of the

Association of 1770, providing evidence that at least the 139 basic draft was probably the work of George Mason. In resolves fifteen and sixteen, a plan was suggested for enforcing a nonimportation agreement at the provincial and county level. County committees would serve as in­ spectors of goods imported after a September 1, 1774 deadline. Goods shipped from Great Britain after this date would be returned or stored in local warehouses at the cost and risk of the owners. Certificates would be issued by the committees to those merchants who signed an oath not to traffic in goods prohibited by the

Association. The names of those who refused to sign the oath or violated the Association would be published in 140 their county of residence. The twentieth resolve recommended an intercolonial association to be enforced in a similar manner at the county level in each colony?-41

Some historians have relied rather heavily on the impact of the more detailed Fairfax resolves on the

1 A O Association of 1774 and the Continental Association.

Curtis Nettels has written,

The unique feature of the Fairfax Resolves, which gave unusual importance to the work of the First Continental Congress, was a plan for enforcing the nonimportation agreements. . . . The earlier nonimportation agreements had been private and voluntary. . . . There was no organized official means of enforcement.^43 On the contrary, neither the idea of an inter­ colonial association nor the use of a committee system for enforcement were unique to Fairfax County. The As­ sociation of'1770 had used a committee system for en­ forcement, albeit ineffectively. Memories of this association and its demise were well planted in the minds of Virginians, With the situation what it was in 1774, the colonies could ill afford another default in the use of economic sanctions. A solution achieved through inter­ colonial cooperation was considered necessary. Mason's own criticism of the 1770 agreement and his recommenda­ tions that any future plan seek intercolonial action was indicative of the common feeling expressed in the content of numerous local resolves.

Three counties suggested the appointment of com­ mittees for correspondence and "effecting a general Assoc- 144 iation ..." once adopted. Norfolk County and Borough recommended that large committees for enforcing an • ** • - association be appointed in each county. However, there is no indication in the county's resolves that they ap­ pointed a committee. If not, they must have relied on 145 the joint committee of Norfolk and Portsmouth.

Stafford County appointed a committee of sixty-nine, but gave it no specific responsibilities. Its size would imply responsibilities that included enforcement.

4 120

Several counties# that did not specifically recom­

mend committees, declared as enemies to American liber­

ties those individuals who refused to abide by the coun­

ties' resolves. Action was preferred against violators, 147 implying the need for some form of enforcement.

The fifth response from the local level was con­

cerned with Boston's need for material assistance. Seven

counties included in their resolves specific, measures to

implement the collecting of food and supplies for 148 Boston. Six resolved, for the time being, to give

moral support.Three of the six looked directly to

the August Convention or the impending First Congress to

establish a means for aiding Boston.

Among the least recommended responses to the Coercive

Acts was a petition and remonstrance to the royal govern­ ment. Thomas Nelson, Jr., of New York County denounced

it in his opening address to the county meeting on 151 July 18. George Washington had questioned the validity

of a petition as early as 1769, when he started leaning 152 favorably toward economic boycott. However, when the

Fairfax resolves were adopted, also on July 18, there was 153 included a resolve for the Congress to petition the King.

This was the only county to specifically propose the

measure. Why it was included is not difficult to deter­ mine. There were some powerful conservative families in

the county. Conservative Bryan Fairfax, whose family friendship Washington valued, favored a petition, but with the logical understanding that more severe measures

such as nonimportation would be withheld. Their simul­ taneous presence, he wrote Washington on July 17, would reflect inconsistency and "destroy the very intention of 154 [the petition]." Although the resolves were prepared ahead of time and pushed through the meeting by the lead­ ing gentry, there were present a number of individuals who tended to favor a petition or less aggressive meas- 155 ures than nonimportation. The resolve was the last response in the county resolves, as though it was added by a moderate-liberal majority to placate the more timid and conservative. Washington, who served as chairman of

the county committee and shared the leadership of the county with George Mason, felt the whole resolve "might

as well have been expunged." He did support it, however, with the understanding that nonimportation would not be

"retarded by it. . . . _

The most serious individual effort made for a pet­

ition came from the King's Attorney, John Randolph.

Randolph felt a public declaration denouncing the destruc­

tion of the tea at Boston was necessary.

This will evince our Uprightness. . . . Then let us petition his Majesty, assure him of our inviolable Attachment to his person and Government, and implore his Royal Interposi­ tion in procuring a Repeal of those Acts which have excited such an Alarm amongst us. . . . This . . . will obtain a Redress of our Grievances. . . . Randolph, for the reasons of ethics and justice in paying debts, rejected nonintercourse as damaging to merchants who were "innocent men . . .” in the struggle for rights.158

There was another conservative response which would receive little attention in the August Convention. The all inclusive resolves of Fairfax County ambiguously recommended to pay for the tea destroyed at Boston. Pay­ ment was not to be considered a solution to the crises, however. On the contrary, it was to be offered only after the oppressive acts were repealed, and then, only if the tea party was judged as an unwarranted attack bn private 159 property. Fairfax, Hanover and Middlesex Counties held reservations on the wisdom of destroying the tea.188

Middlesex explicitly stated disapproval of the destruction.

All three contended, however, that the act did not warrant the response it got. "Violence cannot justify Violence," resolved Middlesex.181

The last response to be considered was never explicit­ ly stated on the local level in the spring and summer of

1774, but was so implied, as has been shown, as to leave little doubt of its growing presence. This response, contrary to the conservative nature of the other two least recommended positions, was definitely radical. Strongly supporting the right of self government, it rejected any claim of parliamentary rights in colonial matters. The 123 most articulate representative of the position in 1774 was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson composed his Summary

View to be presented to the August Convention as a posi­ tion paper. In the essay he questioned the right of

Parliament to any authority over the colonies. Jeffer­ son attacked taxes for commercial regulation as well as 162 the more common concern of taxes for raising revenue.

He later wrote that he had considered the only tenable constitutional position was "having the same executive 163 chief, but no other necessary political connection. ..."

The ideas were definitely reminiscent of those recorded by Richard Bland in his Inquiry in 1766, but carried the constitutional argument over self government to its ultimate conclusion.

Thomson Mason, brother of George Mason and a rep­ resentative from Loudon County, agreed with Jefferson in principle, but his approach was negative. Mason's Letters of the British American, 1774, published in Rind's

Virginia Gazette during June and July, attacked the other responses offered. To pay for the tea destroyed at Boston, providing certain acts were repealed, was "too weak and timid. ..." Nonintercourse, on the other hand, was a temporary remedy which Mason, who favored paying debts, considered "too violent, rash, and dishonourable, to be 164 adopted." The only reasonable response to British oppression, according to him, was to pointedly deny the 165 operation of all parliamentary law in the colonies.

Thus Parliament had no legislative authority in America.

Jefferson and Mason's ideas were a potential answer to the key problem confronting the colonies, the determining of their constitutional relationship to Great Britain.

III. THE AUGUST CONVENTION

The deputies to the August Convention were orig­ inally determined by the Twenty-Five in their circular let­ ter of May 30. Eligibility amounted to having been a member of the previous House of Burgesses. However, on June 17 the governor issued election writs for a new House of 166 Burgesses to convene on August 11. As a result, Peyton

Randolph, as moderator of the Twenty-Five, assumed the responsibility to issue an additional invitation to the 167 newly elected Burgesses to attend the Convention.

The Convention met on August 1, 1774 in Williamsburg.

Since Virginia was lagging behind other colonies who looked to her for leadership, the deputies felt "it imper­ ative to let the colony's position on a congress be known immediately. With Peyton Randolph presiding and following the intent of the local responses, "it was unan- 168 imously resolved . . ."to endorse a general congress.

Finding common ground regarding a congress proved to be easier than the rest of their business. No extant minutes are known to exist for the Convention, so it is difficult to determine exactly what happened. "The 125

debates were warm . . .," recorded Landon Carter from 169 what he had heard. The many variations in the local

resolves and instructions indicate such would be the

case.

After six days of deliberating, however, the

Convention emerged with an association which they, with

the exception of Thomson Mason, agreed to unanimously.

It proved to be an inclusive and flexible document, ac­

ceptable to most moderates and liberals. Only those

issues and responses with which all were in agreement or were easily compromised were adopted. Jefferson later

reflected on "the inequality of pace with which we moved,

and the Prudence required to keep front and rear to­

gether.

As one might expect, the central issue recorded in

the Association concerned the powers of Parliament and the

violation of colonial rights. Reflecting radical influ­

ence, the right of Parliament to regulate trade was

subtly questioned.

We . . . having taken under our most serious Deliberation the State of the whole Continent; find, that the present unhappy Situation of our Affairs is chiefly occasioned by certain ill advised Regulations, as well of our Trade as internal Polity, introduced by several unconstitutional Acts of the British Parlia­ ment, and, at length, attempted to be enforced by the Hand of Power.171

There were six basic responses considered by the

Convention, a general congress, nonimportation, non­

exportation, a plan of organization and enforcement, help for Boston and the radical position rejecting all parlia­ mentary rights. The first five responses were proposed in the Association. The pressing objective of the local resolves was to achieve the repeal of the Coercive Acts and other repulsive measures. To achieve this goal, some

form of immediate action was needed. An economic boycott had drawn primary attention in the counties and it was only natural that it would be considered foremost at the

Convention. Even then, agreeing on a common format for a boycott was not easy to accomplish. The Convention had

to find solutions to settle the many differences and variations which existed among the local resolves.

The response which received the greatest approval during the spring and summer was nonimportation. The

first four resolves in the Association covered the

position on nonimportation. The first resolve declared

that after November 1, 1774, nothing would be imported

froin^ Great Britain except medicine. Any goods manu­

factured in Great Britain and shipped through other

countries, including the West Indies, were also rejected.

The second resolve added slaves to the list. The third

one rejected the use of tea on hand as well as the im­

portation of any. In the fourth resolve, the Convention

declared that if any colony or Boston be forced to pay

for destroying East India Company tea, no products of

the company would be imported or purchased until all 172 payments were refunded. 127

One of the exceptions to the earlier associations was nonexportation. Since a majority of the counties had adopted it in some form, it was bound to find its way into the Association. The fifth resolve stated that un­ less grievances were redressed in the meantime, non- 173 exportation would be implemented on August 10, 1775.

This gave planters time to pay on their debts. Besides, tobacco was already under cultivation. The resolve also provided token recognition of the conservatives' and moderates' objections. William Reynolds, who unofficially attended the Convention for two days, was pleased to note

"Moderation has guided their Counsels as to postpone . . ." nonexportation. The resolve followed the middle road offered by nine of the counties which desired the post­ ponement. The raising of tobacco was discouraged in expectation of nonexportation the following year.

Compensation was made for nonimportation as well as nonexportation. Instead of tobacco, encouragement was provided in the fifth resolve for "the Cultivation of all such articles as may form a proper Basis for Manufacturers l ^ i of all Sorts. . . ." The sixth resolve, for the same 175 reason, encouraged the breeding of sheep for wool.

These encouragements were in line with the specific recom­ mendations of at least five counties who urged some combination of the raising of sheep, hemp, flax and 176 cotton. Realizing the tendency of a boycott to create 128

shortages, the Convention adopted a resolve similar to

that proposed by five counties and recommended that the

prices on goods ought to be frozen at the level they were 177 over the previous year.

The seventh resolve incorporated a plan of organiza­

tion and of enforcement for the Association. The plan was

In line with that adopted or implied by many counties as

well as the associators of 1770. County committees would 178 be chosen by those who accepted the Association. The

purpose of the committee was twofold: to correspond with

the Virginia Committee of Correspondence as necessary and

to enforce the Association, including price regulation.

Following the more detailed provisions of the Fairfax

resolves, the Convention decided in the eighth resolve to

boycott merchants who refused to sign the Association or

did not carry a certificate from their respective county

committee verifying their signature. Anyone who imported

anything contrary to the Association after November 1,

1774 was to return the merchandise or turn it over to the

county committee for storage at the importer's risk. Those

violating this measure, after fair warning by the com­ mittee, were to have their names published. Associators were obligated to ostracize them. A similar provision was made in the ninth resolve for those who failed to abide

by the nonexportation regulation, effective after August

10, 1775.179

I The fifth response, covered in the eleventh resolve, was a reply to Boston's material needs. The Convention recommended that which was already underway in many localities. Contributions were to "be collected and remitted to Boston in such Manner as may best answer so 18 0 desirable a Purpose."

The radical response, incorporating total repudia­ tion of parliamentary authority, had not been explicitly endorsed by any of the local resolves. The position was advocated by Thomas Jefferson in his Summary View and, in a round about way, by Thomson Mason in his Letters of the British American. It was appreciated by some at the

Convention, but considered "too bold for the present 18] state of things. . . .,,xox As it was, evidence indicates that neither supporter was present to defend their cause.

Jefferson had left home with the intention of pre­ senting his paper, but he became ill enroute to Williams­ burg, and had the essay X orwarde^ to P.ey ton Randolph and

Patrick Henry. It was never formally presented, but was tabled for inspection by the deputies and read in a private gathering at Randolph's home where many of the resolves were applauded. After the Convention adjourned, supporters of the position gave the paper its title and had it printed. It was later reprinted in Philadelphia 182 and England. 130

Although Thomson Mason's ideas had already been in print, his poor health, lack of initiative and unbending convictions hindered their furtherance. His convictions kept him from signing the Association. "All signed but

[Thomson] Mason and because with all his Patriotism he was against any nonimportation Scheme at all he would not sign," sardonically recorded Landon Carter on hear- 183 ing of the Association. According to one source,

Mason refused to attend the Convention, having anticipated 184 the adoption of a boycott.

In the summer of 1774, few in Virginia were con­ sciously ready to look beyond the immediate threat of the

Coercive Acts and consider as first priority a revision of the constitutional relationship of the colonies to

Great Britain. Most were satisfied to accept the trad­ itional position with some clarification: Parliament had the right to regulate trade but not to interfere with internal matters. Despite the unreadiness of Virginians to accept a radical constitutional position, many coun­ ties, by agitating for local sovereignty, justifying extra-legal action and emphasizing natural rights unwit­ tingly implied acceptance or at least had laid the ground­ work for it. Edmund Randolph later maintained that

Virginia came into the Convention following the dictates of John Dickinson (The Pennsylvania Farmer) and bowing

"to the external taxation of parliament. ..." This 131 position, especially among the younger members, was shaken by Jefferson; "the old required time for considera- 185 tion. ..." Local activity in Virginia during the spring and summer of 1774 had lent itself to a radical position, yet .to be fully realized. Jefferson had gone to the very root of the problem. He had been influenced by Virginia's tradition and reliance on self determina­ tion as well as his own scholarship.

While adhering to the unilateral action, the Con­ vention left the door open for Congress to adopt its own position representative of the whole continent. The tenth resolve read: "Being fully persuaded that the united

Wisdom of the Genral Congress may emprove these our

Endeavours to preserve the Rights and Liberties in Brit- IB 6 ish America, we decline enlarging at present. ..."

Virginia's leaders were not seeking continental leader­ ship nor a staunch independent position. The appeal was

fo£ intercolonial cooperation. _ _

Comparing the resolves of the dissolved Burgesses on May 27 and the Virginia Association in August, reveals a definite movement in the positions adopted by

the Convention. The movement had resulted primarily due

to the input from the local level during June and July.

First, the Convention was recognized as having authority 187 delegated from the people. The deputies were still cautious, however, due to the many variations in the 132

local resolves. Committing only themselves to the

agreement, they decided to recommend it "to all Qentle-

men, Merchants, Traders, and other Inhabitants o£ this

Colony. . . . "188

With one clarification, the issues were the same.

They included the parliamentary violation of self govern­

ment, taxation through representatives and the violation

of liberties resulting from the Coercive Acts. The

Convention, however, had moved toward a radical position

in questioning the right of Parliament to regulate trade.

The responses also experienced some changes as a

result of local activity. The Convention greatly extended

nonimportation to include all British goods. The dis­

solved Burgesses on May 27 had restricted the measure

to "any kind of East India commodity whatosever, except 189 saltpetre and spices. . . ." Richard Henry Lee and

his liberal allies' attempt to introduce nonexportation

in opposition to the Coercive Acts was compromised in

favor of the moderates. Nonexportation was delayed a

year. The Convention's decisions on nonintercourse did

not necessarily originate at the local level. The

Twenty-Five, responding to the news of the Boston Port

Act and actions taken elsewhere, accurately predicted

"that an Association against Importation will probably

be entered into, as soon as the late Representatives

can be collected, and perhaps against Exportations also

i 133 190 after a certain Time." The local level, led by the county gentry, confirmed what was already in the minds of the colony's legislative leaders. The appeal by the dissolved Burgesses in May for intercolonial cooperation

through a congress was also confirmed by the local resolves. Virginians were greatly concerned, as local responses indicate, over their security and the weak­ nesses of the 1769 and 1770 boycotts. Intercolonial

cooperation would provide mutual support and a common boycott with greater impact.

Seven delegates for the Congress were chosen by ballot on August 5. Fourteen names were nominated from

the deputies, including Thomson Mason and Thomas Jeffer­

son. Since it is likely neither of the two were present

at the Convention, it is a further indication that their

radical positions on parliamentary authority received

support. A two-thirds majority was required to be elected.

Five nominees received the two-thirds vote on the first ballot, but all fourteen were still included in the

second ballot. Those who received the highest number of votes the first time did so the second. The votes varied

enough, however, so that seven were elected by the

required two-thirds majority. The seven chosen rep­

resented a fair spectrum of moderate and liberal Whigs,

as well as being among the key leaders in the colony in

1774. They were, in order of most votes received, 134

Peyton Randolph, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington,

Patrick Henry, Richard Bland, Benjamin Harrison and Edmund 193 Pendleton.

The formal instructions to the delegates offer a summary of two months of debate, refinement and consolida­ tion. They were definitely representative of local resolves. Included first was a paragraph assuring loyalty to the king and "a constitutional Connexion with Great

Britain. . . Next came a statement of the issues, including the revenue measures and the'Coercive Acts.

The major point of concern in the issues was the violation of representative government.

The original Constitution of the American Colonies possessing their Assemblies with the sole Right of directing their internal Polity, it is ab­ solutely destructive of the End of their Institu­ tion that their Legislatures should be suspended, or prevented, by hasty Dissolutions, from exer­ cising their legislative Powers.195

Parliamentary acts regulating commerce were accepted in return for the protection the system^offered the colonies.

Acknowledging protection as the only grounds for justify­ ing the acts, the instructions stated "we have Reason to expect they will be restrained so as to produce the 196 reasonable Purposes of Britain, and not injurious to us."

With this statement a dispute over parliamentary rights, as such, was avoided. The delegates were to tolerate the regulation of commerce more as a privilege granted

Parliament than a right, which was beneficial to both 135 countries. This came dangerously close to Jefferson's radical position. Obviously, taxes for raising revenue were not to be condoned.

Following the statement of the issues were listed the positions the delegates were to support. They were instructed to defend nonimportation and nonexportation as presented in the Association. The instructions made it clear what Virginians, in order "to obtain [a] Redress of these Grievances . . ., are willing to undergo. ..."

The delegates were ordered to withhold on implementing nonexportation until the following fall, but to "co­ operate with our Sister Colonies . . ." in the other 197 methods deemed necessary. Economic coercion in gen- 198 eral was considered a foredrawn conclusion. The instructions closed with the ominous warning that if

General Gage's autocratic rule in Massachusetts persisted, 19 9 it "will justify Resistance and Reprisal." The posi­ tion taken by Virginia in the summer of 1774 was a moderately liberal one. The colony took a firm, defensive stand on the issues in order to preserve rights and lib­ erties and protect provincial interests and traditions.

There was no offensive or radical decision to achieve a drastic change in the constitutional relationship with the mother country.

What placed the Old Dominion in a position of prom­ inence in revolutionary affairs in 1774 was her internal

i 136 polity and her age, size and prestige among the colonies

Virginia was respected. Internally, the security of the

Virginia social order was protected by an operative sym­ biotic relationship between the aristocratic leadership of the House of Burgesses and the county gentry on the one hand, and the enfranchised freeholders on the other. The former Burgesses needed the sentiments of the gentry— led local level to assure them of their authority and to guide their decisions on the responses. In turn, they were recognized by their constituents as the duly chosen lead­ ers of the colony. Under this leadership of the aris­ tocracy, who felt their own institutions threatened,

Virginians systematically and democratically organized to sustain provincial unity and counter the threat to her interests and traditions. The responses from the local levels were molded into a concise position and plan in the

Convention. This united front proved to be in contrast with New York's mixed response. Democratic procedure had proven operative in Virginia. When the Continental Con­ gress convened, the circumstances permitted the Virginia delegates to be in a unique position for leadership. 137

FOOTNOTES

*See the minutes of the meetings in Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 111-168. 2 See his American Revolutionaries, 66. 3 Kennedy, Journals of Burgesses, 1773-1776, 73.

4Ibid., 39.

5Ibid., 73.

^Hunter Dickinson Farish, ed., Journal and Letters of Philip Vickers Fithian, 1773-1774, 59. 7 Kennedy, Journals of Burgesses, 1773-1776, 144-145. Q Lee to Samuel Adams, May 8, 1774, Ballagh, Letters of Lee, I, 110. Also see Purdie and Dixon's Virginia Gazette, May 5, 1774.

9 Sydnor, American Revolutionaries, 89-90; and Jack P. Greene, "Foundations of Political Power in the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1720-1776," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XVI, 498.

10Kennedy, Journals of Burgesses, 1773-1776, 84-85.

^William Waller Hening, ed., Statutes at Large, Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia, VIII, 515-516.

12 William Reynolds to George Norton, June 3, 1774, and Reynolds to Samuel Rogers, July 12, 1774, William Reynolds Letterbook, Library of Congress (microfilm). 13 Kennedy, Journals of Burgesses, 1773-1776, 84-85 and 90; and George Washington to George William Fairfax, June 10, 1774, Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington, III, 223 and 225.

14 Kennedy, Journals of Burgesses, 1773-1776, 76.

i 138

15 David John Mays, ed., The Letters and Papers of Edmund Pendleton, 1734-1803, I, 85. Also see David John Mays, Edmund Pendleton, 1721-1803: A Biography, 244-248.

^Mason to Martin Cockburn, May 26, 1774, Robert A. Rutland, ed., The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, I, 190. For a similar view see George Washington to George William Fairfax, June 10, 1774, Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington, III, 223.

17 Ballagh, Letters of Lee, I, 110.

18 Rutland, Papers of Mason, I, 190.

19 Jefferson, Autobiography, 24.

20 Mason to Martin Cockburn, May 26, 1774, Rutland, Papers of Mason, I, 190.

2 'L0 n May 19, 1774, Purdie and Dixon printed a brief summary of the Act, pending in Parliament, in their Gazette. Warnings of what to expect had appeared in the Gazette on May 12. The bill was published in full in the May 26 edition.

22Force, Archives, 4, I, 340.

23 Jefferson, Autobiography, 24. Also see the edi­ torial comments in Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolu­ tionary Virginia, I, 93-94; and Dumas Malone, Jefferson the Virginian,“Vol. I of Jefferson and His Time, 172.

24 Force, Archives, 4, I, 340.

25 Kennedy, Journals of Burgesses, 1773-1776, 124. 2fi Lee to Samuel Adams, June 23, 1774, Ballagh, Letters of Lee, I, 111. Also see Lee to Arthur Lee, June 26, 1774, Ibid., 114-115, and 115 n. for the resolves.

27 Pendleton to Joseph Chew, June 20, 1774, Mays, Papers of Pendleton, I, 93.. Washington held a similar view. See George Washington to George William Fairfax, June 10, 1774, Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington, III, 224. Also see James Parker to Charles Steuart, June 17, 1774, Steuart, "Letters from Virginia," 153. 139

28 Ballagh, Letters of Lee, I, 115 n. og Lee to Samuel Adams, June 23, 1774, Ibid, 111-112.

30Ibid., 111. qi Washington to George William Fairfax, June 10, 1774, Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington, III, 223.

33Kennedy, Journals of Burgesses, 1773-1776, 132.

3 3 Force, Archives, 4, I, 352.

34Ibid., 350; Jefferson, Autobiography, 24; and edi­ torial comments, Van Schreeven and Scribner,Revolutionary Virginia, I, 96.

3 5 Lee to Sam Adams, June 23, 1774, Ballagh, Letters of Lee, 1, 112*

36Ibid.

3^Kennedy, Journals of Burgesses, 1773-1776, 67-68; and Association of May 27, 1774, Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 96 and 98.

38Ibid., 97.

38Ibid., 98.

48Jefferson to Archibald Cary and Benjamin Harrison, December 9, 1774, Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, I, 154.

41Parker to Charles Steuart, June 17, 1774, Steuart, "Letters from Virginia," 153.

A 9 Force, Archives, 4, I, 340. Also see Richard Henry Lee to Samuel Adams, April 24, 1774, Ballagh, Letters of Lee, I, 107.

43Association of May 27, 1774, Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 97-98. 140

44 Kennedy, Journals of Burgesses, 1773-1776, 138.

45Editorial comments, Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 96.

^Richard Henry Lee to Arthur Lee, June 26, 1774, Ballagh, Letters of Lee, I, 116. The correspondence from Maryland consisted of letters from the Baltimore and Annapolis town meetings. For all the correspondence see Kennedy, Journals of Burgesses, 1773-1776, 145-149? and Van Schreeven and Scribner, The Committees and the Second Convention, 1773-1775; A Documentary Record, Vol. II of Revolutionary Virginia, 75-81.

A *1 Minutes of Twenty-Five, Ibid., I, 99; and Force, Archives, 4, I, 351.

48 Kennedy, Journals of Burgesses, 1773-1776, 148.

49Ibid.

50Ibid., 149.

51 Ibid., 145-146; and Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, II, 80-81.

52 Kennedy, Journals of Burgesses, 1773-1776, 147.

53 The source is a circular letter from the Twenty- Five to the rest of the former Burgesses. It is dated May~31, 1774 and is found in Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 101-102. Also see the brief minutes of the Twenty-Five in Ibid., 99-100; and Richard Henry Lee to Arthur Lee, June 26, 1774, Ballagh, Letters of Lee, I, 116.

54 Circular letter, May 31, 1774, Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 102.

55 Jefferson, Autobiography, 25.

56The most complete collection of these Virginia documents is in Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 111-168, and II, 87-97. With a few exceptions, most of the documents are also found scattered in Force, 141

Archives, 4, I, 370-644. Since most of them were ordered published, the newspapers are the best contemporary sources. See Rind's Virginia Gazette for June, July and August, 1774; and Purdie and Dixon's Gazette for the same period.

57 Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 122-123 and 135-136.

58Ibid., 118-120, 145-149 and 150-152.

59Ibid., 155-156 and 163-165.

8®Madison to William Bradford, July 1, 1774, William T. Hutchinson and William M. E. Rachel, eds., The Papers • of James Madison, I, 115. Also see editorial comments in Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 109.

^Reynolds to George Norton, August 18, 1774, Reynolds Letterbook.

62 Kennedy, Journals of Burgesses, 1773-1776, 150.

63 Alexander Committee to Virginia Committee of Correspondence via Dumfries, May 29, 1774, Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, II, 87-88.

64Ibid., 88.

65 Dumfries Committee to Virginia Committee via Fredericksburg, May 31*^1774, Ibid. ,..92. ..

66Ibid., 92-93.

67 Fredericksburg Committee to Peyton Randolph, June 1, 1774, Ibid., 96.

68 For the resolves see Ibid., I, 149.

69 Minutes of the meeting are in Ibid., II, 89.

70 Norfolk and Portsmouth Joint Committee to Inhab­ itants of Charleston, S.C., May 31, 1774, Ibid., 94. Also see the Joint Committee to Baltimore Committee, June 2, 1774, Ibid., 111-112. 142

71Ibid., I, 120.

72His letter was printed in both Rind's and Purdie and Dixon's Gazettes, June 30, 1774.

Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, II, 130-133, 139-141, 142-143 and 144-145. ;

74Ibid., I, 120, 153 and 158.

75Ibid., 111, 118, 123, 127, 149, 162 and 165.

76 Jack P. Greene, ed., The Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778, II, 821-822.

77 Ibid., 842; and Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 155.

78 For the notice of the meeting and the acknowledg­ ment by the late representatives see Ibid., II, 134.

79 Mason to Martin Cockburn, May 26, 1774, Rutland, Papers of Mason, I, 191.

80 Association of May 27, 1774, Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 98.

81 Editorial comments, Rutland, Papers of Mason, I, 192-193 and 209.

82The counties included Accomack, Buckingham, Caro­ line, Chesterfield, Culpepper, Winwiddie, Elizabeth City, Essex, Fairfax, Gloucester, Hanover, Middlesex, Nansemond, New Kent, Prince George, Spotsylvania, Surry and York. Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 111, 113, 114, 116, 119, 120, 124, 125, 133, 137, 140, 143, 145, 147, 150-151, 158, 162 and 167.

83Ibid., 129.

84Ibid.,. 141.

85Ibid., 127-129. 143 8 6 Force, Archives, 4, 1, 686. Also see Carl Briden- baugh, Myths and Realities; Societies-of the Colonial South, 15-17 and 51-52; and Sydnor, American Revolution" aries, 60-73.

87 Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, 1, 115.

"ibid., 117-118. Also see the Stafford County resolves, Ibid., 159-160.

89Ibid., 153

90 Ibid., 166. Also see the Nansemond and Prince George resolves, Ibid., 146 and 152.

91Ibid., 253-254.

92 Albert Ogden Porter, County Government in Virginia: A Legislative History, 1607-1904, 101.

93 For a history of the relationship between colonial governors and their assemblies see Leonard Woods Labaree, Royal Government in America: A Study of the British Colonial System before 1783, 172-311. Labaree has shown that tension between the two branches increased as the power of the assemblies grew during the 18th century. Also see Sydnor, American Revolutionaries, 86-87; and J. R. Pole, "Historians and the Problems of Early American Democracy," 636-637. - g . — - — -- See the Gloucester and New Kent Counties resolves, Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 137-138 and 147-149.

95 Ibid., 111. Also see the resolves of Caroline, Chesterfield, Dunmore, Frederick, Hanover and New Kent Counties, Ibid., 115, 117, 122, 135, 139 and 147.

96 Fauquier County resolves, Ibid., 134. For other examples see the resolves of Buckingham, Culpeper, Glou­ cester and Surry, Ibid., 113, 119, 137 and 162. Fauquier adopted its resolves on July 9. The words quoted are amazingly similar to those in the Prince William resolves. Ibid., 153, indicating George Mason's influence was widespread in northwestern Virginia.

I 144 J

97Ibid., 112-113.

98 Ibid., 143-144. Also see the resolves of Glou­ cester, Spotsylvania and York, Ibid., 138, 158 and 167.

99 Dunmore resolves, Ibid., 122.

*°°See the correspondence of the Massachusetts Committee to the Virginia Committee of Correspondence, June 4, 1774, Ibid., II, 113; and Douglas Southall Free­ man, Planter and Patriot, Vol. Ill of George Washington; A Biography, 358-359. Several of the other counties that made specific mention of the different acts were Buck­ ingham, Caroline, Chesterfield, Dinwiddie and Fairfax, Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 113, 115, 117, 121 and 129-130.

101Ibid., 140. i n? Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington, III, 231. For Washington's views on debts and exporting in the summer of 1774, see Ibid., 234.

103 For illustrations, see the resolves of Accomack and Stafford Counties, Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 112 and 159.

^■9^See the resolves of Chesterfield, Fauquier and Norfolk, Ibid., 118, 135 and 149.

^■99See the resolves of Buckingham, Dinwiddie, Essex and- Westmoreland, IbidT, 114, 121, 127 and 164T

106Ibid., 111-112. For Dinwiddie see 122.

107Ibid., 144-145.

108 The nine counties were Chesterfield, Elizabeth City, Fairfax, Nansemond, Norfolk, Prince George, Prince William, Princess Anne and Stafford, Ibid., 118, 124, 132-133, 147, 150, 152, 153, 154 and 160-161.

109 The counties included Caroline, Culpeper, Nanse­ mond, Prince George and Princess Anne, Ibid., 116, 119, 146, 151 and 154. 145

*10lbid., 132. Also see the resolves of Hanover County, Ibid., 140.

111See the resolves of Caroline, Dunmore, Essex, Fairfax, Frederick, Gloucester, Richmond and Westmore­ land, Ibid., 115, 123, 126, 130, 136, 138, 156 and 164.

112 These counties included Albemarle, Chester­ field, Culpeper, Dunmore, Fairfax, Frederick, Gloucester, Middlesex, Norfolk, Richmond and Westmoreland, Ibid., 112, 117, 119, 123, 131, 136, 138, 145, 149, 156 and 164.

113 They were Henrico, Princess Anne and York, Ibid., 142, 154 and 167.

^■■^The counties were Albemarle, Dunmore, Elizabeth City, Essex, Fairfax, Fauquier, Frederick, Gloucester, Henrico, James City, New Kent, Norfolk, Prince William, Princess Anne, Richmond, Spotsylvania, Stafford, Surry, Westmoreland and York, Ibid., 112, 123, 124, 125, 131, 134, 136, 138, 142, 143, 148, 149, 153, 154, 155-156, 159, 160, 162, 163 and 168.

115Ibid., 112 and 132.

116Ibid., 168.

Speech by Nelson at York Meeting, July 18, 1774, Ibid., 166; and James Parker to Charles Steuart, June 17, 1774, Steuart, "Letters from Virginia," 153. lift Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Vir­ ginia, I, 140.

119Ibid., 144-145.

120Ibid., 111-112 and 122.

121 The six counties were Buckingham, Caroline, Chesterfield, Culpeper, Nansemond and Prince George, Ibid., 114, 115,,117, 119, 140 and 151.

122 The three counties were Essex, St afford and Westmoreland, Ibid., 125, 160 and 163.

i 146

123Ibid., 154.

124Ibid., 155-156.

125Ibid., 132. 1_2£ They were Buckingham, Caroline, Chesterfield, Culpeper, Fairfax, Hanover, Nansemond, Prince George, Princess Anne and York, Ibid., 114, 115-116, 117, 119, 130- 131, 140, 146, 151-152, 154, and 168.

127 These counties were Albemarle, Buckingham, Caro­ line, Chdsterfield, Culpeper, Dunmore, Elizabeth City, Essex, Fairfax, Frederick, Gloucester, Hanover, Henrico, Nansemond, New Kent, Norfolk, Prince George, Princess Anne, Richmond, Westmoreland and York, Ibid., 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 130 and 132, 136, 138, 140, 142, 147, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 164 and 166-167. 1 20 The eleven were Culpeper, Dunmore, Essex, Fair­ fax, Frederick, Henrico, Nansemond, New Kent, Prince George, Princess Anne and Westmoreland, Ibid., 119, 123, 125, 132, 136, 142, 146, 148, 151, 154 and 163.

129 Ibid., 138. The other counties were Buckingham, Caroline, Hanover and Richmond, Ibid., 114, 115, 140 and 156.

^■3®Madison to William Bradford, July 1, 1774, Hutchinson and Rachal, Papers of Madison, I, 115.

133 " Fithian to Samuel Fithian, June 8, 1774, Farish, Journals and Letters of Fithian, 117.

132 Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Vir­ ginia, I, 140.

Mason to Richard Henry Lee, June 7, 1770, Rut­ land, Papers of Mason, I, 116-118. Mason had suggested the committee system for enforcement* Mason to George Washington, April 5, 1769 and April 23, 1769, Ibid., 99-103; and Washington to Mason, April 5, 1769, Fitz­ patrick, Writings of Washington, II, 500-504. 147

135 Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Vir­ ginia, I, 80. The Association is also found in Rutland, Papers of Mason, I, 120-124.

136 Mason to [George Brent?], December 6, 1770, Ibid., 128. Also see George Washington to Jonathan Boucher, July 30, 1770# Fitzpatrick, Writings of Wash­ ington , II, 21-22; M[artha] Jacquelin to John Norton, August 14, 1769, "Norton Correspondence," III, 292; and Greene, Diary of Carter, I, 418-529. For brief dis­ cussions of the wane' of the earlier assocations see Arthur M. Schlesinger, The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution, 1763-1776, 197-199; and Maier, Resistance to Revolution, 119-120.

137 Mason to [George Brent?], December 6, 1770, Rutland, Papers of Mason, I, 128.

138Ibid.

139 For evidence of Mason's role in the writing of the resolves see John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Diaries of George Washington, 1748-1799, II, 156 and 157, n., Washington to Bryan Fairfax, July 20, 1774, Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington, III, 230; editorial comments in Rutland, Papers of Mason, I, 200; Freeman, Washington, III, 362; and Curtis P. Nettels, George Washington and American Independence, 90.

340Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Vir­ ginia, I, 131.

141Ibid., 132.

i i A Ammerman, Common Cause, 86; editorial comments in Rutland, Papers of Mason, I, 199-200; and Nettels, Washington and Independence, 90-92.

143Ibid., 191.

144Besides Fairfax County there was Dunmore and Frederick. See Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 123, 133 and 136. All three counties ap­ pointed” committees.

^45Ibid., 150; Ibid., II, 89; and Eckenrode, Revolution in Virginia, 44. 148

*^8Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Vir- c^lni^f I; 161*

1 A 7 See the resolves of Fauquier, Gloucester and Westmoreland, Ibid., 134, 138 and 164.

148 The seven included Elizabeth City, Essex, Fairfax, James City, Stafford, Surry and York, Ibid., 124, 126, 130, 143, 161, 162 and 168.

148 These counties were Chesterfield, Fauquier, Hen­ rico, New Kent, Norfolk and Princess Anne, Ibid., 118, 135, 142, 149, 150 and 154.

They were New Kent, Norfolk and Princess Anne, Ibid., 149, 150 and 154.

151Ibid., 166.

152 Washington to George Mason, April 5, 1769, Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington, II, 501.

153 Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 133.

*5^Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington, III, 233 n. For a brief discussion of the conflict between the two men see Freemen, Washington, III, 359-360. 155 Washington to Bryan Fairfax^ July 20, 1774, Fitzpatrick, Writings ol: Washington,' III, 231; and Nettels, Washington and Independence, 90

188Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington, III, 233. Also see Freeman, Washington, III, 364-365.

157 John Randolph, "Considerations on the Present State of Virginia," Van Schreeven, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 213-214.

158Ibid., 215.

159Ibid., 130.

160ibid., 1291 139 and 144.

I 149

161Ibid., 144.

^®2See his "Summary View," Ibid., 244-249.

163 Jefferson, Autobiography, 25.

^■^Thomson Mason, "The British American, Number IX," Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 194. The extant latters, IV through IX, are printed in Ibid., 170-203. They are also found scattered in Force, Archives, 4, I, 418-654.

165T. Mason, "Number IX," Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 193-203.

166 Force, Archives, 4, I, 419; and Richard Henry Lee to Samuel Adams, June 23, 1774, Ballagh, Letters of Lee, I, 113. The House did not meet on August 11, but was continually prorogued until June 1, 1775. See Kennedy, Journals of Burgesses, 1773-1776, 165-174.

167 Purdie and Dixon's Gazette, June 30, 1774.

168 Notice of endorsement, Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 224.

169 Greene, Diary of Carter, II, 847.

170 Force, Archives, 4, I, 690 n.

~ 171 — ' The Virginia Convention Association of August, 1774, Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 231.

172Ibid., 232-233.

173Ibid., 233.

175 Ibid. For the Fairfax resolves see Ibid., 131.

176 See the resolves of Culpeper, Fairfax, Nansemond, Prince George and Princess Anne, Ibid., 119, 131, 146, 151 and 154. 150

177 Association of August, 1774, Ibid., 233. The five counties were Elizabeth City, Essex, Fairfax, Richmond and Westmoreland, Ibid., 124, 126, 131, 156 and 164.

■^^Association of August, 1774, Ibid., 233.

179Ibid., 234.

180Ibid. i fli Jefferson, Autobiography, 26. Also see Force, Archives, 4, I, 690 n.; and Malone, Jefferson the Virginian, 181-183.

^8^Jefferson, Autobiography, 25-26; Edmund Randolph, "Essay on the Revolutionary History of Virginia, 1774- 1782," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XLIII, 216; Malone, Jefferson the Virginian, 180-183; and the editorial comments in Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolu­ tionary Virginia, I, 240-242. Jefferson did not title his paper.

183 Greene, Diary of Carter, II, 848. Also see the editorial comments m Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolu­ tionary Virginia, I, 170, for other references to Mason's personality as well as his poor health and lack of initiative.

184Ibid. TBS - Randolph, "Essay on Revolutionary Virginia," 216.

TO g Association of August, 1774, Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 234.

187Ibid., 231.

188Ibid., 232.

*89Association of May 27, 1774, Ibid., 97.

i *98Minutes of Twenty-Five, Ibid., 100.

191 Tabulation of votes on the election of delegates, Ibid., 228. 151

192Ibid.

193Ibid., 228 and 229.

194 Instructions for the Delegates, Ibid., 237.

195ibia.

196Ibid., 238.

197Ibid.

1QD Credentials of the Delegates, in Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 25. i 199 Instructions for the Delegates, Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 238-239.

200Tyler, "Leadership of Virginia," Part III, 237. Tyler overemphasizes Virginia's initiative in inter­ colonial leadership, but he is accurate in supporting the statesmanlike conduct of Virginians as an inspiration to others. CHAPTER V

THE RESPONSE OF THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS

Congress was confronted with two fundamental prob­ lems when it convened in September, 1774. The first was concerned with developing an immediate plan for preventing the violation of rights and liberties (created by the Coer­ cive Acts) while concurrently achieving a repeal of these and offending revenue measures. This problem included obtaining immediate help for the material relief of Boston.

The other problem was the growing need to go beyond a treatment of the symptoms, indicative of the response to the first problem, and dealt with the cause of ten years of conflict between the colonies and the mother country.

A permanent constitutional settlement was considered necessary in which rights^nd liberties” would be restored and reconciliation achieved. This problem, the more com­ prehensive of the two, was rooted in confusion over the constitutional relationship of Great Britain to her colonies. That many colonists were aware of this con­ fusion is illustrated in the pamphlets written by William

Smith, Jr. and Richard Bland during the sixties. The question both men struggled with was how to resolve the

152

i X53 problem and provide an answer as to what the constitution

"ought to be."^ Smith's ideas, generally acceptable to conservatives and many New York moderates, granted Parlia­ ment and colonists basic rights in a revised constitu­ tional plan of union. It was not necessarily a conser­ vative solution for it necessitated change in the politi­ cal structure relating the colonies to England, but it did retain an established, mercantilistic practice, assuring

Parliament of control over colonial trade. Many colon­ ists simply wanted to protect this tradition, having found benefit in it. Under the circumstances in 1774, a plan like Smith's would seem to offer a better, more permanent alternative than a boycott of trade. Bland, on the other hand, although assuring Parliament of its power, had come dangerously close to denying that power on behalf of local sovereignty. Thomas Jefferson had carried the idea to its logical conclusion. The issue around which much debate had focused in the colonies and would inten­ sify in Congress was the extent of Parliamentary authority or rights, especially over the regulation of trade.

Answers to the two basic problems were not incom­ patible. The differences which existed among the colonies were over priority: which should come first, developing a new constitutional arrangement or solving the immediate crises created by the Coercive Acts. This difference is evident in contrasting New York and Virginia. The two 154 colonies had had to contend with both problems during the spring and summer. The New York Fifty-One, controlled by the moderates, with pressures from liberals and conser­ vatives, had given priority to achieving a conciliatory, permanent constitutional solution, but had developed no plan to offer Congress. The right of Parliament to regu- * late trade had not been questioned by moderate New Yorkers, nor for that matter, liberals. The Fifty-One was reluctant to agree to a nonimportation agreement, except as a last resort, but did consider the relief of Boston as requir- ing immediate attention. Nevertheless, New York City liberals had achieved an equivocal statement in support of nonimportation from four of the city's delegates. New # York City’s conservative merchants believed a boycott would only tend to further alienate, not reconcile. They insisted any economic sanction be enforced to prevent smuggling. Smugglers avoided the duties resulting from regulation and thus benefited from illicit trade. They could undersell the fair traders who genuinely accepted parliamentary regulation and paid the duties. A con­ servative alternative to a boycott was a petition from the Assembly to the king, but it had received minimal support in the Colony since the Assembly was not in ses­ sion and extra-legal activity was not unified.

The Virginia Convention had granted priority to achieving a response to the immediate crises. Their

Association was suggested as a plan for this purpose. On the second problem, determining a permanent consti­ tutional settlement, they did not officially adopt any plan, but many members of the Convention had been impressed by Jefferson's radical ideas for a position rejecting all parliamentary authority. The Convention, moving in a radical direction, had conceded, with a firm warning for caution, the privilege of Parliament to tax for the purpose of regulating trade.

The eventual adoption by Congress of some form of economic sanction to solve the first and more pressing problem appeared inevitable, even among the conservatives.

In August, William Pitzhugh, Commissary for Maryland, wrote, "there is no doubt of their coming into a general

Non Importation from Great Britain, and it is generally

Believed, they will also resolve on a Non Exportation to 3 Great Britain and West Indies." As the Congress opened,

Benjamin Booth received word that with nine out of ten delegates favoring nonimportation it was expected to 4 pass. Most of the debates in Congress over noninter­ course hinged on the extent of it and the grievances which had to be redressed before it would be revoked.

An acceptable solution to the second problem, achieving a permanent, constitutional settlement, was not found. Since resolving the problem was considered a primary objective by the conservatives, including New York moderates, the failure to achieve an answer indicates that consensus on the problem was not attained. Congress became weighed down in debates over the extent of parlia­ mentary authority in the colonies. Although an answer to Parliament authority was eventually adopted, it was not to everyone's agreement. A direct attempt for a perman­ ent constitutional plan of unification, led by Joseph

Galloway and James Duane, fell short due to two reasons.

One was the concern over provincial interests. The other was the successful attempt of liberals, including Vir­ ginia moderates, in directing the Congress to concentrate on adopting immediate measures in the form of a boycott to achieve a redress of grievances. Even if a plan had been accepted, it is probable that it would have been given little consideration by the government, but it may have provided for an extended dialogue, leading to an eventual revision of the constitution for the colonies.

Due to the current alienation, however, serious com­ munications over revising the constitution would have been a long time, if ever, in coming. If New York and Vir­ ginia are any indication, these debates over a permanent constitutional settlement, as well as those over a method for resolving the immediate threat, had their origins in provincial interests and traditions as much if not more than in doctrinaire differences between liberals and conservatives. As the delegates worked to resolve the two basic problems, the positions determined in New York and Vir­ ginia directly influenced the activities and decisions of the Congress. Consideration is given to four areas of activity in Congress. This reveals the impact of provincial positions, interests and traditions. The first two areas considered are: 1) the dynamics of a pro­ longed period during which the delegates became acquainted with each others', and 2) the debates over the voting procedure to be used in Congress. The other two areas are concerned with the responses to the problems them­ selves. They include 3) the debates over the constitu­ tional relationship of the colonies with Great Britain, and 4) the debates over the extent and nature of non­ intercourse. The debates over the constitutional rela­ tionship are concerned with achieving a permanent settle­ ment, and include the heated discussion over rights, in­ cluding the regulation of trade, and the response to

Galloway's "Plan of Union."

In order to deal effectively with these four areas and their subdivisions, they are discussed topically and, where feasible, in the order they first received atten­ tion in Congress. The exception is Galloway's "Plan of

Union." The Plan was introduced in Congress on September 1 28, during the debates over nonintercourse and following the initial discussion of rights in early September. It

I was in part an attempt by the conservatives, including the New York moderates, to return Congress to continuing the consideration of rights and a permanent settlement.

In this study, the Plan is discussed in conjunction with the debates over rights and the regulation of trade in early September, since all three issues were related to resolving the constitutional problem. The rejection of the Plan as a viable position by the moderate and liberal

Virginians and their allies is also considered in this section. Virginia's response to the Plan was based on constitutional motives. The positive response of the

New York City delegates is discussed in the section deal- ing with nonintercourse since their support of the Plan was related to their acceptance of the boycott.

Inasmuch as Congress eventually agreed to an econ­ omic boycott as the response to the problem of how to prevent the violation of rights, consideration must be giyen to the Continental Association. The Association, was adopted to enforce the boycott. The Association and the debates leading to it reflect the effort of the New

York and Virginia delegations to fulfill the intent of their respective instructions.

I. THE PROBLEMS OF BECOMING ACQUAINTED

From the first moment of arrival in Philadelphia, the delegates had been cautiously evaluating their col­ leagues. Three weeks after Congress convened, John Adams, 159

in writing his wife, Abigail, reflected on the matter.

"Fifty gentlemen meeting together, all strangers, are not

acquainted with each other's language, ideas, views,

designs. They are therefore jealous of each other— 5 fearful, timid, skittish." Concerned about the "infinite

delays . . ."in Congress, he appeared almost overwhelmed

by the "diversity of religions, educations, manners, inter­

ests, such as it would seem almost impossible to unite in

one plan of conduct."^ Adams was not the only party aware

of provincial interests and rivalries. The Connecticut

delegation wrote Governor Trumbull on October 10 of the

desires to secure "provincial rights and interests . . .,"

which required time for becoming better acquainted. Only

by this effort, they maintained, can Congress achieve

"an united assent to the ways and means proposed for ef- 7 fecting, what all are ardently desirous of."

Everyone had their eyes on the Massachusetts dele­

gation, for their colony was the one needing immediate

relief and thus strongly advocating immediate action.

Many delegates from outside of Mew England were curious,

cautious or even distrustful of the implied radical in­

tentions of those from the Bay Colony. After all, Mas­

sachusetts men had made the initial move, the Tea Party, which brought on the present crises. Moderate Virginians,

as well as New Yorkers, had questioned the wisdom of

destroying the tea. This cautious "diplomatic" setting

handicapped the interests of the Massachusetts Yankees.

J 160

It prevented them from asserting overt leadership in

Congress. Adams, in another letter to Abigail, described the position in which the Massachusetts delegation found itself.

We have a delicate course to steer between too much activity and too much insensibility in our critical, interested situation. I flatter my­ self, however, that we shall conduct our embassy in such a manner as to merit the approbation of our country. It has taken us much time to get acquainted with the tempers, views, characters, and designs of persons, and to let them into the circumstances of our province.8

It was therefore judicious for Adams and his fellow

"embassaries" to play down the aggressive role and be patient. Even the conservative leader, Joseph Galloway, acknowledged early the modest "Behavior and Conversation

. . ."of the Bostonians, but not without the awareness of their desire "to throw out Hints, which, like Straws and Feathers, tell us from which Point of the Compass the g Wind comes."

Virginians had to satisfy their own curiosity about

Massachusetts' intentions. Although Virginia's local resolves and the Association had explicitly stated that

rights and liberties were to be preserved above all else,

they had also firmly stated the people's loyalty to the king and vehemently denied any intent of independence.

George Washington, who had earlier expressed doubts as to

the wisdom of the Boston Tea Party, was representative of

this cautious position. A disturbing letter had reached

4 him in mid September concerning Massachusetts' "Aim at total independence. . . ." The writer, a Lt. Robert

Mackenzie in the British Army at Boston, had served under

Washington in the previous war. Mackenzie was convinced the Bay Colony needed to be tempered by the "abler Heads and better Hearts . . ."of men like Washington.'1'® It was October 9 before Washington replied to Mackenzie.

During the intervening time he had witnessed several weeks of debates and activities in Congress and, with Richard

Henry Lee, had conferred with the Massachusetts delegation on the evening of September 28. To his own satisfaction,

Washington found them close to his own position.

I was involuntarily led into a short discussion of this subject by your remarks on the conduct of the Boston people, and your opinion of their wishes to set up for independency. I am as well satisfied as I can be of my existence that no such thing is desired by any thinking man in all North America; on the contrary, that it is the ardent wish of the warmest advocates for liberty, that peace and tranquility, upon constitutional grounds, may be restored, and the horrors of civil discord prevented.

The common factor between Virginians and Bostonians was the actual violation of constitutional and natural rights. Virginians had witnessed the dissolution of their assembly for considering grievances, and thus felt a real threat to their social and political institutions.

Bostonians considered themselves under a military govern­ ment, geared to force'concessions from them. It was natural for the delegates from Virginia and Masachusetts to find common ground for agreement, even though their 162 motives and immediate concerns were provincially inspired.

The New Yorkers took a more distrustful view of New

Englanders. This attitude was indicative of the long standing ideological rivalry and land disputes between

Yankees and Yorkers. The Massachusetts' delegation was exposed to the distrust and related fears when they visited New York enroute to Philadelphia. Alexander

McDougall informed them of the existing conservative political factions in New York. On faction was due in part to fears "least the levelling Spirit of the New England

Colonies should propagate itself into N. York." McDougall maintained another faction was those with "Episcopalian

Prejudices against New England." A third consisted of those who looked to the government for favors, while a fourth was made up of local merchants, concerned over the 12 impact another nonimportation measure would have. A gathering in which Philip Livingston was present proved embarrassing. Livingston wasted no words expressing his fears of what he conceived as the radical intentions of

Yankees. "There is no holding any Conversation with him.

He blusters away," John Adams recorded.

Says if England should turn us adrift we should instantly go to civil Wars among ourselves to determine which Colony should govern all the rest. Seems to dread N. Enland— the Levelling Spirit, etc. Hints were thrown out of the Goths and Vandalls— mention was made of our hanging the Quakers. . . .13

i 163

Following the announcement of the Continental Association, in October, Lt. Governor Colden concluded that the mer­ chants would generally oppose nonimportation and the farmers nonexportation. Relying on a history of tradi­ tional rivalry to convince others of his position, Colden treated as fact the supposition that the economic boycott was the "extravagant and dangerous measures of the New 14 England Governments. . . ."

The contrast between New Yorkers and Virginians in their responses to the Massachusetts delegation had much of its foundation in different perspectives based on provincial interests and traditions. Furthermore, the

Virginia moderates were distinctly moving toward the liberal, even radical position, while New Yorkers retained a moderate-conservative posture.

With the circumstances preventing ah overt Massachu­ setts' leadership of the liberals, the Virginians found themselves sharing the role. This was due to Virginia's traditional position of respect among the colonies, the consequent prestige granted her delegates and her readiness for immediate, cooperative action. Yankee liberals were relieved to have these dedicated, southern aristocrats to turn to as a sympathetic, authoritative voice. John Adams had been elated over the Virginia

Association. Following a meeting with the colony's delegates he was further delighted by their "spirited and 164 15 consistent ...” stand. On September 29, during the prolonged debates over nonintercourse, Adam wrote William

Tudor a revealing letter concerning Massachusetts' posi­ tion in Congress. "We have been obliged to keep ourselves out of sight . . ., to insinuate our sentiments, designs, and desires, by means of other persons, sometimes of one 16 province, and sometimes of another." w Silas Deane, like­ wise comforted by the prospect of competent and authorita­ tive Virginia liberalism, wrote, "The Virginia and indeed all the Southern delegates appear like men of impor­ tance. . . . They are sociable, sensible, and spirited men, and the short opport[unity] I had of attending to their conversation gives me the highest idea of their principles 17 and character."

The first item of business, after convening on Sep­ tember 5, was the choosing of a president. Virginia's prestige and leadership was further acknowledged when the choice fell on her own illustrious Peyton Randolph. The decisions of the Virginia Convention had further bolstered the colony's respect and authoritative, spirited stance as well as Randolph's reputation. ’ Thomas Lynch of South

Carolina nominated Randolph "who had presided with great

Dignity over a very respectable Society, greatly to the 18 Advantage of America. . . The "respectable Society" was probably as much a reference to the Virginia Conven­ tion as to the House of Burgesses. The Virginia Association was for the Advantage of America. ..."

Several other routine matters were settled the first day. Among them was the controversial choice of the secretary, Charles Thomson. Joseph Galloway and his allies, Duane and Jay, voiced a desire to seek for a can­ didate within Congress. Galloway was an arch opponent of 19 Thomson in Pennsylvania politics.

II. THE VOTING PROCEDURE

Following the reading of credentials on September 5,

James Duane moved that a committee be appointed to deter- 20 mine the rules for the Congress. The subject most debated regarding rules was the method of voting. Should voting be by colonies, and what weight should each colony have. The Virginia delegation, representing the most populous colony, supported Duane's position that the more populous colonies be permitted more votes. Both New York and Virginia were among the more populous colonies. The air was stirred with provincial interests when Patrick

Henry rose to defend the position that the larger colonies should be granted a greater weight in congressional decisions. He was, therefore, in favor of a committee to determine a precedent, implying a rejection of the method of one vote per colony adopted by the Stamp Act Congress.^

Before adjournment was reached on September 5, other factors entered the discussion, including how to determine the importance of each colony. John Adams maintained that 166 this would have to "be ascertained by authentic Evidence, 22 from Records."

On the sixth, Henry persisted in his argument, pro­ claiming that "Government is dissolved . . . boun­ daries no longer exist between colonies, but that the parts which once were of colonial status ought to have a weight according to their populations and trade. This 23 was to be considered democratic procedure. He was vigorously supported by Benjamin Harrison who threatened that Virginia may never appear in another Congress if they were not granted "greater Weight in the determination than 24 one of the smallest Colonies."

At this point the debate evidently took a different direction. Although the eguitableness of proportional representation was acknowledged as just, it was argued that the delegations did not have the data on hand to determine the weight of each colony. "This was an ob- 25 jection that could not be answered," Duane recorded.

This variation in direction is significant for it was motivated in part by the immediate need for inter­ colonial cooperation. John Adams had already taken the position by supporting the necessity of "Authentic

Evidence, from Records." More significant, Henry had foreseen the flow of the debate, for during his previous recorded speech, in the words of Adams, he stated he was 26 "determined to submit if . . . overruled." Henry was 167 also aware of the instructions of the Virginia Convention and those of his home county, Hanover, which had so dramatically resolved for a unified effort among the colonies. At any rate, he submitted to the argument "that authentic Accounts cannot be had . . .," but still main­ tained that government was dissolved and America was in

"one Mass."^

Henry's position was also supported by Richard Henry

Lee and Richard Bland. Bland raised the crucial question,

"whether the Rights and Liberties of America shall be 28 contended for, or given up to arbitrary Power." The point was well made, either surrender previous provincial jealousies and interests to the "common cause" or stand to lose all to arbitrary parliamentary power. On the subject of voting, provincial interests succumbed to common interests as an expedient move to protect both from a common threat. One vote per colony was agreed to, although the understanding was madejihat when adequate „ statistics and records were available for determining each colony's weight, the subject would be open for further deliberation. The procedure never changed, how­ ever. Several other rules were adopted, but Duane's motion was apparently dropped. No committee was 29 appointed. 168

111. THE DEBATES OVER THE CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIP

On September 7, two committees were appointed to take into consideration the problems confronting the Con­ gress. The three-fold purpose of the first committee, called the Great Committee, was to determine what the colonists' rights were, what the violations of the rights were and what the best means were for peacefully achiev­ ing a redress of grievances. Two from each colony served on the committee. This included Duane and Jay from New

York and Lee and Pendleton from Virginia. The other committee was responsible for examining and reporting the statutes which regulated the colonies' commerce. The latter committee submitted a report to Congress on Sep­ tember 17 and two days later its data was turned over 30 to the Great Committee.

It was the work of the Great Committee and its sub­ committees that became a center of controversy in

Congress. On September*^, the committee opened"its de­ bates on rights. It quickly became evident that there were opposing views on the nature of the constitutional relationship between the two countries. The first ques­ tion debated was the source of rights. Should colonial rights rest primarily on the law of nature or on trad­ itional sources which included the constitution, colonial charters and common law? The Virginia delegates, supporting an inclusive position, stressed the law of nature while also acknow­ ledging the validity of the British constitution, char­ ters and usage as sources of rights. Richard Henry Lee maintained "our Ancestors found here no government."

The Navigation Acts, he contended, were "a Capital 31 Violation" of rights. The emphasis on the law of nature, or natural rights, was reminiscent of the radical ideas expressed in Jefferson's Summary View, and to some extent, Thomson Mason's British American, Number IX.

Jefferson had written

our ancestors, before their emigration to Amer­ ica, were the free inhabitants of the British dominions in Europe, and possessed a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habita­ tions, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as to them shall seem most likely to promote public happi­ ness.32

The instructions of the Virginia Convention to their dele-

■* t , — gates had included a concern for "natural, ancient, consti tutional, and chartered Rights . . .," but had placed a distinct emphasis on natural rights, reflecting the liberalizing influences of the June and July local meet- 33 ings and Jefferson and Mason's ideas.

The conservative position was best articulated by

James Duane and Pennsylvania's Joseph Galloway. Duane, diametrically opposed to the radical position, rejected the inclusion of the law of nature. He considered it a 170 weak argument while viewing the charters as legal and binding compacts between the crown and the colonists.

Compacts "have long been acquiesced in, and i£ excep­ tionable in their origin can not now be violated but by n 4 oppression." On the other hand, New York's other lead­ ing delegate, John Jay, saw virtue in including both "the law of Nature, and the British Constitution to ascertain our Rights." The constitution, he claimed, derived its authority from compacts and could also lose it through 35 compacts.

After a full day of debates, the Great Committee decided on September 9 in favor of the liberal-moderate position. Rights were to be based on "the laws of nature, the principles of the English Constitution, and charters 36 and compacts."

The next step was to consider the nature and extent of rights. A subcommittee was appointed to compose a statement of rights. A statement was submitted to the

Great Committee on September 14 and a second subcommittee was immediately delegated to consider the violations of rights. Intense debates occurred in both subcommittees, persisted in the Great Committee and continued on the floor of Congress until a declaration of rights and grievances was adopted on October 14. At the center of i controversy was the Authority of Parliament. In later years, John Adams recalled "some were for a flat denial

i 171 of all Authority: others for denying the Power of

Taxation only. Some for denying internal but admitting 37 [exjternal taxation." The debate came to focus on the regulation of trade. Was it a parliamentary or colonial right?

The position upheld by the Virginia delegates dur­ ing these debates again reflects the influence of deci­ sions on the local level during June and July. Lee, whose position was representative of many in Virginia in

May, had supported the right of Parliament to regulate trade. By the time of the Convention in August, however, other ideas of a radical intent had evolved. Jefferson, for instance, had interpreted all parliamentary regula­ tion as a violation of natural rights, regardless of any benefits the colonies may have derived from it. "That the excercise of a free trade with all parts of the world, possessed by the American colonies, as of natural right, and which no law of their own had taken away or 38 abridged, was next the object of unjust encroachment."

The.Virginia Convention had maintained that taxation for the regulation of trade was granted only by consent of the colonies in return for the protection it offered. No mention was made of a distinct constitutional right of a Parliament to regulate. Regulation, now considered a privilege, could only be continued if used with discre- 39 tion by Parliament. The Virginia delegation represented 172

this position in Congress. During the debates over

Galloway's Plan of Union, Henry retorted, "The Regulation

of Our trade, was Compensation enough for all the Pro­

tection we ever experienced from her [Great Britain]."^0

On October 14, during the final day of debates over the extent of rights, Edmund Pendleton spoke against any revision which would permit Parliament the right of taxation. He denied that the right to regulate trade was 41 found in the British constitution. According to Jef­ ferson and Edmund Randolph's later reflections, this was a far more liberal position than Pendleton or Lee had 42 previously supported.

The New York City delegates differed. In a pro­

longed statement on rights, Duane set forth his beliefs in a permanent constitutional plan which would "preserve us from future Violations. ..." In conciliatory terms, he claimed any plan would have to allow for the rights of the British government and the prerogative of the 43 crown. Although Duane believed that Parliament had a constitutional right to tax for the regulation of com­ merce, he was in accord with liberals, moderates and many conservatives in contending that each colony had a right to control internal polity and taxes for raising 44 revenue. For Parliament to have the right to regulate commerce was only to acknowledge what she had always done and what he believed had historically been agreed 173 to by the colonies. He also believed that affirming parliamentary rights was essential for sustaining colonial unity and preventing a show of division.^® A third argument he used was the necessity of acquiescence. Par­ liament's right to regulate trade should be granted to show the sincerity of the colonists' desire for peace and prevent any misunderstanding that the colonies sought J n independence. The fear of being accused of seeking independence had also been the reason the Virginia Con­ vention had not seriously considered Jefferson's position.

As a constitutional position it was too radical for them.

Instead, they had sworn allegiance to the crown, approv- 48 ing of "a constitutional Connexion with Great Britain."

The other New York City delegates adopted views similar to Duane's. During the debates in October over the extent of nonintercourse, John Adams recorded that

Isaac Low supported "the just Rights of our Mother 49 Country," regarding the regulation of trade. Philip

Livingston, who had temporarily returned home before the end of September, wrote Duane accordingly.

G. Britain has a right to regulate our Trade for the General Interest of the Empire, but not to impose Duties or Taxes to raise a revenue. It is a right she has always exer­ cised [and] in which we have acquiesced, [and] without which we should be entirely independent of the Mother Country. . . .50 i John Jay had not agreed with the congressional conserva­ tives on the source of rights, but did stand by their

i 174 desire for a permanent constitutional plan which would grant Parliament the right to regulate trade. This is evidenced by his support of the Galloway Plan which pro­ vided a conservative solution to the constitutional prob- 51 lem. John Alsop did not arrive in Congress until

September 14. Little is known of his participation, but it is safe to conclude from his position in New York *

City and his future loyalism that he supported the con­ servative side on the issue of rights.

The impact the moderate-liberal.New York rural dele­ gates may have had on the issue or rights was weakened considerably by their late arrivals. Only William Floyd was present for the whole Congress. Simon Boerum did not arrive until October 1 due to his late election. Henry

Wisner arrived late due to the controversy surrounding his election. John Haring not only arrived late but there is evidence that he did not stay the entire remaining time. He returned home for personal reasons prior to the *. _ _ — ----- signing of the Association.

The Declaration of Rights and Grievances adopted in

Congress on October 14 sustained the position of the

Virginians and their liberal allies. Basing their argu­ ment on "the laws of nature, the principles of the English

Constitution, and the several Charters or Compacts . . .,"

Congress declared in the first resolve that the colonies had never granted to any power a right to dispose of 53 colonial rights without colonial consent. As could be 175 expected, the fourth resolve, on parliamentary regula­ tion, was controversial. It read that the colonies were

entitled to a free and exclusive power of legis­ lation in their several Provincial Legislatures, where their right of Representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and in­ ternal polity, subject only to the negative of their Sovereign, in such manner as has been here­ tofore used and accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both Countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation of such Acts of the British Parliament, as are, bona fide, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the pur­ pose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole Empire to the mother country, and the com­ mercial benefits of its respective members; exclud­ ing every idea of Taxation, internal or external, for raising a revenue on the subjects in America, without their consent.

According to John Adams, he had written the resolve at the request of conservative John Rutledge and several other members of the subcommittee. No one was fully satisfied with it, "but they all soon acknowledged that there was no hope of hitting on anything, in which we 55 could all agree with more Satisfaction." During the course of the debates Tn the subcommittee, the “committee and on the floor of Congress, numerous unsuccessful attempts were made by the conservatives to amend various 56 portions of the declaration.

In the meantime, Galloway's Plan was introduced on

September 28, after the debates over nonintercourse were underway. It was an attempt by conservatives to return Congress from nonintercourse to considering the constitutional crises and a permanent settlement which 176 had been agitated during the debates over rights. The

Pennsylvanian later informed the House of Commons that he presented the plan as an alternative to what he conceived 57 as a move toward war and independence. John Adams recorded that Galloway believed nonimportation, would "be too gradual in its Operation for the Relief of Boston."

Total nonexportation, an "indigested Proposition," would hurt the colonies more than help. What was needed was a plan for unification and accommodation, worked out by negotiation.88

The presentation of Galloway's Plan was preceded by a resolve, moved by Galloway, to promote the plan with 59 Great Britain and petition for a redress of grievances.

The Plan compared favorably to William Smith's proposal written about eight years earlier. Galloway provided for each provincial legislature to retain control of its own internal policies and government. A Grand Council, chosen by the colonial assemblies and presided over by a speaker elected by the body, would handle common con­ cerns relevant to the security and interests of all the colonies. Parliament would have an equal voice in the common concerns, which included such matters as general revenue measures, the regulation of commerce, provision for a common paper currency and the settlement of boun- i dary disputes. The Council and Parliament would both have the right of veto. A President General, appointed by

l the crown, would serve as administrative officer for approving and executing acts which were accepted.

The liberals, led by the Virginians, opposed the . plan. This opposition was not a rejection of the basic idea of revising the constitutional relationship of the colonies and Great Britain. The Virginia Convention, in their instructions to the delegates, had followed the in­ tent of many local resolves and approved "a constitu­ tional Connexion with Great Britain. . . . Neither was the opposition simplified to a rejection of the right of

Parliament to regulate trade. Parliamentary regulation, provided for by the plan was only a symptom of a more basic disagreement. The difference between Virginians and New Yorkers lay in conflicting views of the constitu­ tion.

Richard Henry Lee, supporting the integrity of the colonial assemblies, initiated the attack. He maintained the .plan altered the colonial constitutions which had operated successfully before 1763. Any acceptance of the plan on his part, he stated, would have to await approval 62 by his constituents. Lee's understanding of local constitutions rested on the concepts of popular and local sovereignty. The seeds for the concepts were rooted in

Virginia's society and had been well nourished during

June and July. 178

Lee was adeptly supported by Patrick Henry, who also viewed the danger in Galloway's Plan as being the threat of a legislative body outside the immediate control of local constituents. In developing his argument, Henry revealed the innate fears of a whole way of life which had come to worship and practice the philosophy of self determination. '

We shall liberate our Constituents from a cor­ rupt House of Commons, but thro them into the Arms of an American Legislature that may be bribed by that Nation which avows . . . that bribery is a Part of her System of Government. Before we are obliged to pay Taxes as they do, let us be as free as they. Let us have our Trade open with all the World. We are not to consent by the Representatives of Representatives.63

Galloway answered by supporting the mercantilistic

theory of empire. To him no plan was conceivable unless

it admitted, directly or indirectly, the right of the home

government to have a decisive voice in colonial commer­ cial affairs. He contended that the empire would not hold

together with the provincial control" of trade.~"There is

a Necessity that an American Legislature should be set up," he continued, "or else that We should give the Power 64 to Parliament or King."

Galloway's argument did not affect the position of

the Virginians. To them the solution went beyond re­

structuring a mercantilistic empire. They were arguing

the right of government by popular consent which could 179 be withdrawn. The Virginia convention believed a "con­ stitutional Connexion" meant the House of Burgesses and other colonial legislatures were to be co-egual with

Parliament under the crown. When carried to its logical conclusion under the theory of popular sovereignty, even the power of the crown rested on the people's consent.

The Virginian's position did not preclude their desire for a cooperative effort in the "common cause," but they did reject political unification in favor of local and popular sovereignty.

Galloway's Plan lived a short life in Congress, even though it had been the only specific response offered by either side for solving the constitutional problem. Fol­ lowing the debate in Congress it was tabled and never committed to a committee. The Congress continued its 65 debates over nonintercourse. The plan was not considered again until most of the business had been settled and the delegates were finishing final matters preparatory to adjournment. The insignificance granted it is illustrated by a letter from Silas Deane to Governor Trumbull of

Connecticut on October 22. "The Business laying before the Congress appears so nearly closed. . . . All the 66 Capital points are agreed on. . . ." The same day the

Plan of Union was dismissed by a six to five vote by i Congress and ordered stricken from the minutes. Georgia had not participated in the Congress and Rhode Island's 67 vote was divided.

I 180

An interesting story, recorded by Franklin Burdge, claims that Simon Boerum, a friend of Philip Livingston, was instrumental in leading the New York delegation to a five to four vote against further consideration of the

Plan. According to Burdge, Boerum joined with Floyd,

Wisner and Haring, prior to the latter's departure, to persuade the moderate Livingston to vote with them against

Galloway's proposal. As a result of the New York vote, 68 Galloway lost. If Burdge is accurate, the New York

City delegates apparently lost control of the colony's delegation on at least one important subject. The close vote in Congress was actually determined by New York's decision.

In comparing New York and Virginia on the constitu­ tional problem, one common issue is evident. Unity existed on the right of the colonist to determine their internal polity, including the right of raising revenue.

Beyond this agreement, there was a difference in the extent of Parliament's regulation of trade.

In contrasting the two colonies, two distinct posi­ tions existed on how best to achieve a permanent con­ stitutional settlement. Virginians sought to protect total provincial integrity. In doing so they extended colonial rights to far more than internal polity. This position was more in tune with classical liberalism and placed a greater emphasis on the rights of the individual and provincial self determination. The primary source of rights was the law of nature. The position maintained that the decision of who regulated trade lay with the colonies which voluntarily consented to relinquish to

Parliament the privilege of regulation for the protection and mutual benefits of both countries. The Virginians simply could not accept any plan for permanent settlement which granted the ultimate source of authority on trade as well as on internal matters to an outside legislature.

The New York delegation, especially those from the City, sought to protect imperial integrity, including provincial mercantile interests. They believed that Parliament had a constitutional right, based on charter, common law, protection and necessity, to regulate trade. The New

York City delegates accepted a permanent plan which in­ cluded parliamentary rights as crucial to the welfare of the British Empire. In the matter of a constitutional

settlement, local interests and traditions took priority

in Congress. The delegates accordingly supported their

instructions, implicit or explicit.

IV. THE DEBATES OVER NONINTERCOURSE

Following the initial debates over the constitution, rights and the regulation of trade, circumstances played

into the hands of the liberals who agitated for less talk

and more substantive action. On September 6, before the

committee debates on rights ever started, a report of a

bombardment of Boston and a clash with troops was received 182 in Philadelphia. It later proved mostly false, but not 69 before it helped motivate a desire for immediate action.

The desire was further inspired by the Middlesex Resolves, received on September 14. They were followed by the more arousing Suffolk Resolves which arrived two days 70 later and were endorsed by Congress within 24 hours.

The Massachusetts' delegation was elated. The evening of the seventeenth John Adams recorded he was con­ vinced "that America will support the Massachusetts or 71 perish with her." A few days later Samuel Adams wrote

Charles Chauncey, "I think I may assure you that America 72 will make a point of supporting Boston to the utmost."

One writer maintains that the committee which had been appointed to examine the commercial regulatory statutes of Parliament and rendered its report to Congress on the 73 seventeenth, advocated a boycott of trade.

Congress met briefly on Monday the nineteenth, assigned the committee report received on the seventeenth to the Great Committee and adjourned until the twenty- second. In the interim, the Great Committee met to con-

7 4 . tinue its consideration of rights. On the twenty- second Congress requested merchants to postpone, further orders for.goods from Great Britain until a public notice of a decision could be made, presumably for nonimportation.

i Following this request the Great Committee submitted its statement on rights to the floor of Congress. Debate on ■ 75 the statement was set for Saturday the twenty-fourth.

I 183

According to John Adams, the evening of September

22 "General Lee and Coll. Lee, and Coll. Dyer and Mr.

Deane, and half a Score friends from Boston ..." met with 76 the Massachusetts delegation. "General Lee" must have been the British Colonel, Charles Lee, who was in Phila­ delphia to stir up action as a colonial supporter. "Coll.

Lee" was Richard Henry Lee. Considering the recent events and impending activity of Congress, the conversation must have included some planning of strategy to assist Boston and start immediate action. Richard Henry Lee's response apparently was positive. "Coll. Lee staid till 12 o'clock 77 and was very social and agreable." Although Lee had earlier favored immediate nonimportation and nonexporta­ tion, his instructions insisted on postponing the latter.

The concerned Mew Englanders, desiring immediate action, probably worked to reconvert Lee or achieve some form of consensus among the liberal coalition.

Congress did not jneet on September 23, but the fol­ lowing day they started their debate on the statement of rights. Following considerable discussion, including the conservative attempts to amend the statement. Congress resolved to "confine themselves, at present, to the con­ sideration of such rights only as have been’ infringed by

Acts of the British Parliament since the year 1963. ..."

They postponed any further debate on "the general state 78 of American rights. . . ." The decision to limit the 184 consideration of rights was the result of persistence on the part of the Virginia delegates who would not. vary despite strong opposition. The Virginians wanted to lay the blame of the current crises on British policy since the end of the Seven Years' War, thus providing a definite source of the problem plaguing America and justifying con­ gressional actions. This objective was implied in the opening sentence of the Virginians' instructions. "The unhappy disputes between Great Britain and her American

Colonies, which began about the third Year of the Reign of his present Majesty, and since, continually increasing, have proceeded to Lengths so dangerous and alarming to 79 excite just Apprehensions. . . ."

After the decision to postpone a more thorough con- sideration of rights, the report on infringements from the Great Committee was submitted and tabled until Monday,

September 26. Congress commenced to consider the most 80 proper means to be used for restoring rights. On

Monday the report on infringements received a similar treatment given the statement on rights. "Congress judged it necessary, previous to completing and resolv­ ing on these subjects, to take under consideration, that 81 of ways and means for redress."

In a way the decision to postpone the consideration of rights and their infringements was the result of a failure to reach a consensus. The decision avoided the 185 attempt to resolve a permanent constitutional settlement between the two countries. A permanent solution neces­ sitated resolving the differences over the regulation of trade, and the problem of regulation was too incumbered with divergent views of the constitution, as is evident in the differences between New York and Virginia. These views could not be quickly reconciled. Confronted with the pressing nature and threat of the crises in Boston, the liberal coalition sought the more immediate action which was easier to achieve.

On September 26, following the decision of post­ ponement, Richard Henry Lee, in tune with his own colony’s instructions and perhaps in line with some tentative compromise made on the evening of September 22, moved p o that nonimportation be adopted. The immediate debate which ensued was over a date for implementing nonimpor­ tation. Pennsylvania's Thomas Mifflin supported Novem­ ber 1, the date suggested by the Virginia Association and probably included in Lee's motion. Richard Bland, who was more conciliatory, thought "the time ought to be fixed, when Goods are shipp'd in Great Britain, because a ship may have a long Voyage." Lee disagreed with his

Virginia colleague and sided with South Carolina's

Christopher Gadsden in believing invoices would be ante-

8 3 dated. John Rutledge then proposed that "all the Ways and Means should be . . ." considered. His proposition also introduced the consideration of nonexportation. There followed prolonged and intense debate before an agreement on dates for nonimportation and nonexporta** tion could be reached. The date for nonexportation pro­ vided a problem for the Virginians. Bound by their in­ structions, they relentlessly withstood the pressure from others to give in to a more current date. This created a major crisis in Congress. Richard Henry Lee, allowing for the curing of tobacco, argued that the

"Produce of the other Colonies, is carried to Markett, 85 in the same Year when it is raised. ..." Many delegates believed that postponing nonexportation would only lessen the effect desired on Parliament. "A non­ exportation at a future day cannot avail us," argued 88 Maryland's Samuel Chase. Thomas Lynch of South Caro­ lina was convinced that further postponement would create greater havoc in Massachusetts as the people could not 87 continue another year without effective government.

I'Don't let America look at this Mountain and let it bring forth a Mouse," pleaded Gadsden, who brought the debate to a head by suggesting that the other colonies con- 88 sider acting without Virginia. Maryland and North

Carolina, however, could not act without Virginia. Their reason included economic interests, not just regional loyalty or partisan persuasion. They feared their pro- I duce would be exported from Virginia ports "which would 89 run away with all their trade." 187

With a mild attempt at a compromise, Henry accepted

December*1 rather than November 1, 1774, as a date for implementing nonimportation. The delegates could at least agree on this, so on September 27 they resolved that after

December 1 no goods would be imported directly or indirect- 90 ly from Great Britain or Ireland. For the time being this left open the importation of goods originating from other British territories and the rest of the world.

It is possible that the evening of September 28, when Lee and Washington conferred with the Massachusetts leadership, further consideration was given to a compro­ mise on nonexportation which would be acceptable to the 91 whole liberal coalition. It was two days later, after further debate, that Congress agreed, in order to preserve a show of unity, to accept Virginia's position and post­ pone nonexportation to Great Britain, Ireland and the

West Indies until September 10, 1775, a month later than the Virginia instructions had required. A committee was appointed to determine a plan for effecting noninter- 92 course.

The lack of evidence to the contrary would seem to indicate that the conservative New York delegates took little interest in preventing a boycott of trade. The fact is conservatives were forced by specific pressures and circumstances to make a decision. They could fight nonintercourse and risk disunity and the failure of 188

Congress, or work with It while attempting to achieve a

conciliatory, permanent constitutional plan. However, many

conservatives, New Yorkers especially, were caught in an

ambivalent predicament. They realized that taking a

definite position either for or against nonintercourse

could lead to threats on their personal safety as well as * « jeopardize their political interests.

Pressure was felt from liberals outside Congress.

Galloway later testified to the House of Commons that by

October his personal safety was considered at stake in

Pennsylvania should he have withdrawn from Congress. The

reason for considering withdrawal was because his and

Duane's rejection of a congressional decision was not recorded in the minutes. The two conservatives had opposed a motion to support Boston in its opposition to

Gage's attempt to enforce the Coercive Acts. Although

this incident was not related to the boycott, it does

indicate the pressure the conservatives felt to sustain,

a show of unity. With the liberal position prevailing,

direct opposition toward a boycott, already evident, would

not enhance the conservatives' popularity. 93

Moderates and conservatives also felt the pressure of political opportunity. William Smith, Jr., writing

after Congress had adjourned, figured the New York dele­ gates had signed the Association out of political shrewd­

ness. In a letter to Philip Schuyler on November 22, he indicated they probably felt they had an opportunity to secure Assembly seats in the upcoming election. In sign­ ing the Association, the delegates, Smith reasoned, had calculated they had less to fear politically from New 94 York City merchants than the rest of the continent.

Supportive of Smith's insinuation is a passage from John

Adam's diary. Adams was confronted with anxious Sons of

Liberty in New York when he passed through on his way home. "They think they have lost ground," he recorded.

"Their delegates have agreed with the Congress, which I suppose they imagine, has given additional Importance to 95 their Antagonists." As a result of the delegates support of the boycott, the Sons of Liberty probably feared los­ ing the support of liberal constituents to the moderate- conservative leadership, who, intentionally or not, had supposedly stolen their thunder. Another interpretation of the passage from Adam's diary is provided by Charles

Francis Adams. He reminds us that -the New York Assembly rejected Congress's proceedings and refused to appoint delegates to the Second Congress. Thus, the fears of 96 the Sons of Liberty were justified. Both interpreta­ tions, especially the former in the light of Smith's letter to Schuyler, reflect the importance of political interests and power as a factor worthy of consideration by the New York delegates. 190

As it was, moderate Philip Livingston, who had a

political ax to grind in the next Assembly election, had

become aware of the trend in local New York feelings.

While in New York in late September, he had visited with

Simon Boerum and others and discussed the subject of non­

intercourse. Partly as a result of these visits, Living­

ston was convinced that nonimportation and delayed non­

exportation were acceptable. Besides, a show of unity was

necessary to save New York's face. He wrote Duane:

A non-importation from Britain is looked upon to be a determined Affair since the notice pub­ lished by the Congress . . . and will give no uneasiness in this City, and a non-Exportation to commence the middle of September next I am fully satisfied will be cheerfully acquiesced in. I sincerely wish the New York Delegates may agree with the Congress in every measure that shall be concluded on by them for a redress of their Grievances. It is absolutely necessary for the general Interest of America that it should be so.

Without Unity America is undone, let not the fault be laid at our Door.9'

Livingston's concern may have been purely patriotic, and

a fear of being isolated from the rest of the continent,

but circumstances were favorable for a political oppor­

tunist.

There was also pressure from the New York conser­

vatives. Benjamin Booth was aware that the New York City

delegates had received negative correspondence regardomg i their apparent support of the Suffolk Resolves. Booth,

himself upset over the adoption of the resolves, foresaw

I 191 a potential threat to the delegates if they supported nonimportation. "They have indeed a nice part to act, for they must either oppose themselves to [the Non Impor­ tation] current, and swim against the Stream, or I should not think their Persons very safe upon their re­ turn."98

With these pressures for and against a boycott, the best alternatives for the New York conservatives were to accept it passively, attempt to control its extent of coverage, and/or use their acceptance of it as a leverage for obtaining their chief objective. This objective was a permanent constitutional settlement granting Parliament the right to regulate trade. Strict opposition to a boycott would not be successful nor wise. By accepting it, however, the New York City delegates would technically fulfill two obligations. They would appease the city's liberals to whom four of the delegates had given their equivocal answer in support of nonimportation_on July 27.

They could also work for a general unlimited coverage as requested by the Fifty-One in their resolves of July 13 and 19, and the conservative merchants in their declara­ tion of August 25. Thus, conservatives, with some mod­ erate allies, made the most of their situation by waging a positive fight to obtain their own goals, not a neg­ ative one against a predetermined boycott. 192

Galloway's Plan^provided an opportunity for con­ servative and moderate New Yorkers to use their accept­ ance of nonintercourse as leverage to attempt to achieve a permanent constitutional settlement. John Jay was the first New York delegate recorded as speaking on the boycott. During the debates of September 26 and 27# he had stated that there were three alternatives# negotia­ tion# a commerical boycott and war. The latter was "by general Consent to be waived at present." He was "for 99 Negociation and suspension of Commerce." By this decision Jay reflected his moderate side# positioning himself in the two camps, conservative and liberal. On

September 28# he stood by Galloway's Plan as a fair ac­ commodation for a permanent settlement.*-00

It was James Duane, however# who spoke first in seconding Galloway's Plan on the twenty-eighth. He used his recent acceptance of nonintercourse as a leverage for a compromise. He stated that New YOrk thought_it neces7 sary to have a Congress "for the Relief of Boston and

Mass.— and to do more# to lay a Plan for a lasting Accom­ modation with G. Britain." Duane was disappointed that

Congress had departed from their "first Plan . . .#" that of achieving a permanent settlement. He believed the boycott and corresponding demands for Parliament to i repeal certain questionable acts were inadequate for permanent peace. "Can we expect lasting Tranquility,"

i 193 he asked. MI have given my full Assent to a Non Im and

Exportation Agreement." He continued by supporting any proposal which would grant Parliament the regulation of trade and provide a permanent plan of union. Even if

Parliament's right to regulate trade was to be rejected,

Duane still stood firmly by the need for a permanent plan.101

The other alternative for the New Yorkers was to attempt to control the extent of coverage of nonimporta­ tion in order to prevent smuggling and extreme resolves that would further alienate the government. The debate over the extent of nonimportation had been in motion be­ fore nonexportation was approved on September 30, but was interrupted by a successful conservative effort on October

1 to gain support for a petition to the king. Conse­ quently, the first days of October were spent deliberat- 102 ing the proposed content of the petition. On October 6

Congress returned to debating the extent of nonimportation, taking under consideration a few specific articles from the West Indies and other portions of the globe. The question was "how far to extend the Non-Importation of 103 dutiable Articles" beyond Great Britain and Ireland.

The original resolve for nonimportation on September 27 had included all articles shipped directly or indirectly from Great Britain and Ireland, but contained nothing about other parts of the world, including the West Indies 194 and Holland. The New York City delegates wanted a total boycott on any dutiable article included in the Associa­ tion, but desired to limit the number of articles in­ cluded. This was in keeping with the conservative New

York merchants and the Fifty-One's intent should nonim­ portation be adopted. The conservatives were fearful of losing their commercial status to those liberal mer­ chants who had no qualms about smuggling. Smugglers could undersell the conservative fair trade merchants.

Smuggling would be encouraged if nonimportation of dutied articles designated in the Association was limited to specified territories, primarily within the empire. The other alternative, designed to discourage smuggling, was to disallow the importation of all designated dutied articles, regardless of their origin.

The intense debate which occurred on October 6 focused first on a difference of opinion over the valid­ ity of violating parliamentary regulation of trade.

The issue was an ethical one but with definite overtones of provincial commercial interests. Edmund Pendleton reflected the ambiguity present as debate ensued.

How is the purchaser to know whether the Molasses, Sugar, or Coffee has paid the duty or not? It cant be known. Shant We by this hang out to all the World our Intentions to smuggle? 'Don't we complain of these Acts as Grievances, and shant we insist on the Repeal. Samuel Chase o£ Maryland agreed with Pendleton that

a loophole existed which encouraged smuggling. Going

further than Pendleton, he believed that the question of coverage was so composed as not to achieve a redress of

grievances but only offer an excuse for the enemy to

"think that we mean to strike at the Right of Parliament % to lay duties for the Regulation of Trade." He therefore

opposed the measure and argued against those who sought

to limit coverage to dutied articles from specific parts of the empire. "It is said this is not a Non Importation

Resolution," he parried. "But it is, for there is no

Importation of goods but according to the Law of the Land.

Thomas Lynch believed any means for a redress was

valid if adopted "with a good Conscience," Smuggling was

inevitable. "Will any Gentleman say he will never pur­

chase any Goods untill he is sure, that they were not

smuggled." He did not believe Parliament had the right

to regulate trade, but maintained it was not the issue

anyway. The duties under question were for revenue, not

regulation.

Isaac Low eventually grew weary of hearing the

liberal delegates tolerate smuggling as a necessary evil

under the prevailing British oppression. He responded

caustically, denouncing smugglers as those who deserved

consideration "least of any Men in the Community." He

supported the right of Parliament to regulate trade and accused some in Congress of seeking independence. With nonimportation already agreed to, Low took the best alter­ native left open to him. He sought to limit nonimporta­ tion to a few articles but allow for a total boycott of them. "I am for a Resolution against any Tea, Dutch as well as English," he declared. Low maintained that ex­ tending nonimportation to include too many articles and being too restrictive of their origins was to cater trouble. "We ought to consider the Consequences possible as well as probably of every Resolution We take and pro­ vide ourselves with a Retreat or Resource."

Congress eventually resolved against the importa­ tion of the more significant dutied articles, but, with a few exceptions, still limited the restrictions to im­ ports from British territories. "That from and after the

1st day of December next, no Molasses, Coffee, or Pimento from the British Plantations or from Dominica, on Wines from Madeira and the Western Islands, or foreign Indigo, be imported into these Colonies."105 These additions to the plan for carrying out nonintercourse were entrusted to the committee appointed to draw up the Association.

In considering the resolve as passed, Low's efforts to abbreviate the actions of congress on nonimportation failed. His efforts to make any prohibition on tea in general appear to have been more successful. The resolve as passed on October 6 did not include tea, but the first 197 resolve of the Association included "any East India Tea from any part of the World . . .," not just British ter- 106 ritory. Low was one of the five members appointed on

September 30 to the committee to draw up the Association, and thus had the direct opportunity to continue his 107 argument for a general nonimportation of tea. Lee, who also served on the committee, had reason to support

Low. The Virginia Convention had resolved in their association to not "import Tea of any Kind what- 108 ever. . . . Virginia's action was primarily punitive, hoping to force a repeal of the oppressive measures. Low's decision was an attempt, under the circumstances of having accepted nonimportation, to protect fair trading merchant interests.

As with the decision on constitutional rights, the position on the boycott taken by the rural New York dele­ gates is difficult to assess due to the lack of evidence.

Although William Ployd probably supported a liberal posi- tion in line with Suffolk County's tendencies, little is known of his activities in Congress. Prior to the October 6 debate he was present at an evening meeting with liberals, 109 including the Adamses, at least one time. The New

England liberal influences in Suffolk provided the oppor­ tunity for a common political ideology between the two I localities, perhaps greater than that which existed be­ tween New York City and the county.

i 198

Simon Boerum of Kings County, in his conversation in late September with Philip Livingston, had said his constituents were receptive to nonimportation and post­ poned nonexportation. Therefore, he supported this position, but his late arrival of October 1 left him without any direct impact on the decision for noninter­ course. His biggest contribution for the boycott was in persuading Livingston. Boerum probably offered be­ lated moral support to the Virginians in their desire to postpone nonexportation. His reasons were different, how-

/ ever. Kings County inhabitants were apprehensive of non­ exportation, but felt the crises with Great Britain would be settled before a postponed date arrived. Thus, they compromised, and consented for the sake of unity.1*1,0

Although Virginians hoped the crises would be resolved within the year, their desire for a delay was based on economics and ethics.

Other than the incident concerning the dismissal of the Galloway Plan, no known evidence of Wisner or Haring's participation in the First Congress is available. Know­ ledge of their position is further hampered by the lack of specific instructions. However, as has been indicated, both men were prone to accept a boycott.

In comparing and contrasting the behavior of New

York and Virginia delegates on nonintercourse, it is evident that the debates were not over its acceptance, 199 which had generally been acknowledged, albeit reluctantly by some, but over the dates of implementation and the extent of its coverage. The tension that existed between liberals and conservatives regarding nonintercourse was over coverage, and generally followed the debates over dates for implementation, especially of nonexportation, in which Virginia had been intently involved. Both delegations supported their respective instructions.

V. THE CONTINENTAL ASSOCIATION

The Continental Association was received in Congress from the Great Committee on October 12. It was tabled until the fifteenth while the Declaration of Rights and

Grievances was finished and adopted.'1'1^ Prom the fif­ teenth through the eighteenth, Congress debated the As­ sociation and, again, all the grievances included in the

Declaration.

The question arose on whether or not to retain the

Quebec Act as a valid'grievance. Duane was opposed to It.

He was willing to include it in the petition to the King as a dangerous act due to its religious, constitutional and geographic magnitude, but rejected including it as a grievance to be repealed before the boycott would be

lifted. The Quebec Act, he claimed, did not effect com­ merce. His argument was in agreement with Low's concern over resolving too much. Demands, Duane believed, should 200

i be restricted to the absolute minimum to guarantee a favorable reception from Parliament. Every article in­ cluded in the Association needed to be evaluated indiv­ idually,

as if it was that singly on which we stood for in the event all but that may be rejected. . . . How far it will be justifiable in us to resist the progress of this Act and attempt to force its Repeal at the expense of our commerce— in the end perhaps of a civil war— ought to be duly considered. If we demand too much we weaken our efforts— lose the chance of securing what is reasonable and may get nothing.H2

He was supported by Jay, but opposed by Richard Henry

Lee, who considered the basic arguments against the act ample reason for including it as a grievance. Lee made no attempt to counter the commercial argument of the New

Yorkers, but did include among his own comments the threat of Catholicism, the fear that the act was being used "to keep the old colonies in awe" and a concern over the Ohio boundary.3-^3 The liberals won the ^argument. _The Quebec

Act remained as a grievance along with the other Coercive

Acts and specific measures that had to be repealed before the embargo would be lifted.

On October 18, following "sundry admendments . . .," the Continental Association was approved. It was pre­ sented for signatures on the 20th.New Yorkers and

Virginians could both claim success, but the edge defin­ itely lay with the Virginians and the liberal coalition. The content followed the outline and in many instances 115 the language of the Virginia Association.

A statement of the issues, namely the violation of rights evident in the Coercive Acts and related measures, preceded the Continental Association as an introduction.

A similar statement followed the last resolve, demanding a repeal of the oppressive statutes before the boycott would be lifted.

The first three resolves of the Association covered nonimportation and nonconsumption. The first resolve

contained the basis format for nonimportation, including

the recommendation which had been so hotly debated on

October 6. Nonimportation, as resolved on September 27, was to start on December 1. The second resolve, prohibit­

ing the importation of slaves, was designed to put a stop

to the slave trade. The third resolve was concerned with

the consumption of tea. Isaac Low, probably with little

resistance, had managed to obtain the inclusion_in the „

first resolve of a total restriction on the importation

of any tea. This did not immediately limit consumption,

however. The third resolve prohibited the purchase or

use of any tea after December 1, "imported on account of

the East India Company, or any on which a Duty hath been

or Bhall be paid. ..." After March 1, 1775, no tea

whatever was to be purchased or used. This differed from

the Virginia Association which provided for total 202 nonimportation and nonconsumption of any tea commencing immediately. Thus, the Continental Association, possibly with Low's leadership, had allowed time for merchants to clear their shelves of at least non East India Company tea.

Resolve four of the Continental Association, the counterpart of five in the Virginia document, contained the terms of nonexportation. All exports to Great Britain,

Ireland and the West Indies (the Virginia Association had stipulated direct or indirect) were to be stopped when and if the resolve was implemented on September 10, 1775.

There were several differences between the Virginia and congressional versions. One, which had prompted much debate in Congress, was the decision to permit South

Carolina to ship its rice to Europe.116 Another differ­ ence was the encouragement in the Virginia document for planters to raise other crops conducive to local industry so as not to be caught with tobacco_on hand the_following year.

The rest of the resolves, five through fourteen, outlined a plan of organization for enforcement and opera­ tion. Five and six dealt with shipping and trade connec­ tions. Five required all merchant firms to cease using

British and Irish trade. Violators would have their names made public and would be totally boycotted in the future.

Six required ship owners to notify their captains not to take on board any items prohibited by the nonimportation agreement. To do so was grounds for dismissal by the owner.

The seventh and eighth resolves prepared the colon­ ists for living with the boycott. The seventh# virtually identical with the sixth of the Virginia Association, en­ couraged the raising of sheep. Congress stipulated no exportation of sheep "to the West Indies or elsewhere. . . .

Wool was needed for local industry. The intent of the eighth resolve was to prepare colonists for the difficult times expected from a boycott and to promote all local efforts to alleviate the discomforts. Local industry and frugality were further encouraged while unnecessary ex- travangance was discouraged. Some Puritan principles found their way into the latter provision. Horse racing, gaining, cock fighting, plays and other entertainments, considered questionable by New England's religious stand­ ards, were discouraged. This clause was probably looked ^ ___ ■ upon dimly by many colonists, especially southern planters who enjoyed these leisure activities as time permitted.

Even though the Virginia Association was void of such recommendations, George Mason had included "Articles of

Luxury [and] Ostentation ..." in his earlier recommenda­ tions for an intercolonial measure. The encouragement for local industry had received much support in Virginia as has been shown. The idea of encouraging industry was 204 not new in New York. The colony had been considered a leader in stimulating domestic industry during the crises from 1764 to 1766, as merchants operated to protect busi­ ness interests from trade deficits, duties and other restrictions. As early as April 1764 bounties were being offered on hemp grown in the colony. The Sugar Act and the Stamp Act prompted other actions culminating in the creation of The Society for the Promotion of Arts,

Agriculture and Oeconomy in December of 1764, primarily 117 for the purpose of promoting domestic industry.

Resolves nine and thirteen provided for the regula­ tion of prices. Nine was quite similar to the first part of seven in the Virginia document which had incorporated the desires of at least five counties. Venders of mer­ chandise affected by the Continental Association were not to take advantage of any scarcity. The price of goods was to be kept at the same level as they had been the past twelve months. A boycott of violators was encouraged.

The thirteenth resolve urged "reasonable prices ..." for goods produced domestically. The desire to control prices had also received support in the Huntington, New 118 York resolves. Most of the local New York responses remained silent on the subject since the boycott was not as popular in the colony. Although prices did increase

in New York as the date for implementing nonimportation neared, the conservative merchants decided it would be more prudent for them to sell at older prices and not n o withhold goods from the market to increase later profits.

The tenth resolve dealt with the disposition of goods received from December 1, 1774 to February 1, 1775.

At the owners option, goods could be reshipped or held by the local committee until nonimportation ceased. The committee could resell the goods, reimburse the owner and send the profit to relieve Boston. Goods received after February 1 were to be returned unopened. The Vir­ ginia Association had differed, permitting owners to hold their own goods if assurance would be given that they would not sell them. Violators would have their names pub­ lished in the newspaper. ^

If the boycott was to have any authority, a plan of organization and enforcement was necessary. A plan was provided in the eleventh and twelfth resolves. It was quite similar to the ideas which had originated in rural

Virginia, especially at the hands of George Mason, and, had been incorporated in the seventh resolve of the Vir­ ginia Association. The eleventh resolve of the Contin­ ental Association provided for the choosing of committees

"in every County, City, and Town, by those who are qualified to vote for Representatives in the Legisla­ ture . . ., to observe the conduct of all persons touch- * ing on this Association. . . ." The Virginia Association had implied in resolve seven a more liberal position by permitting "Persons as accede to this Association ..." 206 to take part in the voting. Both documents provided for the publication of the names of violators. According to the twelfth resolve of the congressional document, the committees chosen were to inspect the entries of the cus­ tom houses and inform fellow committees of their findings and other matters relative to the Association. Keeping communications open through the committee system was accepted procedure and followed what was already in prac­ tice in all the colonies.

The fourteenth resolve threatened to break off all relations with any colony that did not comply with the

Association. Although the Virginia Association did not specifically include this provision, it had been part of several local resolves.12®

Except for the statement in the tenth resolve on the disposing of goods imported against the boycott, material support for Boston was not stated elsewhere in

.the Association. Congress had dealt with the problem as early as September 17 when it endorsed the Suffolk

Resolves. It was resolved at that time "That contribu­ tions from all the Colonies for supplying the necessities, and alleviating the distress of our brethren at Boston, ought to be continued, in such manner, and so long as 121 their occasions may require." This position was not a new one. It was an approval of what was already being done in the colonies with the expectation it would continue 207 as needed. Duane, consistent with the Fifty-One's resolves and a number of the rural resolves, had con- sidered the material needs of Boston as one of the two 122 major objectives of Congress. After their return to

New York, the City delegates were happy to report they had achieved this goal.*1*23

A petition to the king, unrelated to the Contin­ ental Association, was eventually adopted on October 25 as another response to the immediate threat of the Coer- 1 O A cive Acts. Enough delegates must have felt it a feasible recourse or it never would have passed. Con­ servatives no doubt supported it. A recommendation for a petition was not a part of the delegates' instructions from New York or Virginia, but it had received some 125 scattered attention on the local level in both colonies.

VI. THE CONCLUSION

The immediate issue which motivated the colonies to gather in a congress -in* 1774 was the direct threat of the

Coercive Acts to individual and provincial security as well as to rights and liberties. The fundamental issue extended beyond the Coercive Acts, however. It was a problem of constitutional interpretation. After 10 years of conflict, many colonists who look beyond the immediate threat believed it was time to evaluate seriously the nature of the constitutional relationship between Britain and the colonies. William Smith, Jr., Richard Bland and 208

Thomas Jefferson were among them. They asked two basic questions: What were the rights of colonial legislatures?

What were the rights of Parliament? New York and Virginia agreed on the issues and the questions. Internal polity and taxation were viewed as indisputable constitutional rights of individual colonial legislatures, and they were being violated by arbitrary acts of Parliament.

The initial response by the colonists was the call for a congress. Numbers and cooperative action provided for greater security, be it on the provincial or contin­ ental level. This response was not an appeal for political unification as such, nor was it a rebellion inspired by liberal or radical activists. The purpose was to protect provincial constitutional rights and liberties.

At this point consensus broke down between New York and Virginia. Other than a mutual concern for protecting constitutional rights and a call for a general congress, the responses to the issues and answers to the questions concerning parliamentary and colonial rights vary. The responses and answers were determined by provincial interests and traditions.

In addition to the concern over their constitutional rights. New York's position was shaped by politics, ideol­ ogy and commerical practices. The province was torn between two aristocratic political factions competing for power and the growing ambitions of a third in New York 209

City. This situation was complicated by the superim­ position of imperial issues on provincial politics from the Stamp Act to 1774. There also existed major domestic tensions resulting from political and religious ideolog­ ical rivalry with Puritan Mew England. This rivalry affected the attitudes and responses of New Yorkers to the imperial issues. Third, there existed a distinct com­ mercial interest in New York City which was very cautious over any economic sanctions. The moderate Whigs were, in agreement with the conservatives, law abiding merchants t to protect mercantile interests from riotous actions and prevent smuggling. By 1774 many merchants, fearful of liberal impatience, considered immediate action in the form of a boycott as doing more harm than good. The mer­ chants sought instead a conciliatory effort which would provide a permanent constitutional settlement with Great

Britain. Without specific instructions and with the colony's delegation divided over many of the responses, the New York delegates were unable to unite, without some reluctance, behind any one position. The evidence does show, however, that the delegates sincerely sought to support the interests and tradition of the colony as implied in the various resolves. Conflicting interests and responses, as in New York City, made decisions diffi­ cult for the delegation. Virginia's position was molded by the concerns of its planter aristocracy. They comprised a chain of command from the county level to the General Assembly.

The planters were Whigs and supported a political tradition which emphasized natural rights, individual freedom and

local sovereignty. To challenge the gentry and their

power structure, including the House of Burgesses, was to

challenge a whole way of life. The response of most

Virginians was to protect this socio-political system.

Their rejection of Galloway's Plan in Congress reflects

this intent as much as their response to the Coercive Acts

and the dissolution of the Assembly. The planters also

sought to protect their financial credit and integrity.

Their intense desire, despite some opposition due to con­

cerns over the threat to rights, was to postpone non­

exportation in order to pay their debts and permit the

development of new crops for local industry. Postponement

was supported relentlessly in the First Congress, as

Virginians, responding to protect their interests and

traditions, stood by their instructions. Theyjrefused to

submit to the desires of their liberal allies.

The aristocratic nature of colonial society and

the critical circumstances under which the colonies oper­

ated did not prevent the use of democratic procedure.

The Fifty-One and the dissolved Burgesses intently sought

to gather what they felt was a legitimate response from

the voting public. In New York the effort was handicapped

by lack of unity and, for political reasons, the 211 unwillingness of the Fifty-One to consent to a provincial convention. Nevertheless, a real effort for democratic procedure is evident in the several attempts of the Fifty-

One to achieve a response from delegates from the coun­ ties. Furthermore, both colonies relied upon some aspect of the existing political structure through which to operate extra-legally. Without a provincial convention, the Fifty-One relied on county officials; the dissolved

Burgesses in Virginia relied on their membership.

The debates in Congress over the possible responses to the issues were the result of conflicting positions based on provincial interests and traditions. This is definitely evident in contrasting New York and Virginia's role. No agreement was reached on a permanent constitu­ tional plan. Virginians, seeking to protect their own social system from outside interference, rejected the mercantile interests of New Yorkers who supported a per­ manent plan of unification permitting Parliament the right to regulate trade. Virginians protected provincial integrity; New Yorkers protected imperial integrity.

The attempt to achieve a uniform response to the immediate crises created by the Coercive Acts was suc­ cessful. But again, this did not reflect a consensus in political doctrine or even in action. A petition to the King as well as a boycott were adopted, one concilia- tory, the other coercive. If Washington's attitude is illustrative, Virginians put little stock in a petition, but were willing to tolerate it once a boycott was as­

sured. New York City delegates attempted to manipulate

the coverage of the boycott to match the resolves of the

Fifty-One, while still working to achieve their primary

objective, a permanent plan of union. The success of the

effort to achieve an immediate response was due to the

common fear of the Coercive Acts. Virginia and New York

resolves, as well as some individual responses, at the

provincial and local level, were writ large with endorse-

ents for cooperative action in order to provide a greater

sense of provincial security.

If New York and Virginia are any indication, the

colonies cooperated to protect local and provincial inter­

ests and traditions, including constitutional rights,

from the threat of arbitrary government, not to seek

unification. They were separate political bodies, not a

.unified state. The only thing common about the cause was

the threat to local constitutions, institutions and

customs. In 1774 Virginians were Virginians first? New

Yorkers were New Yorkers first; they were Americans

second. If, as David Ammerman has written, a consensus

was reached in the First Congress, it was based on a fear 126 of standing alone in confronting the threat. This

consensus, although reluctantly, may have bridged some

political and class differences, but it did not surmount 213 the priority of provincial interests and traditions.

Significant differences in a position on the constitu­ tional relationship of the colonies and Great Britain pre­ vented any true consensus. Concern over local sovereignty prevented unification. Indeed, the commonly acknow­ ledged debate between liberals and conservatives in the

First Congress can be evaluated best when viewed as a dialogue between various provincial interests. Even New

York's appeal for a plan of union was provincially motiv­ ated to protect internal interests. Self government and constitutional rights were more compatible with provin­ cial interests and traditions than with any attempt at colonial unification. The delegates came to Congress instructed to protect something, not to gain something.

In their paradoxical and ambiguous struggle to protect both provincial and common interests, however, they adopted a plan which would eventually lead to greater unification. 214

FOOTNOTES

Calhoon, "William Smith, Jr.'s Alternative," 113. Also see Bland, "An Inquirey," in Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 34-35. 2 Force, Archives, 4, I, 316. q William Fitzhugh to James Russell, August 3, 1774, Bundle 6, James Russell Papers (reel 1). Also see John August Washington to James Russell, August 16, Bundle 18, Ibid., (reel 2).

*James and Drinker to Benjamin Booth, September 8, 1774, James and Drinker Business Papers. Also see Paul Leicester Ford, "The Association of the First Congress," Political Science Quarterly, VI, 615 and 618; and Aramerman, Common Cause, 36-39 and 46-48.

^Adams to Mrs. Adams, September 25, 1774, Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress, I, 47.

^Adara to William Tudor, September 29, 1774, Ibid., 60.

^Connecticut Delegates to the Governor of Connec­ ticut, October 10, 1774, Ibid., 70. Q Adams to Mrs.-Adams, September 18, 1774-, Ibid.,'35. Also see John Adams to Joseph Palmer, September 26, 1774, Ibid., 48. In reference to "our embassy" and "our country," Burnett maintains in a footnote "that delegates were inclined to regard Congress as a gathering of ambassadores of sovereign states." Colonists often used the word "country" to mean their colony. A review of contemporary literature support this view. Congress was more a league of states than a natural body politic.

^Galloway to William Franklin, September 3, 1774, Ibid., 5.

^Mackenzie to Washington, September 13, 1774, Stanislaus M. Hamilton, ed., Letters to Washington, V, 49, as quoted in Fitzpatrick,‘"Writings of Washington, III, 247 n. 215

^ I b i d . , 246-247. For Washington's meeting with the Massachusetts delegation see Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 140; and Fitzpatrick, Diaries of Washington, .II, 165, For a further discussion of the Mackenzie letter and the conference on September 28, see Freeman, Washington, III, 381-386.

* Butter fie Id, Diary of Adams, II, 106.

13Ibid., 107. Also see Edwin Brockholst Livingston, The Livingstons of Livingston Manor, 200-201.

^Colden to Lord Dartmouth, November 2, 1774, Force, Archives, 4, I, 957.

^Butterfield, Diary of Adams, 109 and 120.

^Burnett, Letters, I, 60. Also see John Adams to Thomas Pickering, August 6, 1822, Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams, II, 513.

^Beane to Mrs. Deane, September 1-3, 1774, Burnett, Letters, I, 4. Also see his letter to Mrs. Deane, Sep­ tember 5-6, 1774, Ibid., 11. New Englanders were not the only ones impressed by the Virginians. See Caesar Rodney to Thomas Rodney, September 9, 1774, Ibid., 27.

^"Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 123.

"'"Bbid., 123; James Duane, "Notes of Proceedings," Burnett, Letters, I, B»9; and Ford,-Journals of Congress, I, 14.

20 Duane, '.'Proceedings," Burnett, Letters, I, 8-9; and Ford, Journals of Congress, I,. 24.

2Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 123.

22Ibid., 123-124.

23Ibid., 124 -125; and Duano, "Proceedings," Burnett, Letters, I, 12.

24Ibid., 13. 216

26 Butterfield, Diary of Adams, X, 125.

27Ibid., 126. '

28Ibid., 125.

29 Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 25-26; and Duane, "Proceedings," Burnett, Letters, I, 13.

30 Ibid., 16; and Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 26-29 and 41.

3^Butterfield, Diary of Adams, XI, 128. 32 Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 243. Also see Jefferson, Autobiography, 25.

33Ibid., 237.

34 "Address before the Great Committee," Burnett, Letters, I, 24. Also see Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 129. Galloway's views are found in his A Candid Examina­ tion of the Mutual Claims of Great Britain and the Colonies, 2-25, in American Antiquarian S o c i e t y Early American Imprints (microcard).

35 Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 128. 36 Samuel Ward, "Diary," Burnett, Letters, I, 27. 37 Butterfield, Autobiography of Adams, III, 309-310. Adams provides some interesting insights, but some of his facts lack accuracy.. Also see Ward, "Diary," Burnett, Letters, 1 , 27.

38 Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 245. ------

39Ibid., 237-238. 40 Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 143. 217

41James Duane, "Notes of Debates," Burnett, Letters, X, 75.

42Jefferson, Autobiography, 25; and Randolph, "Essay on Revolutionary Virginia," 216.

43See his "Address before the Great Committee," Burnett, Letters, I, 23-25. His ideas were more fully developed in his "Propositions" which were offered to the committee sometime between September 6 and 22, Ibid., 38-44. Also see Butterfield, Autobiography of John Adams, III, 309.

44Duane, "Propositions," Burnett, Letters, I, 40-42; and Butterfield, Diary and Autobiography of Adams, II, 142-143, and III, 309.

45Duane, "Propositions," Burnett, Letters, I, 40; "Notes of Debates," Ibid., 73; and Butterfield^ Diary of Adams, II, 143-151.

4^Duane, "Notes of Debates," Burnett, Letters, I, 73.

4^Ibid., 72-73; and Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 151.

43Van Schreeven, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 237; and Jefferson, Autobiography, 26.

43Butterfield, Diary of Adams, 148. __ _

3®Philip Livingston to James Duane, September 27, 1774, "The Duane Letters," Southern History Associa­ tion Publications, VIII, 54.

^Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 142-143.

®2Pord, Journals of Congress, I, 14, 30-31, 42 and 53; and Burdge, "Notice of Haring."

53 Ford, Journals of Congress, I, '67.

54Ibid., 68-69. 218

^Butterfield, Autobiography of Adams, III, 309- 310.

^Galloway, "Statement to a Committee of the House of Commons," Burnett, Letters, I, 76? and Butterfield, Autobiography of Adams, III, 310.

^"Examination of Joseph Galloway before the House of Commons," Burnett, Letters, I, 59; and excerpts from his Historical and Political Reflections on the Rise and Progress of the American Rebellion, Ibid., 56.

^Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 141. CQ Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 49.

88Galloway, A Candid Examination, 53-54? Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 49-51; Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 141-142; and James Duane to Samuel Chase, December 29, 1774, Burnett, Letters, I, 88.

61Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 237.

^Butterfield, Diary of Adams, I, 143.

64Ibid., 144. Also see Galloway, A Candid Examina­ tion, 3-4 and 46-47. — »■ “ —

8**Ward, "Diary," Burnett, Letters, I, 51; and Ford, , Journals of Congress, I, 51.

®**Burnett, Letters, I, 80.

8^Ward, "Diary," Burnett, Letters, I, 80; Ibid., 51 n., citing the Duane Papers, IV, folios 229-231, New York Historical Society; and Galloway, A Candid Examina­ tion, 52-53.

88Burdge, "Notice of Haring." 219

Ward# "Diary#” Burnett, Letters# I# 12; Silas Deane to Mrs. Deane# September 7# 1774# Ibid.# 18; John Adams to Mrs. Adams# September 18# 1774, Ibid.# 34; Butterfield# Diary of Adams# II# 124 and 128; Richard Henry Lee to William Lee# September 20# 1774# Ballagh# Letters of Lee# I, 124; Gaines' New York Gazette and Weekly Mercury, September 12, 1774; and Force# Archives# 4, I# 942 n. - 944 n.

70 Samuel Adams to Boston Committee of Correspondence# September 14# 1774, Burnett# Letters# I, 31; Caesar Rodney to Thomas Rodney, September 17# 1774# Ibid., 33-34; John Adams to Mrs. Adams# September 18# 1774# Ibid., 35; Ford, Journals of Congress# I, 31-40; and Edmund Cody Burnett# The Continental Congress# 42-44. Burnett gives major credit to the influence ofthe Suffolk resolves on the decision for nonintercourse.

^Butterfield, Diary of Adams# II# 134-135.

72 Adams to Chauncey# September 19# 1774# Burnett, Letters# I# 37*

73Lynn Montross# The Reluctant Rebels; The Story of the Continental Congress# 1774-1789# 46.

74Ford, Journals of Congress # I, 41; and Ward, "Diary#" Burnett, Letters# I# 36 and 37.

75 Ford# Journals of Congress# I# 41-43; and Con­ necticut Delegates to Governor Trumbull# October 10# 1774, Burnett, Letters, I# 64k - —

^Butterfield, Diary of Adams# II, 136.

77Ibid,

78 Ford, Journals of Congress, I# 42.

7®Van Schreeven# Revolutionary Virginia# I# 236-237. • Also see the report of the South Carolina delegates to their provincial convention, in John Drayton# Memoirs of the American Revolution# As Relating to the state of South Carolina# I# 167-168. 80 Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 42; and Ward, "Diary,” Burnett, Letters, I, 45.

81 Connecticut Delegates to Governor Trumbull, Octob­ er 10, 1774, Ibid., 69. Also see Ford, Journals of Con­ gress , I, 42-43.

8^Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 137.

83Ibid.

84Ibid., 137-138.

85Ibid., 139.

86Ibid., 138. '

87Ibid.

88Ibid., 139.

88The report of the South Carolina delegates, Drayton Memoirs, I, 168. Also see Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 139.

90 Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 43.

^Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 140.

83Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 51-53; Ward, "Diary, Burnett, Letters, I, 59? Samuel Ward to the Governor of Rhode Island, October 3, 1774, Ibid., 61.

83"Examination of Galloway," Ibid., 66-67; and Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 55-59.

84Benson J. Lossing, The Life and Times of Philip Schuyler, as cited in Becker, Political Parties, 164 n.

85Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 158.

8®Adams, Works of Adams, II, 402 n.-403 n. ®^Philip Livingston to James Duane, September 27, 1774, "Duane Letters," 53-54.

98 Booth to James and Drinker, October 5, 1774, James and Drinker Business Papers.

^ Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 139.

100Ibid., 143.

^°^Ibid., 142-143; James Duane to Samuel Chase, December 29, 1774, Burnett, Letters, I, 87-89; and Edward P. Alexander, A Revolutionary Conservative; James Duane of New York, 102.

^•®2Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 53-55; Ward, "Diary," Burnett, Letters, I, 59; James Duane, "Proposed Resolve," Ibid., 61; Samuel Ward to the Governor of Rhode Island, October 3, 1774, Ibid.; and Burnett, Continental Congress, 51.

^■^Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 146.

■^^The only source for what took place in the debate is John Adams' "Notes of the Debates," in Ibid., 147-149. The date of October 6 is not in the original manuscript, but is conjectured by Butterfield on the basis of the resolve agreed to on that date. 105 Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 57. Also see Samuel Ward to the Governor of Rhode Island, October 3, 1774, Burnett, Letters, I, 61; Ward, "Diary," Ibid., 64.

^■06Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 77.

107Ibid., 53.

^®®Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Vir­ ginia, I, 232.

^®Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 14; and Butter­ field, Diary of Adams, II, 146.

110Philip Livingston to James Duane, September 27, 1774, "Duane Letters," 54. 222

^^Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 62-63 and 74.

112 Duane, "Notes of Debate," Burnett, Letters, I, 77-78 and 77 n.

113Ibid., 78.

^■^Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 75? Ward, "Diary," Burnett, Letters, I, 79. %

^ 3The Continental Association is found in Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 75-81. The Virginia Associa- tion is in Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 231-234.

^®For an explanation of the issue and the debate surrounding this clause see the report of the South Caro­ lina delegates, Drayton, Memoirs, I, 168-171.

3^Gaine*s New York Mercury, April 9, July 23 and December 3, 10, 17 and 24, 1764; and Schlesinger, Colonial Merchants, 64 and 77.

llO Force, Archives, 4, I, 453.

l i f t Benjamin Booth to James and Drinker, September 28 and October 5, 1774, James and Drinker Business Papers.

120 See the resolves of Chesterfield, Fairfax, Nansemond, Prince George and Stafford Counties, Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 118, 132-133, 147, 152 and 160-161.

121 Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 40.

122 Butterfield, Diary of Adams, II, 142; and Force, Archives, 4, I, 316-317.

123 The New York Delegates to the Chairman and Free­ holders of Dutchess County, November 7, 1774, Burnett, Letters,,I, 84.

334Ford, Journals of Congress, I, 104. 223

125 Dutchess County, New York temporarily resolved for a petition through the Assembly, but changed their decision for the New York City delegates, to represent them. See Force, Archives, I, 324 and 702. Fairfax County, Virginia had resolved for a petition from the Congress. See Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary Virginia, I, 133. 126 Amraerman, Common Cause, x-xi and 101. t*

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I

224 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliographies

American Bibliographical Center. America History and Life: A Guide to Periodical Literature. Santa Barbara, California: Clio Press, 1964

Eiberson, Harold. Sources for the Study of the New York Area. New York: The City College Press, I960.

Gephart, Ronald M. Periodical Literature on the American Revolution: Historical Research and Changing Inter­ pretations, 1895-1970! Washington: Library of Congress, 1971.

Griffin, Grace Gardiner, and others. American Historical Association, Writings on American History. Wash­ ington: United states Government Printing Office and others, 1902-1964.

Greene, Evarts B., and Richard B. Morris. A Guide to the Principal Sources for Early American History (1600- 1800) In the City of New York. 2nd ed. New York:- Columbia University Press, 1953.

Hamer, Philip M . , ed. A Guide to Archives and Manuscripts in the United States. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961. — .. - — ~

National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Shoe String Press, 1962-1971.

Swem, E. G. Virginia Historical Index. 2 vols. Roanoke, Virginia! The Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company, 1934-1936.

Unprinted Primary Sources

Credentials of Henry Wisner and John Haring for the First Continental Congress, August 16 and September 3, 1774, Goshen, New York Historical Society Collection, in the Goshen, New York Library (photocopy).

225 226

James and Drinker Business Papers for 1774, The Historical Society of Pennsylvania (photocopy).

Alexander McDougall Papers, 1757-1776, Box 1, New York Historical Society (microfilm, reel 1).

William Reynolds Letterbook, Library of Congress (micro­ film) .

James Russell Papers, Coutts and Company, London, 22 Bundles (microfilm reels 1 and 2, University of Virginia Library).

Printed Primary Sources

Government Records, Correspondence and Journals

Ford, Worthington Chauncey, ed. Journals of the Contin­ ental Congress, 1774-1789. Vol. 1 of 34 vols. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904-1937.

Hening, William Waller. Statutes at Large: Being a Col­ lection of All the Laws of Virginia! Vol. 8 of 13 vols. New York, 1819-1823.

Kennedy, John Pendleton, ed. Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1761-1774. 4 vols. Richmond, Library Board, Virginia State Library, 1905-1907.

Redington, James, and Richard Arthur Roberts, eds. Calen­ dar of Home Office Papers of the Reign of George III, 1760-1775, Preserved In Public Record Office. 4 vols. London: Printed for Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1878-18VT. “ ~

Newspapers

New York Mercury, 1758-1768. In 1768 the name was changed: New York Gazette and Weekly Mercury, 1768-1774. Published by Hugh Gaine (microfilm).

Rivington*s New York Gazette, 1773-1774. Published by James Rivington (microfilm).

Virginia Gazette, 1774. Published by Alexander Purdie and John Dixon (microfilm).

Virginia Gazette, 1774. Published by Clementina Rind (microfilm). 227

Broadsides, Pamphlets and Other Contemporary Publications

Calhoon, Robert M. "William Smith Jr.'s Alternative to the American Revolution," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XXII (January, 1965), 105-118.

Galloway, Joseph. A Candid Examination of the Mutual Claims of Great Britain and the Colonies; With a Plan off Accomodation, on Constitutional Principles. New York: Printed by James Rivington, 1775. In American Anti­ quarian Society, Early American Imprints (microcard).

"New York Broadsides, 1762-1779," Lenox Library Collection, summarized in the Bulletin of the New York Public Library, III (January, 1899), 23-33.

New York City Committee. Proceddings of the Committee of Correspondence in New York, July 13, 1774. In American Antiquarian Society, Early American Imprints (microcard).

Vance, Clarence H., ed. Letters of a Westchester Farmer, 1774-1775. 1930: rpt. New York: DaCapo Press, 1970.

Personal Memoirs, Journals, Correspondence and Narratives'

Adams, Charles Francis, et al. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author^ 10 vols. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1850-1856.

Ballagh, James Curtis ,"“39. The Letters of Richard Henry Lee. 2 vols. 1911-1914; rpt. New York: DaCapo Press, 1970.

Boyd, Julian P., ed. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950-.

Colden, Cadwallader. The Letterbooks of Cadwallader Colden. 2 vols. In New York Historical Society Collections, 1876-1877, IX-X.

______’■. The Letters and Papers of Cadwallader Colden. lo vols^ In New York Historical Society Collections, 1917-1923, and 1934-1936, L-LVI and LXVII-LIX. 228

Cushing, Harry Alonz, ed. The Writings of Samuel Adams. 4 vols. New York: 6. P. Putnam's Sons, 1904-1908..

Duane, James. ‘'The Duane Letters." In Southern History Association Publications, VIII (1904), 53-56.

Parish, Hunter Dickinson, ed. Journal and Letters of Philip Vickers Fithian, 1773-1774: A Plantation Tutor of the Old Dominion. 1957; rpt. Charlottes­ ville! Dominion Books aDivision of the University Press of Virginia, 1968.

Fitzpatrick, John C., ed. The Diaries of George Washing­ ton, 1748-1799. 4 vols. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1924.

______, ed. The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. 39 vols. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1931-1944.

Carter, Edwin Clarence, comp, and ed. The Correspondence of General Thomas Gage with the Secretaries of State, 1763-1775. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1931-1933.

Grant , Anne VacVicar. Memoirs of an American Lady, with Sketches of Manners and Scenery in America, As they Existed Previous to the Revolution? 2 vols. 1808; rpt. New York: Research Reprints Inc., 1970.

Greene, Jack P ., ed. The Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778. 2 vols. Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1965.

Hutchinson, William T., and William M. E. Rachal, eds. The Papers of James Madison. 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962-.

Jefferson, Thomas. Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Capricorn Books, n.d?

Jones, Thomas. History of New York During the Revolu­ tionary War, and of the Leading Events in the Other Colonies at that Period, ed. Edward Floyd De Lancey. 2 vols. New York: New York Historical Society, 1879. Mays, David John, ed. The Letters and Papers of Edmund Pendleton, 1734-1803. 2 vols. Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1967. 229

Morris, Richard B., ed. John Jay; The Making of A Revolutionary, Unpublished Papers. NewYork: Harper and Row, 1975-,.

"Norton Correspondence," Tyler's Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine, III (April, 1922), 287-298.

Osgood, Herbert L., ed. "The Society of Dissenters founded at New York in 1769," American Historical Review, VI (April, 1901), 498-507.

Randolph, Edmund. "Essay on the Revolutionary History of Virginia, 1774-1782," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XLIII, 209-232.

Rutland, Robert A., ed. The Papers of George Mason, 1725- 1792. 3 vols. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970.

Sabine, William H. W., ed. Historical Memoirs of William Smith, From 16 March 1763 to 9 July 1776. 2 vols. New York: Colburn and Tegg, 1956-58.

Scull, G. D., ed. The Montresor Journals. In New York Historical Society Collections, 1881, XIV.

Steuart, A, Francis, ed. "Letters from Virginia, 1774- 1781," Magazine of History, III (March, 1960),

Collected Documents

Burnett, Edmund, ed. Letters of Members of the Continental Congress. Vol. I of 8 vols. 1921-1936; rpt. " Gloucester, Mas’SS'chusetts: F”. Smith, 19B3.

Drake, Francis S., ed. Tea Leaves: Being a Collection of Letters and Documents Relating to the Shipment of Tea to the American Colonies in the Year 1773, by the East India CompanyT 1884; rpt. Detroit: Singing Tree Press, 1970.

Drayton, John. Memoirs of the American Revolution, As Relating to the State of South Carolina. 2 vols. X821; rpt. New York: Arno Press, 1969.

Force, Peter, ed. American Archives: A Documentary History of the English Colonies in North America, 1774-1776". 4th ser., 6 vols. Washington: n.p., 1837-1846. 230

Gerlach, Larry K., ed. The American Revolution; New York as a Case Study. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1972.

New York Division of Archives and History. The American Revolution in New York: Its Political, Social and Economic Significancel Albany: The University of the State of New York, 1926.

Stokes, I. N. Phelps. The Iconography of Manhattan Island, 1498-1909. 6 vols. New York: Robert H. Dodd, 1915-1928.

Van Schreeven, William J., comp., and Robert L. Scribner, ed. Revolutionary Virginia: The Road to Independ­ ence. 2 vols. [Charlottesville]: University Press of Virginia, 1973-.

Secondary Sources

Articles

Bonomi, Patricia U. "Political Patterns in Colonial New York City: The General Assembly Election of 1768," Political Science Quarterly, LXXXI (September, 1966), 432-447.

Buel, Jr., Richard. "Democracy and the American Revolution: A Frame of Reference," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XXI (April, 1964), 165-190.

Champagne, Roger J. "Family Politics versus Constitutional Principles: The New York Assembly Elections of 1768 and 1769," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XX (January, 1963), 57-79.

. "Liberty Boys and Mechanics of New York City, 1764-1774," Labor History, VIII (spring, 1967), 115- 135.

"New York and the Intolerable Acts, 1774," New York Historical Society Quarterly, XLV (April, 1961), 195-207.

Dawson, Henry B. "Westchester County, New York, During the American Revolution." In History of Westchester County, New York, Including M o m s a n i a , Kings Bridge, and West Farms, which have been Annexed to New York City. Ed. J. Thomas Schaff. Philadelphia: L. E. Preston and Co., 1886, I, Chapter 5.

i 231

Evans, Emory G. "Planter Indebtness and. the Coming of the Revolution in Virginia," William and Mary Quarterly/ 3rd ser., IXX (October, 1962), 511-533.

Ford, Paul Leicester. "The Association of the First Congress," Political Science Quarterly, VI (Decem­ ber, 1891), 613-624.

Friedman, Bernard. "New York Assembly Elections of 1768 and 1769: The Disruption of Family Politics," New York History, XLVI (January, 1965), 3-24.

Gipson, Lawrence H. "Virginia Planter Debts Before the American Revolution," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXIX (July, 1961), 259-277.

Greene, Jack P. "Foundations of Political Power in the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1720-1776," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XVI (October, 1959), 485-506.

Handlin, Oscar. "The Eastern Frontier of New York," New York History, XVIII (January, 1937), 50-75.

Klein, Milton M. "Democracy and Politics in Colonial New York," New York History, XL (July, 1959), 221-246.

Lemisch, L. Jesse. "New York's Petitions and Resolves of December 1765: Liberals vs. Radicals," New York Historical Society Quarterly, XLIX (October, 1965), 313-326.

Lewis, Anthony M. "Jefferson's Summary View as a Chart of Political Union," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., V (January^ 1948), 34-51. _ „

Lynd, Staughton. "The Tenant Rising at Livingston Manor, May 1777," New York Historical Society Quarterly, XLVIII (April, 1964), 163-177.

______. "Who Should Rule at Home? Dutchess County, New York in the American Revolution," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XVIII (July 1961), 330-359.

Morais, Herbert M. "The Sons of Liberty in New York." In The Era of the American Revolution. Ed. Richard B. Morris. 1939; rpt. New York: Harper and Row, 1965, 269-289. Olson, James S. "New York Assembly, the Politics of Religion, and the Origins of the American Revolution, 1768-1771," Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, XLIli (March, 1974), 21-28. 232

Pole, J. R. "Historians and the Problem of Early Amer­ ican Democracy," American Historical Review, LXVII (April, 1962), 626-646.

Tate, Thad W. "The Coming of the Revolution in Virginia: Britain's Challenge to Virginia's Ruling Class, 1763-1776," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., IXX (July, 1962), 323-343.

[Tyler, Lyon G.] "Bland's Constitutional Argument in 'The Colonel Dismounted,' 1763," William and Mary Quarterly, 1st ser., XIX (July, 1910), 31-41.

Tyler, Lyon G. "The Leadership of Virginia in the War of the Revolution," Part I, "Period of the Stamp Act," 1st ser., XVIII (January, 1910), 145-164; Part II, "The Two Penny Act," 1st ser., IXX (July, 1910), 10- 30; Part III, no title, 1st ser., IXX (April, 1911), 219-262.

Unpublished

Benson, Dale E. "Wealth and Power in Virginia, 1774-1776: A Study of the Organization of Revolt." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maine, 1970.

Burdge, Franklin. "A Notice of John Haring, a Patriotic Statesman of the Revolution." Unpublished manuscript, number 55 in Budke Collection, New York Public Library (microfilm).

Figliomeni, Michelle P. "Henry Wisner: Profile of a Revolutionary." Paper presented as keynote speech for Six Sundays in Seventy-Six, bicentennial program for Goshen, New "York, March 28", 1976.

Gillen, Jerome Joseph. "Political Thought in Revolutionary New York, 1763-1789." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Lehigh University, 1972.

Books

Abernethy, Thomas Perkins. Western Lands and the American Revolution. New York: D. Appleton— Century Company, Inc., 1937.

Alexander, Edward P. A Revolutionary Conservative: James Duane of New York, ed. Dixon Ryan Fox. New York State Historical Association Series, Vol. VI. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938. 233

Ammerman, David. In the Common Cause: American Response to the Coercive Acts of 1774^ Charlottesville: University Press o£ Virginia, 1974.

Becker, Carl Lotus. The History of Political Parties in the Province of New York, 1^60-17761 1909? rpt. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press( 1968.

Bonomi, Patricia U. A Factious People, Politics and Society in Colonial New York. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971.

Bridenbaugh, Carl. Myths and Realities: Societies of the Colonial South. 1963: rpt. New York: Atheneum, 1970. . Mitre and Sceptre: Transatlantic Faiths, Ideas, Personalities, and Politics, 1689-1775. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962.

Brown, Robert E., and B. Katherine. Virginia, 1705-1786:• Democracy or Aristocracy? East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1964.

Brown, Robert E. Carl Becker on History and the American Revolution. East Lansing: Sparaton Press, 1970.

Burdge, Franklin. A Memorial of Henry Wisner. New York: Privately printed, 1878.

______. A Second Memorial of Henry Wisner. New York: Privately printed, 1898.

Burnett, Edmund Cody. The Continental Congress. 1941; rpt. New York: — Jtf. W. Norton,- 1964. —

Davidson, Philip. Propaganda and the American Revolution, 1763-1783. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1941.

Dillon, Dorothy Rita. The New York Triumvirate: A Study of the Legal and Political Careers of William Livingston, John Morin Scott, and William Smith, Jr. New York: Columbia University Press, 1949.

Eckenrode, Hamilton James. The Revolution in Virginia. 1916; rpt. Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Books, 1964.

Fox, Dixon Ryan. Yankees and Yonkers. New York: Univer­ sity Press, 1940. 234

Freeman, Douglas Southall. George Washington: A Biog­ raphy . 7 vols. New York*: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1948-1957.

Gerlach, Don R. Philip Schuyler and the American Revo­ lution in New York, 1733-1777. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1964.

Gipson, Lawrence Henry. The Triumphant Empire: Britain Sails into the Storm, 1770-1776. Vol. XIX in The British Empire Before the American Revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965.

Harrington, Virginia D. The New York Merchant on the Eve of the Revolution. New York: Columbia University Press, 1935.

Labaree, Leonard Woods. Royal Government in America: A Study of the British Colonial System before 1783. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1958.

Leake, Issac Q. Memoir of the Life and Times of General John Lamb. 1857; rpt. New York: Da Capo Press, 1971.

Livingston, Edwin Brockholst. The Livingstons of Living­ ston Manor. New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1910.

Lynd, Staughton. Anti-Federalism in Dutchess County, New York: A Study of Democratic and Class Conflict in the Revolutionary ErsT. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1962.

Maier, Pauline. From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765~-~iV76. 2nd ed. New York:- Vintage Books, 1974.

Malone, Dumas. Jefferson and His Time. 5 vols. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1948-.

Mark, Irving. Agrarian Conflicts in Colonial New York, 1711-1775. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940.

Mason, Bernard. The Road.to Independence: The Revolu­ tionary Movement in New York, 1773-177T. Lexing- ton: University of Kentucky Press, 1966.

Mays, David John. Edmund Pendleton, 1721-1803: A Biog­ raphy. 2 v o l T l Cambridge:. Harvard University Press, 1952. 235

Montross, Lynn. The Reluctant Rebels; The Story of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. 1950; rpt. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1970.

Nettels, Curtis P. George Washington and American Inde­ pendence. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1951.

Porter, Albert Ogden. County Government in Virginia: A Legislative History, 1607-1904. New York: Colum- bia University Press, 1947.

Rossiter, Clinton. Seedtime of the Republic: The Origin of the American Tradition of Political Liberty. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1953.

Schlesinger, Arthur M. The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution, 1763-1776. 1917; rpt. New York: Atheneum, 1968.

Sosin, Jack M. Whitehall and the Wilderness. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961.

Sydnor, Charles S. American Revolutionaries in the Making: Political Practices in Washington's Virginia. Originally published as Gentlemen Freeholders, 1952; New York: The Free Press, 1965.

Williamson, Chilton. Vermont in Quandary: 1763-1825. Montpelier: Vermont Historical Society, 1949.

Wisner, G. Franklin. The Wieners in America and Their Kindred: A Genealogical and Biographical History. Baltimore, 1918. DGDKTUgB) * 80*0 (gBHJG HO DGiuauga) T 50*0 f f O V (etGfJpGX. BOBP QOUlbGpX- Aee D G nnruga) 'J 80*0 T 0**00 (gOTUG HO Dcmauqa) S U0*0 — PTOIT BUG CombGpx- *G8

DGE/axiga) 5 *0*0 (gsn/G HO

* DGUBuga) 3 eo*o I (eteopGi: BOBp B^ffCpXCG XGB Deiusruge) 3 30*0 (SOTJG ' Ho DGsiBuga) 3 30*0 0*100 **3 (CtGEfpGj: B*e B£?cpxc6 XGB

gCOX-G Etcd* (bcp*) A^jnea Execp geffaou c&eeiioth. tfGabouae ypeoi* yg} * Lted* ty WTea* LTaK6t HGJ

Cowb6fXPTAG BT^napxoua HecxbTGupa ju liZVcpfca mjq bjoceq nbou VfjJjopTC e^sojp COtrcpGB, UGXTGtB Tu luczGffsxud DGiuauqa

aopje 23

S30 jfGbp ppcqx coucpq-ud bappcrue apujprat po btGApona 7vcara* ponug pppa nop po p o pr.no* jpexoporc* ppG coscpGa abbeax po paAG pGcanao op dxGupB* homgagx:* pX, pjjg cuq op ppc bgbbou 1 qO bGXCGup i«ra ppsp ppcX rtonjq GxboxpGUCG boihg ajpcxappou q-u ppGqx c o a c p p u d

0 pxGug qoGB abbGor po expep* jjjg pupppaj XGBcppou op ppc coacpGe papnjffpToua* tre xopjccpGg pA ppo ETBpGX(e Exucp s c o x g qu jjapje 5 3 *

yjppondp uo apdupppcaup gpppGXcuco cau pe ponuq pu ppo t h A©b h o u g mh o *„ b r o g n c G v u \ oppGxappou qu ppc coacppud* jpe boaappjc bubmgxb «gxg

j j j g UGxp drroeppou aepcg pp ppc pupxogncppou op dxaupa Monjg

HOUG 3 eo *o b p e u p H G dappA G 0 ------t o a p MOU-KGCp- boapppAO 5 * 0* 0 I HOUG 5 3 3 *3 b p G U p H e d a p p A G J re *A bXG H o u - K o c p - b o a p p p A G 3 B0*0 "

HOUG 0 ___ • Hsdupq-AG 0 ------bO BP k g c q-bq-Gup boapppAG B T 00 * 0 I HOUG 7 3 0 *0 HGdupq-AG 0 ~ <— b ^G H e c p b p G u p boaq-pq-AG B 3 0 ‘ 0

(BCp*) A a jn G B QGBBOU CupGdoxA HGBbOUBG y p e o x * e ^ oc T* v g } ‘ E t e d * | W p s e p u d

KGcpbpcup Bug Hou-UGcpbpeup yppjGppc ettfUFE-pu-ypg fibou ppc ckuuf COBCpGB, BGXeobppOU op ppG Ett©Cp 8 Op

lappe 54

331 ' CPT g dm iicG *a s’gieec eTflu* « *33Se MGTTaPTTTF^ * *5

B o a p ETU* 8f®P®BS*000 3*530 S*000 0*351 0*835 0*500 3*0 <*0 3 *0

BK® ETU* H'P®pna3*200 3 *3 0 0 3*000 0*351 0*318 0*300 3*0 1*0 1*0

E K X O t DGA* gGGBOU C O p G d o x X K G 99 WGq * H O qs g p * g p * a «* WTU* w a x * k Og

g p o p n n 0 1 jp G ^ r , C o g c jjg b , DG3 T G£ B 0 8 f ° f P G BTusrucTtrT

x a p j o ae

- X u g jc trp G 9 Egp^gcp btodtaii;*

XGBbOUBC’ p o p p c ^ j u g u c x o j a p a p n a ppe pGBlli* y score o e 2 w o n jq

S n e a p y o u 7 3 ou ppe cogcjjgb, bgkagX cffijGq ipx. 9 rTl£GtP B c ja x u d

mop yjp ct) 4 8 0 *0 MO (HTTT (VTPGt) j 3 0 *0 I B o a p AGE

Hop VjpGt) 3 33*3 Mo (MTU (VT^ot) * ee*5 *3000 3 0 BXG *GB

gCOXG (BCp*) gCOtGB EXGCp 8 G 9 Q O U BGBbOUBG ypBOJ* E^Gd* y q }* £ S G d * ft HTBB* ETe^s.a HbJ

JpGJT. COETC]1JV& ob 9 BOBBTPJG EBCpot yu yjpGLfucl COEfCpGB, BcXTct PPG Ettecp OE c^oupa

iWPTG S3

535 COBCpGB OACX pGPCpqPcl COUCCXUO ■

XGqPpOXCGB PPG atoft^ud bxqOXqpA Op qupGXCOJJG3qgpG tfppqCppCB pox ppc pnA XGjcaecg ppe pxom VPPT®£TCB tot ecxAqcGo ■ jpqa ii/oag

era WGUjpexa op fpc DGbaxpmcup op yppjcpqca* tpAaqcaj Eqncapqou Mqjq

Mae a xG-cjaaaqppcapgou W ° coacpGa* pGdguugucl gu ynpnnnj* TdiA‘

enppgcgGpp £7»® W^gx acagciugc XGBbouagpgigpgGe* jpo xgbpxp

gpggAggnaja Mpo mgxg op a gnaj coppxacp mgxg u o p crpjo p o a jag

coppxoacxbA Mgppgu bpABqcaq Ggncapgou pox gp maa oxdnGg ppap pppeo

pgxa p* jjjg qxrboxpapco op ppga d/iGappop pae pecowe eouGMpap op a

ebjgp cop£xacp Mggp bpAeqcgj egncapqou' bgg ppgwbgjagb a a c o a c p G a

guggcap© ppap ppe ajgdpp walJoxgpA op ppeao bGobjG* Mpo mgxg bjj op

c o a c p G a bgg ppemaGjAca aa bGRpoxupua* jjjg x c a n j p a (sgg j a p q c 2 ^)

dneapqou gpaeqp xcpGXXcg po Mpqcp op fpG pMO gnaj xojca go ppe

bgjage aa cpppax a pcacpGX ox a coacp Mgpp ppG nugAGxagpA* jpe

opg pox ppG coacpaa po xaaboug* jpoA mgxg aapeg po cjaaagpA ppGiu-

jpe tquaj dneepgou mbb opg ppap aGGueg po pc ppG tuoep ggppgcnjp

pcpM6GP ppc bXG-boap xaanjpa* '

bxodxaur* homgagx* po agilugpgcBijp qgppeXGUCG Maa ponug po cxgep

XGCGqAqpd tuoxG pguaucgai anbboxp Mgppgu caxpagu axoae op ppegx

3*0 nraxp‘ guggcapGB ppap ppo coacpGa pejqcAG ppap ppGA aponjg pa

cjaaagpgcapgou pox p/nrggud • jjjg metrv qxob op 3 *000* ot p o j o n pp©

bggbou uiggu XGabouEGB op 3*5 Monjg qpgqeapo a ajgdppjA spOAG bagxb&g

acoxo op 3 qa po po copaqqcxcg aa aapqapacpoxA* pp6 coacpGa, bxc-

ppo gcdxGG op aapqapacpqop Mqpp ppa pnuggud op ppo pcauj* ip ppG

jpa xeanjpa (egg lapjo 59) gGinopapxapc a dcpaxaj qoMGxgud op

533 VS oldaT

B o i n i noliflolHaaG lO 5Io3 ' oarioeoO Y^P09^GD rfOBOD 30 39rfOG9T

.Xofl a,3orfa±'J .aalM 8 .peil ,(;M .XoadA oanoqastfl noajssS 3aoT iofixa 89UlflV (.±99) .poll

fr8. OOOS. MM £.££ £ 39ftOB9T 039 V.99 rioBoO

X 0.02 X 39rfOfi9T 3ao9 0.08 rfo£o3 I

p o n t a •

Bpdupppcaup qpppGteuco popftGGU ppG pu-BGaaou auq onp-op-BGaaou ctcqpp

BGBBOU BCOtGa* JJJG 3-pBpj btOpappjppX ECOtG BpOMB ppap ppGtG pB UO ppatG pa AetX TTPPje qpactGbaucX popncGu ppe pu-eGaaou auq onp-op- ppG dnatpct* vs cau pG bggu pX ppG tUGau* nrcqpau*' aug lt/oqG tccoxqpuda* po ppc bjaXera ob papud ppG umupot op ponte tedpapGtGq pox: qntpud

jjjg pptap ABtpapjG GxaxupuGq mbs ctcqpp ponta • jppe «aa qcppucg op popaje pot a bctpog op oug mggjc* qpppatGUCG goea oxpap* jjjg acotGB MGtG paprriapGg po pG pugpcappAG

BcotG pu ppa s-papj btopappjppX cojmuu pugpcapce ppap a apdupppcaup

Mppppu Gacp capGdotX* ip pa adapu uopGg ppap au aapGtpajc appct ppc op apdupppcauco pcpMGGu ppc pu-eoaBou aug onp-op-BGaaou combatpeoue aug VGaantca op AatpappjppX* ji-AapnG tGanpFB wcte naGq aa ppe UGaerrtG jpG qapa paa pggu cowbnpGg ao aa po dpAG njcaantGa op CGUptaj pGuqeucX acbatapG acotGB atG dpAeui oug pot pu-eeaaou auq oug pot onp-op-BGaaou*

MotK* auq lupacGTjauGonB acppApppaa* Mppppu eacp tow op &apj6 281 F«o cappud1 coiubGppppou1 btacppcG* eocpajpsappou* ajGGb* epngXpud* ptaAGj‘ op ctcqppa* u/nupGt op ponta op cjaaaGa* umupot op poirta qoAopcq po cojTGGpGq* jpe Aatpapjea exaurpucg couapap op ppo pojjoMpudt unnipGt

58* V topap op 23 pu-eGaaou auq 20' onp-op-ncasou tGabouaca Meto

jpG ppiiJG jpuG toanjpa pot ppc batppepbaupa ate tocotqeg pu lappG

VFPTGpGU, apwe ffuGB

335 f O N w s s $ O H m « til E O *H O i * s *3 3 8* n 3 a I I HI ft G p *3*ai a o O r IO r ■a M pi 0 O o o 0 0 o 0 o

•a a •a s •a a n i a *a a *a a *a a •a a ■a a ■a § •a a O to n a a a a a a B a ■a a H HHH H d CJ ru ru d d H H ru ro ro 00 O Or ro M or CJ d d ru ro d CJ 00 ro d ru ru d • • • ■ •*•• *• ■ *•••* 4 4 4 ft 4 ■ ru w A d CJ CJ ro o A H d CO M O o A o CJ 4. ru d ru Or o p - ru O o ro ru or P- CJ d P- A or Or CJ 00 CO 00 d 00 ro A d O d o o O H O d o O O A 4 CO o H O ro O H H MH d CJ ru ru d d HH ru ro ru CO or or P- O or HH d ru ru d H CO ru O o CJ d • • • ■ •• •» # • • •• • • ft 4 4 4 4 4 4 ru ru CO o or d H o CO P- to o ro ru to O ru d H d H d A o CJ o CO ru d A L- ru L- 00 d o u- o o ru M ru 00 ru 00 O CJ o CO O ru CO ru o ru CJ ru O rU o o o 00 00 00 O

H H HH H M CJ ru A H H •H ru p - A or H P- 00 o ru o 00 d 00 A ro M o o O o CJ U> * • •• * • •• • »• • • ft • • 4 • 4 4 9 4 20) © o O o rU ru o o ru o o o o O ru o o o o o o ru o o o o O O o o O o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o O O o O o H M o H M M H o o H H o • * • ••* •• •«• ft ft • • • 4 4 4 4 4 4 U) ut ro 00 A ru AA ro ro CJ CO or O ro 00 o 00 ro ro o or M A d A ro d Or ru ru or A M M ru u ro 00 A or ru p- 00 Or P- CO O ru CO A O or ro O ro d CJ o d 00 A CJ ro o H M H H M d d 4 ru CJ CJ CO CJ AA or d ro p> d CJ c- ru ru M p- ro •««••• • • • ■ • •«• * * ft 4 ft 4 4 4 M CJ ru Or CJ P- ru H P- or U- CO ro A HH or Qr o P- p- or I 00 ru CJ A co CO or 00 or M ru •a to A ru P- H ro A M co CJ A ro P* CJ ro ru or ru ro CO CJ ro A 00 or 00 00 A 0> M H •H M d CJ HHHM d d or ro A ru A r - ro CJ d CJ ro A ru. A ru o ru H CJ d o CJ ru A A ru P- CJ d ru ru P* o CO oo »•* • ••• 4 •• * # * 4 ■ 4 4 4 9 4 4 4 ru ru CJ A Or Or H o HH or O A P* P ro 4. o ro o ro ru 00 M ro A ru A o Or d M (O H CJ O o d oo ro ru p- % CO O M or rU or O ru ru O ro ru CO U- H CJ o 00 o ru o ru

MH A A d 10 CO o to d o O HO o 00 o d *H o o o o o O O 4 • • i • • • • * «• 9 * « 4 4 9 4 4 9 4 o O o o o ru o o ru o (O ru ru OO o o o o o o o

d d d to HHHM d d A ro ro P> A ru d d d ro CJ d M H CO o or P* ru CJ 4. 4 or ro or H 00 oo A o CJ A ru p - • •• • * •• * • • * • • • • 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 O O o ru ru ru o o ru o ru ru ru O o ru ru ru ru o o ru

d CJ MHH H d d A ru d d A ru d d d ro CO d Or CO o o A ru ru 10 to

ui A 4 a A A A A A A 8 CO U> «J to CJ CJ U (J CJ CJ

O O • o *-t o o o o o o r u Of (4 o o o ar 00 CO CO Or o o o or wy 10 ro « « « « «

33e amonup op ppriG pu pppo ncppAppX* £jjg bco c g b pjjcondponp ppc com e p o M irbbacoup p p a p p p c bacppcpboupE go uop abonq o u o a g c j A opnuqaup ppo d g g u aug niegpau b c o c g b 1 abbcac po pc eouiGMpap jom* xp pe ppc mgcjc* Jpe umupoz op ponce pjjcitjegjagb1 ae opeGCAeg ppcondp

Bo m ppcGG CGbcGQGupe fjJG umupGC op ponce ebeup Gappud gncpud o p cja a e a p p e u g G g g n c p u d e a c p C G e b G c p p A e ppi&G bGcpog* gewouepcape auX epdupppcaup gpppocGuce ae po ppe umupGC op ponce pu~eGaeou cGenjpe ace conjbaccg po ppoeG pcour onp-op-BGaeou * go uop ace uop xupeepud mauX cpaaeee’ a p e ppdncce pu c o m p m o 1 Mpcu ppG ppoae ppdncGe* xp M o n j g ppGcepoce bggiii ppap o a g c g j j 1 ppc bjaXece coebGcppAG cccgpp ponce ecocGB 1 ace epppec ednaj po oc dccapGC ppau pu-eeaeou 'aug onp-op-eeaaou cjaee ponce* Mpcu cowbereg Mppp ppe uinnr op Mpap ppG cjaae ponce eponpg po* ape iugbu ecocGe poc popp ppap bcocg * jpG cccgpp ponce Monjg ap jeaep pG pngpcappAG op a ropup- « pGjpGAGg ppap ppe cccgpp ponce Monjg pa eouiGMpap cebceeeupeppAG op cjaee ponce ppap ppe barppcpbaup Mae anbboaeg po pe pu cjaae1 pp Mae epropjac conceGB* yjppondp uo ppdnce Mae eapepjpep6g poc ppe umupec op umupec gne po japocapocX mock1 bpXepcaj Ggncappou cjaeeGe1 aug oppGC umupec op cccgpp ponce CGdpapGCGg1 aug pp pe nenajjX apoAG ppe jappec pe GXbGcpGg ppap ppe umupec op cjaee ponce Mppj uop pe jeea ppau ppG po appcug* Dncpud au nugecdcaqnapG epngeup,e uociuaj conceG joag1 pp appcug cjaeeGe inaX gpppcc pconr ppe umupec ppap ppcX ace enbboecg gpappucppou wage pe ppap ppe umupec op cjaee ponce epngeupe acpnajjX acpnajjX appcugeg cjaeeGe gncpud ppc mggk pu dneeppou* jpo luaQoc ueaancG Mae couapqecGg po pe ppe umupec op ponce ppap ppe bacppcpbaup

Cjaee ponce m g c g qeppueg gpppocoupjX ppau cccgpp ponce* jppe

S3A bpaAexa aBeug ou ppG b a g x b 8g pcu moxo po/ixa Bex wgcjc pu pppa acppAppX

(ox (po BjaXexa* jjjg ppdnxea opsGXAeq pu pppa xo« apoA (pop ppe

jpG UGxp capedoxX couepepcq op xepaxappou auq eocpajpspuS ppme pu-Beaeou aug ojrp-op-eeeaou bxacppcG p^tuge • gnxpucl pppa ppmc bGxpog* j j j g x g pa a apdupppcaup gpppexeucG pepAoou adapu pugpcapea ppap a paxSe dnaupppX op ppe BjaXexe qo uop Bxacppce

OAGX ppxco ponxe OITp-Op-BGBBOU* JpG BJOgG BCOXG (OX Onp-Op-EGOBOU eBGug o a g x upue ponxa a aggjc Bxacppcpud qrrxpuQ ppG b gb bo u Bug EppapppX

% po oBeu peam Bxacppce* ya cbu pG b g g u pX ppe ecoxGa* ppe BpaXexa

XGBnjpB conjq xaude prom aemp-oxdaupseg pupexcojpeapepG peam bxacppcG po pe Bxacppce pprnea popp qrrxpud auq orrp-op-BGaaou* jjjg jappGX

Ope B x a c p p c e xoa c o u p a p u a ppdnxGB Mppcp ppe BjaXexe couapqexcg

Op-BGBBOU XGBUJpe* bcoxg* jjjgxg pa b apdupppcaup qpppexGUCG pu ppe pu-eoaeou auq onp-

BaxppcpBaupa qo uop coioBepe onp-op-BGoaou1 aa puqpcapcq pX ppe mogaj joa onp-op-EGaaou (pamce pa eomeApap oxbGcpeq1 pox a paxde umupcx op pmapcjA e*2 ponxe Bex aggjc op pupexcofjcapape comBeppppou* jpe xappex pu-aeaaou meau ecoxe apOAa ppap ppe BAGXade BaxppcpBaup paa abbxox- oxdeupsappou npexe ppe BaxppcpBaup pa a utGmpex op au oBeu peam* jpe

XGbXGBGUpa BaxppcpBappou pu GAeupa Mppcp axe aaucppoueq pX some

BaxppcpBappou Mppp auoppex acpooj* apo onp-op-aeaaou comBeppppou ppe Meejc ppap ppe puqpApgnaj Maa puAojAeg Appp pupGxeopjeapepe

lu-aeaaou comBeppppou couapapeq op ppe unmpex op ponxa qnxpud ppap pppa gpppoxeuce pa apdupppcaup* ppap jgbb ppme pa ebeup onp-op-aeaaou pox capped ppau pu-aeaaou* auq

338 PXgagj pptiJG Mpycp MgB Bbcup popoxo mjq appcx coujbGppppou conjq pe

g a g u p b oi/jX.* jpya pTdnxo waa “Of 9TttTcnIf f° oacGXpopu pox ppe

PpG TU-BG9BOU ppdrrXGB C O U a j a p G g O p p £ 9 A G J po GUq pXOUJ COlUbGppppAG

qpeppucppoua m g x g urcrqG p X p p e x g e g g x c p g x • m p g x g a g x jp m g b boaaipjG*

PJJG 869EOU Buq 0/TP-0p-8G980U* IP JE M^pp}1!! PpfH CGpGdOXA ppap 9 PGM

BOM upuc epOME ppe umupex op porrtc qcAOpcq po p£9A6j gntgud * p p a p p jw e B c x x o q *

PPG E9IUG Gllionup XGdGXqjGEa op Mptrp ppG^X OppGX aCppApppGQ 9XG qnxpud

BxopBppjTp* ecoxGE* ip ppoxopoxG gbbGaxe ppap ppo Epngcupe ap/rqA

Agxjgppou tb uop Bqduq-pjcgup* sa pugpcGpGq p7>. ppe jfAgjnG aug S— FaTX itroxc onp-op-BGsaou Mpou ppo ioGtru bcoxgs sxg couibnzG q' p n p pppo

GGcp op ppG pqnJG bexqoga • ip6 epngGupa qo peug po apnqA. ajpdppi^

jpc epnq7i pgpjpa op ppe bjgAexa mgxg gjbo luoap apuipjgx pox

&GPPGXUE M6XG UOp 98 pXOJCGIJ rib" * ejggB* jpc onp-op-8G9eou popajB mgxg urncp iuoxg couegBpGUp srug bjggB

qnxqrud ppe qaA* auq agxA oppou MGGpcuqa mgxg cgpcp-nb bGxpoga ou

Oflp—Op—BG9B0U * IP M98 UOp mjCOUlloOV pox 9U puqpAiqnGJ po BJGGb

bappGxue mgxg ioncp nroxe aboxaqpc ppau ppoao bappcxua ppap expapcg

IP aponjq GjBO pe boqrupGq onp ppap xusuA op ppo tu-bghbou BjGGbjud

bxg combaxcq* jjig gpppcxeucG ja wop ajduppTCOijp 9p ppe *02 Tsagj*

qjppeXGUCG pu ppo/e qeAOpeg po ajeebpud mpgu ppo pmo ppxie bexpoga

PPG MGGJC* IP JE pUpGXGEpjUd po UOpG pp9p ppGXG qa A6 X& J J P P J G

bom 8GA6U couapape op ppe umupox op ponxa abeup ajccbjud qnxjua

aiduppxcGup*

puAojAGq Mipp ppopx aboxp qnxpud ppe aegaou* jpje qjppexGUCG jb

qoxpud ppcpx onp—op—eggeou fjia e bGxpog ppgu ppc^ qo mpgu ppoA hxg

33d cojjGdpEpe aboxp gnxpud ppe b g e b o u * «ppcp couapape op cowbGppppou popgj umupGX op EAoxgdG ponxa «ppcp ppo gppjGpGn qGAope po pupex-

Lxonr pppa qgpg* 9 um opG X op opBGXAEppoue c e u po urgge* tpxap4 ppe pppa c E p G d o x A , gnxpua p pG b g b b o u* p© Bppxppnpcq po ppe bjECGureup op uou-gppjeppc XGjgpeg p x e a g j M p p p p u

BGBBOU EE COWbBXGg po ppG Onp-Op-BGEBOU XGBnjpB* ppjB GEU AGXA WGJJ yjppondp ppe pu-eegeou b c o x g b e x g apdupppcEupjA ppdpex gnxpud ppG ppexepoxe puejnqeg encp ucppApppGB e b bGxeougj pAdpGue Bug dxoowpud * g p q u o p b g g iu po ppp pu e u *. op ppo oppcx upu© cjBaapppcBppoua* ip

Ape urpacejjBUGona cgpGdoxA couapapcq op e j j ucppApppGB wppcp

ppxGG puqpApguEja m g x g wop rtoxjepud* xGanjpa* op ppo 2 0 xeeboweGB couBpgGxcg pu ppG pspnjEppoua* pppxpX-

pugpApgngja gpg uop m o x jc g n x p u d ppe b g e b o w* e x o o t ppe onp-op-BGBsou

* onp op 23 XGBbouBGa pxom ppe bBxppcpbBupa * pppxpA-apx op ppee© gpppoxewcG pa uop BpdupppcEup* ip e p o n j g e j b o pe bopupeg onp ppEp

e p o ft e u pnexGES© pu pppa sntfonup gnxpud ppe o/ip-op-eeBBOu boxpog* ppe gp e ^ op Mppcp XGBnjpa pu u o u g p e x A d g p u * yjppondp p p e b ig e u p p d n x e a

JJJ6 MOXJC CEpGdOXX XGbXGBGUpB ppG UmupGX Op pOSlXB BbGUp KOEJCpUd

GAGUPB*

PPG EAGXEdG EbbXOXpSIEpGjX Gpdpp pO/IXB bGX ttGGJC pO Euq pXOBf EppjGppC

COIUbEXpBOU A 9 B UJBgG pGpMGGU p p G XGB/TJpB * JJJG bjBAGXB pXEAG J J G q OU

ppgp boxpog* spue© p p g b g pwo bGxpoge xebXGBGup gpppexewp popgja1 uo

cgpGdoxA* jp© onp—op—aGEaou p x e a g j couapBpeg op e j j p x e a g j q n x p u d

conjg po ogqe1 ppe uou-gppjeppe p x e a g j m b s bjgceg qu ppe wpacejjBUGona

gpappuanpapeg pxow oppex p x e a g j appnappoua* Mpexe ancp g gpappucppou

S10 cjarppX ppe ppiiJG qGAopGg po Gacp eapGdorX pot ppe reager*

ZGBbGcppAo ccotGa prom u mggjcjA po a gapjX bappGru* ippe popje maX

l e p j o 3 d genfouaprapea ppe hjggu aug loegpou prGopgoMU op ppe eocpajpsappou* op ppe u c m j X deuerapeg pree ppxvG pe prauaperrGg pupo rejoxuppou aug po cjee8GQ* 8j66b% epngXpud* or Morjtpud* ip ebbGore ppap ppG pnjjc eacp capGdorX* pperG pe uop a epdupppcoup pucreaoG pu ppioe gGAopeg pupcresppud po uopc ppap ajppondp ppcre are Aarpona cpoudee Mppppu po nee ppcee expra pMGupX-ponr ponra pu a umuper op m u A b * ip pe po appjcppce pecoujoe prGC aug dpnee ppe pugpApgnaj ppe obborpauppX appjeppce* Mpcu ppe ecaeou pe o a g p % ppe breAponejX couufpppeg ppmc

Bor mggjc* jpercpore* oue gaX onp op b c a g u pe geAopeg popajjX po ponra ‘ bracppce ponra* aug praAep jjonra* comes onp po pe s

Motjc 0*321 O’OTA 0* ASA 0* 03A jltaAej X*X18 I *311 0*3IX 0* A20 ap/jgTwjucl 3*I2G 3*xae 3*32e 3*000

2T66b A *881 A*aie 8’00G A *333 gocq-sj^sa^jou 3-TA2 3*021

Btsrcpq-ce I*32e 1*333 0*123 0* S20

COWbG^T<:you 0*321 X*0T8 0*120 0*00A

Eopjucl X*1AX X*1S0 X*333 X*33X (A q^} Cjsaa nonce 3*323 3*S63 3* GOA 3*2AX (2 gtA) CJSbb Horrza 3*33* 3*IGA 3*G20 3*600

HO 9X1 WeqTBU HO 911 WoqTOi < C^peaorJw IV-■BGaaou Ons-o*-.8G9EOU

b v t f G i L U Q o£ botp^cqrbErupa Wesru oug vjoqTsru csq-jX rTt©

jiapje 2a

313 ppG GapapjpapiuGup op apdupppcaucG nioxo qppppcnpp*

X G a n j p p u d j q m urrotpGX op qodXGGB op pxGGqow* appa T°ft ppdnxc niapea appxPPnpcg po ppe j o m umupGx op coacpGa naGg pu ppe apnqA. aug ppG capGdoxpGa uo apdupppcaup gpppcxGuce Mae ponug* jppa pa bxpiuaxp j7v m o x j c * aug iirpacGjiauGona cpaaepppcappoua* h o m g a g x * pu eacp op ppeae jppa pa GabGCpappX pxae pu ppe bxecppCG* xejaxappou* apngA* pxuAGp* p p e w g u u aug ujGgpau e c o x g e axe conjbaxGq pox pu aug oup-op-eeaaou* op ppe capedoxpGa bxeaeupGg ppexe u x g jaxde gcdXGoa op pjucpuappou Mpeu ponug Mppppu ppe p m o jppe bappexua pa ppap op couboppppou* xu itiauA po uopG ppap ppe oujX capGdox& pu Mppcp a apdupppcaup gpppexeuce Mae

ye ppe cpaxp pa cxampueg pu cLgugxuj pGxnra‘ pp pa pupexcappud qapjX. poxmap* ppoua* iapjo £j pucjngea ppe iugbu aug xucgpeu xeanppa bxeaeupcq pu a - ppou* ope XGarrppa xecoxgeg pu jppjG go couapap op ppe mggkjA coiubpje- capcdoxpGa aug ppcpp XGbjaceiueup Mppp a up6acppud cjaaeGa,, cjaaapppca- oujA cxcGbppouE mgxg ppe cxcjnapou op p jjG cxegpp pome aug cyasa ponx mgxg ejj apwpjax po ppo eg naGg pox ppe baxppepbaupa, p p n j G ypuGa* jpe coacpca op ppe apx pGawa nacg pu ppe apngX G8 mgji* ape cjBBepppcappoua

9 Xu-BGaaou aug onp-op-aeaaou ppiU6 ypuea mgxg eapapjpapGg pox ppe coacpea, 3,pue rpuca

343 saiiT no2£92-lo-iirO Bos noaB93-nI lli 39rfOBOD lo Ziri9tt£ w 0) H o n

■a nj u CO A DCO CD o u- o M o o uo ru 00 A 00 04 o o o iu O o o CoQJ o QC o O M H o U) 0J H oj o o 3 3 8 Q.t* ft/ 0) IU to o * 4 A CD c c « t • a a • • • I DO CD ) > 4 • ru (U H ru CD OJ QJ ru M H A H o 4u 04 ru O 04 ru o o o O' O 00 4r D00 CD ru 04 00 04 to 4o 04 04 ■ti o a8•a 8 •a a * • # * * • • » • * a a • • • • ru 04 CD M ru o o ru ru H H 40 CD 04 04 o a* o 04 CO O' O o o o o H H o o O o O o 0to 00 Or H H 4 04 4 IU QC O * • 4 * a o o • 4 4 * t f u04 ru o ru CO At H H a/ 00 o ru ru o o o QJ o o O' or ru o t 4o 04 ft) n • • * • • « • At At ru 04 00 uoru o ru o o o M o O' o Oo CO CD o to o o o OJ H o o o Ooo ru o or o CO o o o 0J « 4 • « • • o O • a o o 400 04 O a» O* 4 4 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o QJ o QC Q o o o O o o o O o o 41 O a * 4 4 « • • •a 4MH M 04 ru ru o At 04 At 04 o ru QC M At At O o o o o o CO O o 00 o o o QJ o o o 8 0) r» <4 4 4 • 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0CD 00 QC 04 o o o M 4 • ru QJ At OC 00 CO CO o O o o 04 C*H QC o O o o O o ru o o o o CO At o M 04 )ru u) CJ J04 OJ o 141 41 •a a o 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ru ru ru 0- CO ru H M o ru I— 04 O 04 •H Hm tu o O o H QC M O O a r t . v 0J O (0 (O H |Q |Q ft D4 O *M ft 4 4 4 4 4 CD A o o 1 1 • 4 A rU ru IU H A H ru O QJ CD O ru U- O 04 IU 04 ru A H u* H 01 O H A A o A H o o ru o o iJ o CO LJ a o g * 4 4 4 4 4 % 4 4 o o o o •a IU cd 0- u04 ru O 04 QC O ru o o o o 00 ru o O O O A ru ru A 04 o 0J O o IQ A H CJ CJ o M t- H 4 4 4 4 4 a 4 • 0J IU a 04 O *Or o u* o o

ru

4 4 ru CD rU A CO CO o o H H ru QJ QC M A A H o o CD ru o O O A A rU A CCD QC Ooo o CO ru o o o o ti 3 o 4 4 4 4 • 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 •a uru ru o u O CD o CD •a A o IU A ) U QC JOJ OJ O04 CO QC H QC 00 o o o H Do CD QC o o o I u> O C p/ • 4 4 • 4 04 A O O A o 4 4 • ru o uO ru CD o ru o 1 0 o H o o o o o H o o o o o O 14 n 4 4 4 4 4 4 • 4 4 4 ■ 4 4 4 4 a§ •a ru QJ ru u H CD 14 ru CD 04 ru H M H CD A o o o QC O A H o o o o o o o 40 M 04 04 H QJ o o O O to u* o O pc io 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 O' H A A m 4 OJ o • o o H M uO ru 0- A ru u* Oo CO CO o H H o o uc M 04 o O O o o o o o O O D0 D0 04 00 CD 00 CD 00 4 1 04 11 n n 4 4 4 4 • A - •a DO CD ru *H o O 01 0* O H O o ru o o DQC CD to ru M o o o O' QC O M M 00 A o ru uto ru 4to 04 01 4to 04 04 0QC 00 •K g< S s ? • • 4 ■ IU M 04 4 4 4 4 O' o o 1 4 4 4 uIU ru M to O ru o oH to ru o O' A A A o uo ru H 04 00 H H ru to to to O' S' a O • n 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 > o Uru IU a § ■a IU IU A to M ru 01 o00 to CD 00 ru 04 o o o rU o o CD M H oto to 00 to QC 1to 01 O00 CO IU OJ OJ H H o o o 04 o A 4 4 H 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 04 4 t 4 o ru ru IU A A 04 o CD ru O' O ru H co to ru O' o A A O o 04 o O 4 4 4 4 ** 3 b g u s o u ego/jxpb*

gxppondp ppo djgou catubaxq-noue juqxcgpc g bxt^PP xucEGgeo qru ppo onp-ox

AgjA TTPPX® a v x j b g j o v Xs opaGXAcq xu ppo BjGCb pgpxpa ox ppcaG bcobx©

coucxn&xou ox ppo ecgeou x° pgjccu n b pX EGigxgpxou po g x&£ds cx p G u p *

BBOTG clGI.fGE.gX bgppGEU OX ppG bjOTkGEB * jpG GXCGBB pOflEB dgjJJGq pTw ppe

I v pGEUfB Oil EGXGXgpXOU* XP gOGB BGGUT ppgp PPG COgcpGB ^OJXOA PPG

P P G OmUIJJGE*

nugcx ppo 8nbGEApBjog ox pjjg egsbgcprag cogcp1 «xpp ppo gxcj/jbjou ox

dxonb* ip sggiob pjjgp g imupGE ox ppo pGgiifa pgAG Tkcgx-xojruq bxecpxce

ureupa g b b e g x p o g x j b p p p x o n d p o n p p p o A g g e x ° £ w o a p xugiopgeb o x P P X a

OCCnEEGJJCG q n x j u d P P G X E O X X - O G G B O U * H O M O A G E P P G b X g e p p e G EGfJ/ITEC—

jpo cogcpGB cotobopG X3*6 po/iEB g m g g jt gjjq p g A G wo b a x g i X G X

X0*30S P*b*4 onp-ox-aGQaou GGpxwd pgpxpa = 3*300 pxa*)*

oa qGUXJuepEgpeq xw £gpxo 28 (x* g * 1 bxffAera, xu-B6ffaou Ggpxud pgpxpa b

xonug rtxppxu PPXa cgpGdoiA o e g a g e 7 i ex^TXOE po ppoao ox ppo bjg&Gxa 4

q/JEXwd ppe p w o pxure b G E j o q a * ip x a ppap ppe ejgotj XTcLatGB

jjjg egpxud pspxpa ox ppe cogcpca gbbear po pc croap couej a p e up

e o B G M p g p p7i ppG EGa/rxpa*

cxaaa xogg qrrEjud ppe acaeou x°^ gscj; x^qXAXgnox* XPTa TB teCJGcpcq

po ppo cogcpGB qnxxwd ppoxx e©gaoua* jpx8 eponjq xoanxp Xu 9 eBmjjGE

nangjjTi gu gppGiubp po EcqncG ppe vrmrpcx ox pcgcpxwd ponxa 3xagu

ox ppo cogcpGB nacq jv PPTB apngX pgAG pGgcpjud gnpxGa* ijjgeg xa

. pX ppe cogcpca* woap ®x ppo cogcpca xuAOIA6q Mjpp gppjGpxca guq gjx

HOM owe xobxoaeupa ppo umupeE ox ponxB abcup pegcpxud cjgaeca

5*3 CBfGdoxpGU4 JpppjG AaxpBppOU MB8 OpBGXAGq* capGdoxpca op xojaxappou* moxjc* aug lupacGjpauGona* iu ppo XGiuapupud aug apngApud ajp occnx* MppjG pucxGaaGB OT:G opEGXAGg pu ppo xcanjpo* a xcgncppou pu ppnrGe qeAopGg po combGppppou1 bxacppcc*

MPGU ppG onp-op-BGaaou ppuqpuda G£G coiubaxeg po ppo pu~8Gaaou g x g pucjngog Mppppu pppa capcdoxA* tuauA L g x e o u s j pAbca op acppApppea awn A pxow ecpooj XGjapGg bnxanppa capGdoxA* pnp adapu pppa xpse Maa uop Bpdupppcaup* IP abbGaxa ppap

yu pucxGBBG pu ponxa m g b ajeo opaexAGg pu ppo tupacGjiauGona

Opp—BGBBOU* pO GXpBP* PPGXG gOGB BGGW pO pG B XpBG JU pppa CBpGdoxA gnxpud ppG peacppud gnppGB op ppe enpljccpa* yjppondp uo apdupppcaucG Maa ponug compruGg Mppp ppe cowbjGppou op ajp paepa xcjapGg po ppo concppud aug

jpe moxjc capcdoxA «aa couopgGxeg iooxg aa a bxGbaxapoxA bcxpog

* ponxa po aug pxoxo coiubeppppou gnxpud ppe m g g j c Gxaxupueg* pA ppo coacp* j j j g xGBnjpa pugpcapo ppap ppe coacpoa pxaAGjeq io*'l ppou* onp-op-BGaaou pxaAGj pucjngGg ajj poxnra op p x b a g p aa Gpaaapppeg pxaAGj gnxpud ppo b g b b o u Maa bjaceg pu ppo wtvpecGjpaueonau cjaaapppca-

XGpGxxag po pxaAGj xejapGg po pup6XcojjGdpap6 coubGppppou* yjj oppcx xhbuugx aa Mpap «aa gouG Mppp ppo bjaAexa, XGBbousGB* iu-aeaaou p x o a g j

ipe pxaAcppud cjaacpppcappou Maa adapu gGBpaueg pu ppe aaine pud* noeg pppa capodoxA aa m g j j ' ajppondp ppo A gpg uop dnajppA ppepx epnqA- d x a g n a p G m o x j c * ip aponjg pG uopeg ppap a umupGX op oppex coacpoa l e a a p o u g op ppe pugpApgnaja naeg aa a anp^ecp Maa puAopAGg Mppp

BpnqApud Maa jepp aa a capcdoxA pox ppe coacpoa pGcancG ap

3 « qGweuqa bjaceq nbou ppGCG puqpApqmrja • pu-aceaou popej ye exprGUTGjA ppdp* pnp pp qoea puqpcopo ppe ppdp qoAopeg po ppe asnne rGebouapppiTPTGa onp-op-BGsaou mgb n ’5 ponra* jpe ppe Meep pu Mppcp rGcorqpud poop bjaco mob ^j*

ipe umuper op ponra ppap a coacp qeAOpea po ppe cooppucq pu-aeeaou

sqa HjacoxjauGona T’ese x’ 02A 3*A43 S*200

Motjc 3*32A 3*e43 4*2X4 4*A8e

JtXEfAGX X*4Be T*32A 0*3AX 0*092 g p n g A j u d I* 3 A X 0*X43 0*X43 0*089

8 I G G B A" 343 8*32A A*AAX 8*000

Bocxsjq-s&pxou 3*314 3* A86 4*3X4 2*38G bK.9CPTCG X*3AX X*3X4 0*459 0*439

COttibGpTPT01J X*943 X* A20 0*000 0*000

Effpjud X*4S9 1*438 X*4X4 X*32A (A q®?0 16scpxua CI98BGB X*000 0* AT4 I*3AX X*0XB (2 q®*) AGErcpqud ci^aBGB X*400 1*000» X*A80 X*432

H®*® KGgxffu HGETU WeqT®w

C ® P g 9 o k X lu ­ BGBBOU onp-ot-accfEOU

btfppGzue oig. fpe co^cyea Kesnj truq w s q ^ a u d e t t j A i *T£®

Sjapje ei

548 yu ajpGXuapXA© ctTpejiTOO-psaGg bxau wpxcp cane X©x PP© wogxXTc8PT°o pnaxuGaa oxxGupGg mogGi x^P© moiugu.g appiGpxca ap ppx© x«8PTPnPTou* noG ox aapG xecexbpa* jpjB apGb x^TPT^P©8 ppo qrupxogncpTou °t © ivoxg poama wxJT eoou pG fUAojAGg MXPP bxogncxud xgagu/tg ppxoudp ppo pG tojxowGq xappGX cjobgjA JU ppo x©PO*©* ip qe ©xbecpGg ppap oug or inoap Bxng-jsr. po mGU'8 appiGpxca* IP abbGaxa ppap ppe tuajG luogGj mxTT ppG vppjgptc D©E>axpwGup ap OPT° gpapo wpxcp P©ag mage woidgu , a appjGpxca bxodxam* spcba paAO pggu papGU ju ppo oxdauxsapxouai apxncpnxG ox ox xwbxxcapxoua Tu XGdaxg po ppe Bxgbgup aug ^npnco gxxacpxoua ox ppe ipo xuPtoc3ncPTou °£ appjopxc dxaupe-xu-axg bBBgbx po paAG a umupGX

Xacpox jv ppo oAGxajj agAaucGWGup ox moujgu,b xupGxeojjGdjapG eppxepjea*

Xii ppja Bxocgbb* £XPT© IX P©b BjaTiGg a urerljox xojc aa a coupxxpnpxud xccoxga1 aug ppo dnajxp7w ox codjBgpxptou paAG axi pggu maijox bpgBb ju *x8CTTTPT68 * bxacpjcG pxutgb i^PPT© PP©8© £BGTTTPT®8 * wou-xoaa

Bxodxcaa paa g j b o p g g u loagc ju xcdaxg po ppG pGama* imbxoAGWGUpa ox ppo bxodxam *■ aug apapxTX£©PT0,J gu pcxma ox oxdauxseg apxncpnxG* jucxGa8Gg Gcouomjc dxoMpp* dxeapcx XGabouaxPXTTP* 8TT acduiGupa bexjog ox GBcaxapyou aug cpauae b^ucg xdAT PP3P paa XGenjpeg ju coacpGa* ip paa p g g u geuouapxapeg ppap ppo bxodxam paa nugGxaoua a

XTo^Taaa gu xedaxg po ppo bxoaxam xpaejx1 jpa bja^GXa1 aug XPa ppmc XT1168' jjjg x g b h j p paa peeu ppe GapapjxapmGup <>£ 8 umupox ox

XGAXOM^ua ox appxoppc qocmuGupa * aug ppG nac ox dnGapxouuaxxce aug bxogncp ox XGacaxcp moppoga xvAOjAxud ppo focpu^dnca ox X^f61^!©*8 * ppe

jpo xo^oxmapxou bxoacupeg «XPPTU PPT8 cpabpGX paa p66U ppe .

anwwvKA

519 enbboxpcg pA ppcpx bsxoupa* owpA a agxA awapp boxppou 05 ppo op ppo baxppcpbaupa (83*6 bcxcoup) axo epppex baxppappA ox. popappA ppe cguboi; «pppe ao*5 bexcGup moxjc gnxpud ppe anuauox* jpe lua^oxppA

«po ape uop xGcpbpGupa* oupA 3^ * 3 bcxceup op ppG appjepea moxjc gnxpud dxaup xccpbpeupa codjg pxo&J onp-op-BpopG aa cowbaxcg po ppoao apppcpea oppo XGapqeupa pnp ppap a apdupppcauppA dxcapcx unrnpex op apppeppc xeapgGucA ppdnxca apon ppap 80*S bexceup op ppo apngcup-apppepea axe ppdnxe* pnxpud ppo opp-aGuaou apo pajcGa 78*3 cxegpp ponxa* ape pa xedpapGXGg pox 72*3 cxcgppB* a epdupppcaup qxob pxorn ppG b x e - a e a e o u pA srpg-aeaaou apo pa pajcpud 75*8 cxGgpp ponxa aug pA ppa eug ape ponxa* pnp pppa ppdnxG apcagppA gxoba ppxondponp ppe combeppppAG Aggx* bopup aAGxade op 5 *300* 8pe pedpua pex aeaaou pA pappud 78*2 cxGgpp coicbjoppou xaujcpud* dpc epngcup-appjGpG paa a cnsrnpappAG dxsgc

« ecpoo7 egncappou pnp paa uop Aep appapueg ppe pmo Aggx cojpodG aAGxade suoppGX op a apnqGup-appjGpe paa coutb76pGg sjoxg ppau a ppdp

Qje aAGxade pappcx paa combpGpeg pno Acaxa op co77Gde MppjG ppe paxdeap XGbxoaoupappou cornea pxosr ppxap-Aeax bpaAexa ($o*2 bexccup) * pxeajcgoMU op bpaAexa pu xedaxg po ppepx cpaea xaujcpud* homgagx1 ppe pexsia op deuexap gGacxpbppAc pupoxnrappou* ppexe pa a papxpA ed/iap

ju xedaxg po ppe bpaAexa* a umupGX op cosaucupa cau pe urage* iu pnepueea-oxpeupGg uroqGp pox ppe XGuapugGX op ppe adnaga* ap peaep a boxppou op ppe pGawa* aa Mcpp aa ppe xccodupppou op a

Mppcp Mppp appoM pox ppe bnxanap op au egncappouappA paaeg bxodxam pox peppeAeg ppap ancp a rnogep Mppp oppex boaapppppppea po m o u j g u ,d apppeppca op apppeppca Mppppu ppe expappud uogep paa peeu bxeaeupGg* ip pa

320 piubxoAcuiGup Ana ponuq TW PP© ptuboxpauco op puu o a g x p p G poudpp op ppo paApud pnu1 Apuupud* aocpappspud* aug ppuappA pxoAcppud* V apdupppcaup couapqGxeq coiubcppud po pc woap piuboxpgup* poppOAGg pA qxubxoApud bktTI'

iu xaujcpud op pacpoxa pu pexxoa op bexaouup piaboxpaucc1 ppo bjoAcxa pacpoxA ox pa poo apoxp* bpaAexa deuexappA peppeAe ppap ppepx OGaaou jGudpp pa epppex aappa- pGjpGAe ppap ancp a bGxaou pa i u o x g xeabouepppG pox bxogncppAppA* j,po ppoEG «po pGjqrGAG ppap ancp a boxaou pa i u o x g xoabouappjG * pjjgA apxoudjA a dxaup pa u j o x g XGebouaqpje po ppG p g g i v ppau pa a uou-XGcpbpGup• tox xcanjpa axe tupxcg aa po ApGppex ox uop au puqpApqnap Apo pa xecepApud auq ppap pppa maiJoxppA x o b g apdupppcauppA gnxpud ppG Aeax* jjjg aug eqncappou aa pepud i u o x g qn/boxpaup ppau ppcpx appjeppc GuqoaAoxa pqiuG pox acpooj a o x j c * jpe waiJoxppA op ppe appjopGB XGCodupsca acpooj ppe conxac op ppG aeaaou • jpe aaiue bappexu pGjq pxnG pu xedaxg po

BGaeou xcabouBGB' ppe x g a u a a apdupppcaup qxob pu pppa sva^oxppA o a g x

Guondp ppniG pox ppapx aocpap j p a g b * aa paaeq nbou ppcpx bxe-boap a dxGapex umupGX op ppe appjepea pGppoAGg ppap ppeA Aonjg auq qpq paAG

Aaa a apdupppcaup pucxeaeG pu pppa peppep o a g x ppo BGaaou* yjppondp ppe luoap pmboxpaup bxpoxppA po ppeiu qnxpud ppe aeaaou auq ppap ppexe pepAGeu h j g u ,b auq a o i u g U ' B appjGppca* jpeA ajao b g g apppeppca aa

jjig uiaQoxppA op ppe appjepea (ee boxcoup) b g g qpppexeucea ppe apppeppc dxaupa bobnjappou* dxaupa pu boiug nrauuex* eeupoxa aug pxeapureu mape nb ^5 bexcGup op coup) op ppe 82 baxppcpbaupa naGg aa anp^GCpa axe xecepApud apppeppc

(appdpppA o a g x 8 bexcGup pu eacp caae) A p p p e pAoupA-ppAe (3 3 * 8 bex- apnqeup-apppepea axe napud joaua ox axe ou acaqcupc acpopaxBppb

32T p e j 7 G A c g * bjou PO BGG UOXG OX GBCp OppGX O/lp-OX-BGBBOU ppBU MpBp MB8 O X X ^ 88!!^ d n x p o b . p x p ox G3cp oppox ju b o c x b t Bxpngpxoua gnxxud ppe b g b b o u B u g

COBCpGB, XGEbOUBGO pO ppG BBUG dnGEPXOU2 * IPG bjB^GXa PGUq pO BGG bxobox guonup Bug ppgp ppc^x XGBbousGB Monjg po b x u x t « x . £ ° W g x x

V p W O B b p G X G 0 £ P p G pGBlU X 2 clOOg* JJJGA p G J X G A G P p S p b X B C P X C G JQ 0 £ ppG

Bug ppgp PPG GJOBGU6B8 OX PPG pG3U UGUpGXB BJOU& MXPP ppG dGUGXBJ

jjjg bjuAexB go uop x g g j o a g x i ^ g j o b g ox gxapgup po ppcjx cogcpca p p e pegu* cLgugxbi* PPG bjg7vGXB, abGcxxxc pgbu* ox ppo xuqfAxqngja juAojAGg wjpp dxsupe «TTT Pg gxpjjgx aoog ox p?AG uo Gtpccp nbou ppo bxodxgu x*J

PXUfG* I P X2 PP6 OAGXBJX COUBGUBnO OX PPG bjg^GXB ppgp BPPJGPXC coucGXueg Mipp ppo pooni goxud m g j j o a g x p p o x x o m u bGxaouB? bjgAxud

MXUUXUd Bug JOBXUd* VP PPG 8BUG PpilG PPGX BIBO BGGU pO pG UOXG

BG6U po po UOXG COUCGXUGg MXPP PPG dOBJXpX op bjg?L XBPPGX ppou MXPP

GBpgpjxep popp pGBiu Bug luqiAxgngi 3objb p n p pbag uo bxxoxxp^* £pc^ g/rxxud bxBcpxcG ox g rmju& conihcpjpjov* jjig ub^oxxpA ox ppo bjgAoxa gGuouapxBpG ou o a g x p j * P X a P OT- T°M Jgagj o x guopxoubj b x o B a n x G gx p p g x

Gxxapog xox ppe bxo- Bug boap-BGBcou xgb/jipb* jjjg bjoAcxa gxg uop

&KTTT* F° pbag x*18* BocxBJXSXud% Bug pxbagjxucI* i p o bbug b g p p c x u bpxjoaobpA xu £Pe XoxjOMjud usuugx: cooibGpxud* m x u u juci * po x u b x o A G

JJJG bjB&GXB XBUJC OXgGXGg PPG BBUG ABXXBpjGB XU XGXGXGUC6 pO PGBU po PPG dXBUP XGCXbXGUP ppsu J f X8 f° PPG UOU-XGCXbXGUP* ppo uMxuuxudu cBpcdoiA* ip BbbGBxa ppgp ppxa x°cPot X8 wo*® poboxpaup cpx adnBXG XGBnjpa epoMGg ppgp ppcxe x2 b axfluxXTc88£ gx^oxouco X8

BGBBOU* MPGU ppo pGBp dXOflb MB3 qXAXqcq OU ppo pBBX8 OX dXBUP BpBpHB4

333 xcabouapppxppA1 PP® dxaup xocpbpGupa pepud e/o x g xGebouappjo ■ boap-eoaaou itfoap coacpGB poppGAaq ppap ppGXG m g x g qpppGxcucGU pu

XGCpbpoupa po ppo pooui 00 couubaxGq po ppap op. ppo uou-XGcgbpGupt3 • bA ipc coacpGB epoMGg n/pXGg XGebouace aa po ppo XGBbouapppjppA °£ dxaup

GppGCp o p apppGppC fltoupu nbou ppG bxodxam* ppe P G 3 W 3 * oug PJJG bjoTiGXB • qnppca* jpe coacpca adxGog Mppp ppo bxaAcxa c o u c g xupud ppo boapppAG ppap ppG waiJoxppA pacpGg anpppcpoup PT10® PP®TR ecpooj xeggpeg

BGaeou* homgagx* pA ppe Gug op ppe Aggx* ppapx XGBbouBGB gGUJouapxapcg anpppcpaup ppn/o pox ppopx aocpap ppAca ®P PP® pedpuupud op ppe bggeou* jpc coacpGa gxg XTuqGCjqGg aa po MpGppcx p p g A Monjq paAG

&poA axao e gg ppepx peaitr aa ppe iaoap proboxpaup bxpoxppA qrrxpjjd ppe ppap ppcxe apxxT ®£® gpppexaucGa pgpmggu uj6U,b aug MouiGu,a appiGppca* pojjoMpud ppuqpuda* TTK® PP® bxaAexa* ppe coacpoa axao pcppGAG

jpG coxxGcpcg pupoxurerppou ou ppG coacpGa X6anxpGg pu ppe gnxpud ppo peep mggjc* ppniG qsAopeg po couboppppou* bxacppcG* auq pxaAGp* mgb 54*5 ponxa ponxa1 cpaaa ponxa* apGGbpnd* apngApud* ox pu moxjc bappaxua* jjjb cxeaaea) * n o apdupppcaup gpppcxGucea mgxg ponug pu umtrp6xa op cxagpp pu coiubGppppou (qGCXGaaoa)* bxacppcG (gecxeaoGa)* aug xopaxappou (pu-

BGaaou xaanppa pu pcxuia op ponxa Guppud (gecxGaaGB)* ponxa puAopAGg gpppGXGUCGB mgxg ponug pgpmggu courbaxpaoua op pu-BGaeou aug onp-op- cotubappppoua* moxjc* aug upBcejjauGona acppApppca* apdupppcaup po bxacppcc1 aocpajpsappou* apGGbpud* apngApud* pxaAGj pud po aug pxotu op exegppa* cpaaa ponxa* eappud* ponxa pu courbappppou* ponxa goAopcq ppe pu-aGaeou aug onp-op-eoaaou pppG bappaxua coucoxupud ppo unupGX

JJXG pupoxuappou bXGBGUpcq COUCGXUpud PPG ppiUG jpUGB qCOJOUBpXapGS

333 Op-BGBCOU XGBbOUEGB MGXG COWbBXGg1 PpG OUjA apdupppcaup qpPPGXGUCG ppoao ponug couccxupud ppG baxppcpbaupa• m j j g u ppe pu-B6Baou \onp-

JJJG COBCpGBi ppiUG JpUGB MGXG bXGBGUpGg OU ppG 8BU1G ABtpapjGB 88 pA ppo oug op ppo A g b x 88 obboecg po pepud pcacpGX*

GUg O p PJJG AG B X * H O X G O p ppGBG puqpApqnBJB BBM ppGUlBGJAGB 88 C08Cp68 e p a p n e 8 p ppo pcdpuupud op ppo b g b b o u ‘ ppcu Mpeu ppcA XGabougeg up ppG pppa* JPG COBCpGO BGGUGg pO pG WOXG bjGBBGg Mppp PJJGTX ppUBUCpaj concppud bppjoeobpA1 pup ppe cxbGXpGUcea op ppG A g b x gpg uop enbboxp pupppajjA pojgGAGg ppap ppG pupxogncppou op dxaupa Monjq cppGcp ppcpx b ppdp gcdxGG op cowwmjpcappou * Bug po pG uioep oxdaupseg* xpoA pxA po nee Bug qGAGjob gpaepbjpue* po u/oppABpc ppcpx bjaAcxa' po gGAGjob ppG BGBBOU ppcA MGXG GJOB6X PO ppG JBppGX dXOUb* JJJO COBCpGB OJEO ppGpx xGjBppoueppb M p p p p p G p x B j b A g x b 1 pnp ponug ppap pA ppo Gug op jpG XGabougGupB pxour pppa dxonb pxA po pacb 8 ucnpxBj gpapaucG pu bxeaanxGa* aug ppap ppeA b x g popp cxpexuaj aug pupcxuaj pu uapnxe*

COBCpGB 8JJ pejpGAGg ppBp ppGA Monjq OX BJXGSgA BXG pGGJpud dGUGXBJ

GXCGbp pox ppo cpaudo pu oxgox op aocpajpspud aug p x b a g j * j p e aocpajpso* aug po p x b a g j * jpe boep-86Baou x g b B o u b g b m g x g p p e bbhig pufboxpaup* pojjoMGg pA ajcpjj pojboxAGUGvp* Mpuupud* po paAG pnu* po wauuGX* iu ppe bXG-Boaaou X6enjpa cotubcppud m b g xaupeg aa woap bppjoaobpA ppG AaxpapjGa GxampuGg aponjg pc^xapeg pu ppo pojjoMpud

iu poxua op xaup .oxqGxpud* ppe coacpGB pejpGAGg ppap Mppppu ppapx ugbb* auq brogncppAppAk pnp m g x g nucjeax pu xedaxg po jcagcxeppb* appjepe XGcapApud apg pe ittoxe xeebouappje pox Mpuupud' pcsnr copGapAG- j jjg coacpoa Mpo pGjpcAcg ppap gpppexGUCGB Gxpapcg pejp ppap pp6

321 popaj *vaa ponxa* gnxjud ppo aGaaou «aa ^j*4 ponxa* ape coxxGaBougjud onp-o^-acaaou pxaAGj* jpe popey ppue ayjoppGg po peacpq-ud aug coacpjud EGabouexpTTTPT60 aeaaou ppe coacp goAopea 35*3 ponxa po cowBGpxpfou* bxacpxce1 aug

lomig ppxondp x-bcoxgh mgb ?tj ppe coxubepppjou capGdoxX* Dnrxjud ppe » 333 § * H 3 3 © 0 « © ■!_) E O O © O S to H © > T) •M a a © © © C >• © a ■a *8 H ti ti © +> © •H © © © H 0 O © •Q ■h 0 0 m © ■e M H |M 3 & ti © 0 ■© 0; a •H •H 8 t © © fH X +1 a o © Q a © •a a © © a © n tl iO © © >• •£) n •H o © Q o •Q ■M ti ©'

M •M © sse H O •fl ■a ■a D1 © © M H € O © © P» a & X H •H ri O © § © * • ■a » H © •M •q M •H H © C H © © •a 5 H © (H 3 t i E •H © © © >• •Q « © © • © g ■M © © © C 8 H ti e 3 ■a O s « (M •M X 3 ■a © ■a © © moidgV'B GpppeppcB coma po jpdpp* V® gGWouBpXGpGg pu cpobpcxe II Gug ia* dupe xeccpbpa* if pa poxc ppgp ppe luoap bgagxg pubppcGppouB 5°*

Mpjp pccoure puAojAog Mppp bxogncpud x g a g u h g ppxondp ppG c o j j g c p j o u op u g g x p/rpnxG* if g j b o gbbouxe ppap ®F jGGap ® boxppou ot ppe fgghjb g XGGjppX. aa m g j j gb g UGCGaeppA* Mppp TF® T^FFogncppou compud pu fpo

G BGGXCp £OX UGrt BOnXCGB pOX pmjga* JJJG UBG op £nug XGpapud JJOQ PCCOUTG

DGbOXpiflGUF 0£ VFPJGF7CB* 1PGEG GAGUpB JJGAG JGq po pJJG gupppsjppou op bxopjGSJB p g a g xGBnxpeg pxom ppG x u q x c g b g b p/Txgcu bpgceg nbou PPG

dug po gupjgpgou g u g pnqdepgxA pucxggbgb* g umupex op ppugucpgp txGEGUp Gug &nprrxG Dpxecppoue1

gbbGGXB po boBG g umupGX OE bXOpjGHIB* op p p G Mepp-pcpud op ppe bxodxGio aug ppa bsxppcpbcrupB • pnpnxo ppii/e Mpexe dxoMpp gug gGAGjobiuGup apob pepud gu qitibxoAGUJGup pu pexura

* MODJ6U | B GppjGppCB* ip HtG* MGJJ pG PPGp ppGXG pa G CGXpGpU bOpup JU

IPG BpXWAGGX BbGU GbbGGXB PO PGAG pGGU G UOBp boapppAG bGXJOg pOX po pGcouiG tuoap apn/ppgx po ppo cxpappud uraje DogGj gp pppa puapppnppou* gpppeppca Mppppu ppo DGbgxpuiGup op yppjeppca* Mpoxo pp paa pcdnu

jjjgbg ppugpuda ggu pg couppuGg Mppp ppG apgppppsgppou op MOWGU,a mgxg pGApud ppou gGCXGGBGg gnxpud ppgp ppn/e bGXpog* utoap oppex Gpppcppc bxodxGiua mgxg epppex pxGcspud ppepx prrgdepa ox op mouigu, a Gpppeppca pe aouGMpgp GWGspud Mpeu oug couapgexe ppgp xedneapa gug enpaGdnGup gppopiUGupa * jpe ecobe op ppe Gcouoiapc dxoMpp pGAG gjbo coupxppnpeg po ppG xgcgup bgppexu op pucxGGBGB pu pngdepuxA onp ppdppA ajcppjGg gppjepGa gug pxpud ppGiu po pppa acpooj* cxtrupa

Mpo mgxg Guxoppeg ou cGstbn8 popuppX1 po oug ppgp psa pGdnu po eeuxcp

32A Xppa Boppcxu op eocpop oaeupa coupxopppua oug qpxGCppua ppo moujgu 18 pupexcopiGapopG aboxp op popp ppo uoppouop oug jocoj pGAGpa*

GpGnieupa Mppep oxe apoBpud ppe Bxoaeup ouq pnpnxo qpxecppoua op poa pojcgu * Eocp op ppooG pocpoxa qGivouepxepc ppe umuexona aocpop iboig woqGp% poAG oxi poxcGq ppG moujgu, a Bxodxow pu ppG qpXGCppOU pp ou pucxeoapua pngdGp* oug ppo expapGuce op o anccGaapnj ouq qowpuoup

GAcupa* ipppe IX1 fpe XGanpppud pupxogncppou op oppieppc dxoupa*

Boppoxu* xpcxe poa pggu agxA ppppiG epopee pu ppG xeceup pnxu op

iu wouA moAb4 ppG Bxodxoio poe opxeogA pednu po pojj pupo pppa ppo Bxoppcxxpua op opppGppc dxoupa-pu-opq* oppjGppca coiusa pxom ppG oBBoxpnuppA ppe Bxodxour cou oppex ppxondp pitppopoxa op ppe mo^ox peonra* ape oupA Gqncoppouox c o ucgxu op

Bxodxonr* jjjg XGiuopupua pGOXtra «po qo uop Bxognce xg a g u h g pecouiG Boox oxpeupeg pooua Mpoae BxpiuoxX c o u c g x u pa boxagucA op ppe popoj

BxcqpcoiuGup po eapopxpap o uraupex op pnapueaa ox GcouoiupcoxpX eqncoppouox dooxa* ip pa ppe nanop Boppexu op Bxoaxowe BpocGg pu pppa oa o BxpuroxA BxpoxppA poa deuexopx^ leg po pp6 qoujpuo-jqjce xgiuoaoj op iqjGX o x g o uGCGeappA pox enxApAop* xpe 6apepxpapwGUp op pppa pocpox couapqoxoppoua poAG uo Gdnop* jjjgA wnap pe couapgexGg ppxap1 pox ape uopnxe op Gcouonrpca ouq oppjeppca pa ancp ppop ppuoucpop ppe eqncoppouox peuopppa pcppGAGg po occxne pxom ou opppoppc exBexpeuce* ppop ppe jGogexa puAopAeg Mppp o boxppenpex Bxodxoiu nioA epppp Aopne xppa GAGupnopppA pa uop opMO&a o luoppex op epopee* xp moTi m g i x pe coxuGa pupo pGpud* pp poa occnxxeq op pp6 g xBgubg eqncoppouox Bnxanppa ppe pXGuq pu oppGX Bxodxoiua poa pceu Mpexe o pnapueaa oxpcupoppou

338 MO10GU,B appjGppCB ap pppa nUpAGXBppA* eppccppAG oxpoupgppou pa op cxpppcax piuboxpgucc po ppo p n p n x e o p

PJJB qOAOJOtUlOUp 05 qpppGXGUp hOBBJpjJfpXGB * JJJG (JGAGJOhlUGUp o p a u

Enxppcx couapqGxgppou pX ppoae puAOjAGq q-u gpppGppca craA xgbhxf pu ipe cxppcxpou-paaGg woqoj andaeepGg pu cygbpor. xa pa °ug gxpexugppAG*

Homgagx* obppoua appxi cxpsp Mppppu ppo wojg uiogGj ponug op 0P T ° apape* au GgncappouapxA oxpeupGg bxo 3 xaiu aa pp poa GXpapeq pu ppe baap* boBBpppjppA* EP«awcpGT couBpgGxappoue paAG exejrtgoq ppe popup nae o p ox uBoufGpppua gpppexGup ppau iugu,b gpppGppca1,, aa 9 ApgppG gpi pnp GTpiupuopGg ppe pupxogncppou op 9 „ u g m 1 puuoAappAG bxodxgiu1 „ pUpGtCOJJGdpgpG Bboxp Mppppu pppa nupAGXBppX* socpup bXOBBUXGB P 9 AG

jppa pnxu op GAGupa poa ipmppGq ppG boaapppjpppca pox mobigu.b oxpGupgppou mnap po jwhjeujevpeg' arrpajapevp uapnxe op ppG pGbaxpivGup • jjjgxgpoxg* 9 pnepueaa

XGcapBpa gne po ppe egpnxgppou op bxGApona aonxcca gug po ppo aojp- appjGppca Mppp pe egjjog nbou po bxognce aouo iwougA ppxonftp dope pocomo o UGGGaappX* jpe bzeaeup Bppngppou pa oug mpgxg moujgu,a bnxanppa* ip Monpg xpjee po peeb rib pppa coucgxu pnp pnapueaa paa xuguA Aggxb1 gppjeppca pox mouigu mob q6GbjA puAopAeg Mppp egncgppougp

Mppp 9 pnapucaa oxpoupgppou pecanae op ppa eonxco op pnuga* eox

GttPXPGPPOU Mppp PpG DGbgxpiUGUp. op yppxoppca1 pp M9B UGAGX COUCGXUGg

Pgxiub op oxpGupgppoua aug ppGxepoxe bxpoxpppca* nb nuppp ppe

jpc MomGU,a bxodxanr pe cnxXGuppA coupxoupcg Mppp 9 coupppcp pu oue ppap Mae qGAepobeg ppxonaponp cpabpGX 11• boeapppppppea pox ppe pcimyo pu eocpepA aa mgix aa pu apppeppca pa

323 aug pox. ppo pugpApqnaj* pepuS a bospppAG pec pox, pop ppG bpoapeur* ppepp PGabccppAG pconra*

Mppp ppGpp pGOumiGpGB* jjjg appjepea ace appjeppc fipeupa-pu-apg ae

Bapppcpbaupa abbGap po Aajne ppo PGjeppouappbs ppeX p9 AG gGAGjobcg sappou pe boaappjo Mppppu ppe £P9Wgmox)c op oppjeppea oug ppe ePTTI eco ppepp Ggncappouaj bnxsnppa as pepud hjopg pitrboppaup* eocpajp- oppjGppcB pa au expxewejX ppap BppopppX gnppud ppe aeaaou* ppG appjepea

Bapppcpbaupa Mppcp pugpcapGa ppap pppa pecpox pa couppojjGg* yjpponap courbeppppou qoGB uop canae auX cteeep europpouaj 8ppeea Mppppu ppa oagp ppepp omu Bopaouaj dapua* fcapppcpbappou pu bsacppce aug appjapGB paAG gGiuouaptapGg a coucgxu pot ppG purboppauce op ppG pGsnu aeern po paAG pGGXUGg po Kceb pppa pacpop pu bepabGcppAG* jpe apngeup- aaX ppap Mpuupud pa uop au puiboppeup BppopppX pnp ppap ppeaG pugpApgnaje aa 'papud arose pmboppaup ppau ppe doaj op Mpuupud* jppa pa uop po oug Ejcpil paibsoAGBieup* jpeX bgg eu^oXu/eup op ppe appGjeppc Bnpenpp ppepp BppurapX pupopeap pu ppe capedoppea op courbeppppAG exbeppGuce aabecpa op ppe abopp pu Mppcp ppeX bapppepbape * jppa pa GApgeup pX

Xpe appjepea abbeap po pe aroap coucepueg Mppp ppe dnajppappAe brGBGUpGg ap pppa ppnre* pu cpobpGs i a % oujX a aXuobapa op ppe rna^os ppugpuda Mpjj pe onp-op-aeaaou ppure jpue* spuce ppe scanjpa mcpg bseaeupeg pu gepapj aeaaou aug boap-acaeou dneappouueppe' aug ppsondp au pu-aeaaou aug gapa ou ppe appjcpGa aug coacpea ppsondp ppe auejXsappou op a Bpg-

IP Maa ppe BppurapX pupeup op pppa apngX po eapapjpap paae jpue

Eapapjpepnicup op Daae rpue Depa

560 qciaouepcapGB a cappoc jacdo gxxtecGUCG* 0® PPX8 poaxe* XP Monjq abbGac

%px. ajj peacpxud* coacpjud* auq cojgpcq MOty ox qtfg ponce1 Mp^cp

OAGCOJJ q-CT-BGBBOU pOpgj CBU pG COItfbaCGg po PPG Onp-Ot-BCSBOU tTantG

bacpxaj popgj qoGB uop ^ucjnqc bcebacapjou ptiug xor cogcpjud* ape

ppGBG ponce dojud po cowbGpxPXOU* bcacpjcc* auq appjepjc pruAGj* jpx8

geAope il'ij ponce bee mcgj: po ppGjc pop coebouexPXTTP^ AT^P 33*9 ° t

PTTTPT®8 u/t/pe nbou ppejc pjiug acpegnje* Dncjud ppo aeaaou* ppG cogcpGB

ce;:jGcp ppx® ppcondp ppe jacdo qGirougo Mpxcp ppgjc coacpjud ccBbouaj-

qTttTcnIP^ Tu coiobjepqrud ppGpc ecpooj CGjgpeq gnpxGa* jpe ptujg JXUGa

aa coecpGe ppau ae pGacpeca* ye a dconb pp6 cogcpGB paAG cxbcceeGq

po ppo^c popaj 3op CGaboueTPTxrpA* ppe& pGug po bgg ppgidbgjagb iuocg

jpG coacpce ajao epceee ocdau^sap^ou mjppxu ppejc bcodcaio* xu ccdacg

Xacpoc «Tppyu ppe^c bjaAGca * aa m gjj ae wopjAapjou aug connunujcapjou •

je bjacGg nbou gjacjbjjuG ph ppe coacpGB auq ppeX pcA po qeAGjob ppxB

bpxxoeobpA* ae cowbacGq po ppG jc, b ja J iG c e * y dceap qGaj ox Giubpaaje

po pG ajjdppj7k djocg coucGCueg Mjpp Mjuujud ju cedacq po ppGjc omu

ppap ppG^c xuTPT®PT01J ^ T II TGB(J P° boaxpq-AG cage* jpo coacpGB abbeac

M^pp ppo bjaAeca, gape* opeX*poo* pgjjgag xu appjopxc dcaupe auq

JipG XU^OCItigpxOU COJJGCpGq OU PPG COacpGB Xe ^®X£T^ COUBJOfGUp

PXBJg b neeq poc Gapjud* b j g g B* o c epnq^xwfl*

ponce bee mggjc* homgagc * appjepxee qoee uop paye aMe& xcom ppe popaj

Mpxcp jucjngGB coa/bepxpxou* beaepjee* aug pcaAej pqu/G* payee nb 3 ^ * 3

exbGUBG ot eocxajxsapxou aug CGjaxapjou* jp Mae xonug ppap eppjepxee*

qapa epoMe ppap ppe pxwa ppap xB geAopGg po appjepxee xa PP® pe a UfGiopGC ox au xuC6 KcoTJ6 3T*P® pcew* eaccx£XC6B aajep P® wage* jpe

Ope pxtue jjUGB qesfouepcepG ppap xu orqec au Tu?TAT?n°I P°

sex qpacneeGq* homgagx4 ppo gpXGcp cppGcp op dxaupa ou ppo BjuAcxo ouq bxodxew pu pGXiua op BppjoaoBpX aug ppuaucpajjA* bxGAponejJi

yppjGppc dxaupa jiffAc pggu a xappox piuboapud pacpox po pjjg t

E p p c c p q u b u p b nbou PP© yppjepGs aug coacpoa apdupppcaup qpppctGucGB «gxg ponug* c a p e d o x A m j j g u pp Maa coiubaxeg po ppo pu-aGuaou popup* m o op p c x epoMGq a apdupppcaup qocxcaae pu ppe onp-op~eeaeou coujBeppppou ajecb4 epnqA4 aug m o x j c popppa* jpe coacpoa, ppme jpuG xcebouaGa

MO Aoxpappou Gxpapeq p g p m g g u pu-BGaaou auq boap-aGuaou cxegpp ponxa1 ponug pu cappud4, comBoppppou4 bxacppcc4 aug lupacGppauGona ppitica* pu-eeaaou ppugpude* pp ppe b b u /g ppii/G‘ apdupppcaup gGCXGaaea m g x g a o c p a j p s a p p o u ppius m p g u ppe onp-op-aeaeou XGanppa b x g combaxcg po ppo

jpe bja&Gxa, ppiuo ppuGa gGUJOuapxapeg sr apdupppcaup pucxeaaG pu o u g gGdxGG po auoppcx* boapppAGUGea ox UGdappAGueea1 pnp uop po a cpauda pu tua^oxppX pxom

iu ivoap ccfaGBv apdupppcaucG Mae gna po ppncpnappou pu gedxGG op ua^oxppA dxonb xeabouao MpexGpA. ppo ecoxea x6Aexe6g a bxcApona boapppou* boap coiubaxpaoua * pu oujA o u g puapauce Maa ppcxe a popaj cpoude pu ox coacpGa• yjppondp apdupppcaup cpaudGa m g x g ponug Mppppu ppe bxe- bXG-eeaaou aug boap-BGaeou xeabouaca op epppex ppe apngoup-appjepea

iu douGxaj p g x u j b 4 AGX& Tpppjo gpppGxcucG Maa ponug pepMecu pp©

EX6-gGeaou\£oap-gGaaou Qouibaxpeoue op ppe qGuauga bjacGg nbou ppeu gnxpud ppe aGaaou* ppap ppe coacpGB Monjq paAG a dxcap gGay op qppppcnjpX pu BJseppud ejj

ses pog nbou pjjg boxpgcgboupa• yu obbgbewgup og ppga pM>o T0 xedoxg po naGg oa ou guggcopox og ppo GggGcp ppop ppo oppgcpgc GxbGxgcucG poa oug jGoxuGg ppxondp oppgopgca* ape combggGg gopu co/ijg ppexegoXG pc po eoi0G gcdxeG* po o XGggGcpgou og Mpop ppo ruggAggnoj poa Guconupoxeg jpo XGabouaGe po ppe dncapgouuogxGa oug ppe pgum XTUG xoanxpa apongg' bxogncp og ppo oppXGpxc GUAgxoutuGup gu Mpgcp ppoX boxpgcgbopG* poupgou 0 5 ppga epngX ppop ppG boxpgegboupe oxg op jcoep go boxp 9 ouo boeagpxo eognpgou cou po GUAgagoueg* ip poa pccomG o uroDot cou- po eggocpnope ancp ou obbggcopgou gu o bxocpgcog oug xeoggapgc iuouugx* bxodxow gpBGjg* VTPpondp bohjg gggggcngp^ mob euconupGXGg gu oppGiubpgud ou ppG bjoTwoxa oug coocpea pe og aonre obbjgcopjG aojhg po ppo MOi»6Uta

IP mob pgdpx* geagxopxe ppop ppe ebGcgggc gugoxiuopgou coxiecpGg npgxgsopgou og ppe Dopo

XGebOIJEG * occonupa gox ppo ouo guapoucompgxg p p o x c mob o urerJoxgpA cpoudc gu cpoude ppogx coocpgud bpgjoaobpTv bxoAog pop e nugonugGq* jpga xoangp oxgdguox pcjgG g ppop ppe gupxogncpgou og oppgepgc dxoupa-gu-ogg Mongg

XGabouagpgxgp& po ppe pemu ppou gooa ppe uou-xccgbgcup* jpe coocpGa, bxo&exe oug coocpGa oxg u o p a n x e gg ppe dxoup XGcgbgeup poa o dxGopex bexaouox giuboxpoucG ppouoxg ppG uou-xGcgbgGupa • yp p p g a p g io e 1 p p e dxoup-xecgbgeup dxonb oxejuoxg coucexuGg Mgpp M'guugud oa o gocpox og onp-og-apope xGaggGupa ppou oxg uou-xccgbgG upa% oug uiGtupexa og ppo ppe dxoup xecgbgGupa oug uou-XGcgbgeupa• hoxg dxoup XGcgbgcupa oxg e x g a p a pgpmggu ppe gGacxgbpgAG gugoxiuopgou* obgugoua 1 oug pejgega og oug coocpGa obboox po pe nigugwox ppge pgcjG* /aejJi xgppx® g g g g e x o u c e

3e3 ggwq-uq-epxgpq-ou Tu wgjeq-ud ppe peep boaaq-pje cpoq-co qru ppja xcdgxg*

pnpnxe qqxccpq-oua* lupoxiugpq-ou pxow Asrtqrona e o /j x c g e umA gpg ppe puapq-pnpqrou q-a ancp ppgp q-p poa xegcpGg g cxoaaxogga ju pexma op gp ppq-a pqrxue pGcenae pjjg bXGeeup apgpna op «oi0g u ,b gppjepq-ce gp ppq-a

jjjg gbbyq-cgpq-ou op ppe cojjccpeq q-upoxiugpqrou Monjg pe cxq-pq-cgj ppGqx eppecpq-AGUGaa q-u O^q-x popgj ^op XGabouaqrpq-xq-pA* gppjGpqca wgA bjeA nbou ppGaG pugq-Aq-gngje tfpq-cp weA qu pnxu rcpjGCp jpG pq-me q-q-uea op pqiG cogcpGa cgu gj-ao xepjGcp ppc gciuguqa ppgp ppexGpoxG pc pgaGg po aowe expeup nbou ppG pejq-cpa op ppe cogcpea* pgpq-pa op ppe jgppex dxonb* jpe xeaboueea op ppe bjgAexa wgA bjgAexa cgu pgAG g gqxecp pcoxq-ud nbou ppG pGjpepe' bxpojeq-pq-Ga * gug bgxpq-cqrbgtfpa • jpe c g x x A-o a g x ppgp exq-apa pxoiu ppc cogcpea po ppG aq-pje pox ppe eppGcpq-Aeueaa op ppe gppjGpqrc exbGxq-euce nbou ppe gbbjq*Gg po ppo bxodxgio* jpe cogcpea ppGwaeq-AGa gxe gq-xecpjA xeabou-

iu « apmpjex m g A1 ppe ggpg cojjGcpGg ou ppG cogcpca cgu gjao pe q-u pexroa op q-pa eppecpq-Aeueae* ppcxcpoxG eupeucG ppe o a g x g x x Agjne gug Monjg gjao gq-g ppe bxodxeui onpcojuea* jpe gbbjqcgpq-ou o p ppq-a qrupoxnmpqou pu ppq-a «gA Monjg jgepq-ud* ppeu ppG bxodxgw conjg pe ggljnapcg po pxpud gponp gq-ppexeup pxgppa gug papq-pa gGiuouapxgpeg pA ppe gppjepea « g x g ponug po pe ppGU ppe exq-apq-ud bxodxem aponjg pe bxobedgpGg gug exbgugeq* ip ppe o x q-p p p g A gxe Mppppu xegaou* ip ppe xcenjpa bxoAe po pe qeEpxgpjG* ppG gGiuguga bjgceg nbou ppe peiugje gppjepo gxe poo axGgp gp ppq-a pqiue qrupoxiugpq-ou conjg bxoAq-ge ppG bxodxgur Appp pgcpngj ggpg ga po Mpeppex ppe cpgxgcpGxpappca expq-pq-pGg pA ppeee pugpAq-qngj-a • jpe ppure jque ppe Bpngeup-gpjfjepea conjg qeioouapxgpe ppc gedxee o p gGaqxgpq-jq-pA op

se« ppe GXbxGaacg gGapxe op ppG baxppcpbaupa po couppune ppGBG xojeppouappba exoe op aocpajpsappou Mppp oppexa* • jppe ppugpud pa Brtfgo GApgoup pA

* X68bOU8GBk PPG oppjoppc GXbGtpGUCG gOGB 0£PGK PPG pugpApgnGJ 8 UOM ppap oppjcppca s/nap. j/oag aoue XGgccu/pud a o jnea * ou ppo poope op ppc

Bocpaj ppue bo ppap ppeA ceu baxppcpbapc pu a. baxppcnjax eboxp pubxpGa jpe peep pptrp p p g A axe Mpjjpud po aecxpppce a jaxdG boxppou op ppcpx jpe appjepea bxeaoup a pepxjA eccnxepo aug obppupoppc a j g m op appjoppca* egnceppouaj exbexpeuce* jppa pa qeuouapxepGg pu a unupex op MaAa* pupex ppe boeepppjppA ppap ppe uegpnu op appjGppca pea pGGU au deuexej axe woap geapxepje* ip ajao aeeua ppap ppeae xcaboueGa

Mpeu ppe gapa pa GAajnapeq1 pp abbeax8 ppap ppe xeanjpa pu op ppe gap'a pA ppe bxodxau Mpjj u o m pe exawpueg* uaA goAGjob* pjacp op ppe couapgexappbua uecGaaaxA pox ppe accobpauce 9 op dxeapex puboxpauce (p* e* * eeououpc couapgexappoua) 1 bxopjeua

Mppppu ppe b tod tow1 aug pppa ajpoxappou p8 pucouepapeup Mppp pacpoxa ppe pubjeueupeppou op pppa pupoxuappou po pxpud aponp aoue uogpppceppou

t pppa gapa pa Mppp xeajpappc coucexua* ip coupjpcpa expap pepMceu ppe bxodxau pa paceg Mppp aug poM couapapGup ppe pupxogncppou op lucT/rgeg Mppppu pppa couapgexappou axe ppe bxacppcap eBbecpa Mppcp op ppe abbjpcappou op pppa pupoxuappou po ppe bxodxeu ppaejp* uexp apeb pa ppe aaaGaaueup op ppe acpnaj pupexeap aug geapxappjppA aug cpaxacpexpappca geuouapxapeg pA ppeae dxonba aepnejjA axe* jpe aug coacpea ao aa po exaupuo poM boapppAe ox uedappAe ppe pejpepa a Aapne ijngdueup unap pe bxaceg nbou ppe gapa coucexupud ppe bjaAexa bxodxeu ppaejp: pa geb6ugeup nbou a unupex op couapgexappoua* Lpxap1

jpe peaapppjppA op ppe acpnaj abbjpcappou op pppa bxocoaa po pp6

sea P0AG GJtGEfqTi pGGW pSJCGU pO 0IXGA70PG PP78 bXOpjCBJ ppXOfldp ppG

P7&P couccupxapxou op ptwg XGdnpzGg pox ppGpx I) op* howgagx: 1 apeba coacpTud xcebounxpxxXPTGO qnxxwd ppG aeaaou 78 qeuouepxapeq pA ppe

OMJ ZGC0dU7P70U pp0 p ppGA qO wop ptTAG OTUbXG PTXUG po bnXBJIG PpGJt uou- woitjcjoaq jw popej ponxa op ppe coacpea 7a couaxqexeq* ape coacpea,

0X60 MpGXG bzopjGSm MGX6 GUCOnupGXGg 7 a MPGU PPG pZGIUGUqOna 7 U-BGGBOU pGpMGGU PPGDJ 71ilbJ7GB ppap B/JCp 0 bOBB7P777pA JUBA GX7 8 P* jpG OUXA appxxpnpGg po auA owe dxonb eppGcpxud ppG oppex1 ppe couaxapeucA ponug

0 tuoap xupexGapxud owe*, vjppondp wo canaapxou cau pe BbGcxppcaxxA

jpe bappexu op exu/xxaxxpxea pepAGGU ppc coacpGa auq bjaAGxa 7a aug apnqA papxpa% exx cupaucG ppe bxodxaiu* ppe couaxapeucA 71; pex xu-BGasou aug onp-op-BGaeou eapxud* aiGGbxud*

MGSJCGU ppe 7 uq7 A7 qnex 7 “ psx zoxe sb 0 aprrqeup* 0a qeinouapxapcq pA

GBBGBBnfGwp* Mpcw coiupTUGq Mxpp ppe pxugxud ppap trppiGpxca qoce uop

jpe o a g z o j x abbeazauco op ppcaG zGaboweea 7a woap boaxpxAC* jpxa q 7PP6zeucG8 Gxpapcg pGpwccu ppeae p«o dxo/rba waA axeo pG exbecpeg* baz p 7G 7bapGq 70 bsap Ag gx b aa uou-XGCxbpGupe• jpe axeaa Mpex 6 pe aome/tpap exbecpeg axuco 0 uaijox boxppou o p ppe dxaup zccphxewpa wou-azawp XGG 7& 7GWP8 7a axao 0 qeaxxapxe appxxpnpe* JP78 pxugxud waA

jpe pacp ppap Eq-u 71110 j qxppGzeucGa axe opaezAeq pepMGGU dxaup aug apzeaa Bxpnappoua 7a axao 0 boaxpxAe cpaxacpexxapxc* geaxzapxe* jpo Gwoppouax coupxox Apxcp ppe appxGpea geAexob 70

7pBGjp A 7pp 00 embpaaxa 00 ppe dnajXpapxAe aabecpa axe ajj woap bnzanppa aug ppe GapapxxapGq ozqex op bzxozxpxGB wxppju ppe abozp

70 0 aecouqazA xoxe 70 peznm op xpa XGjapxouBpxb M 7pp Ggfjcappouox onpaxge op ppe bxacpjCG aug coubepxpxAe eeppxud* jpe bjacpua op abozp

see ppGU GXjap* ot ppc bxodxoiu* ou obboxpnuypA ip r . ppc abbxycopyou ot pjjg gopo wyyx uoijox coucgxu* MyFP ppeae COUayqGXOpyOJJe XGIUOyuyud OB O Uia^OX bXyOXypA ypa boxpycyboupa wypp ppG apngGup-oppyGpea apyyy poyud ppc OAcxoyy oppyGpyca cau coupyune ypa poyyot yu FPG bnxanoj ot o bxodxau tot ppG pnayueaa oxyGupapyou yu bowg uouugx* xp ye yu FPya muA oujA ppap bpttj po au yupcdxay boxp op ppe bxodxoiu aug ppap yp pG BGbaxapeg trolu ot wpap ajpexuopyAc ye gecyqeg nbou* ppap Gqrrcapyouoy coucgxue mnap gapa moA po tuoep abbyycapyG* ipe yuboxpaup boyup 73 ppap XGdaxgjGea aug pnayuGaa oxyeupapyoua ate neeg* pnp ou aebaxape pxacpe* ppGU ppc e n c p 08 ppo oug enddeapGg yu cpabpGX i a «pcxe popp ppe Gqncopyouoy ot gapa obbyycapyou* homgagx* yy au aypGXuapyAG uogGy ya naGq* oyxGogA mjupyoucg* gncp au gaojagugup Myjy gGcxoooG ppe boaeypyyyp?> ye xuA tT*® couAycpyou ppap ppo yoxiuGX unap pG gpoqgu tot xoaeoue a cpoyce pgpwggu a pnayueaa oxyeupopyou ox au egncapyouaj iifogGj* yp pnayueaa oxyeupopyou «TTT bjacG nbou ppeae geayxGa* it yp pecotuGa

CoutTTGF cornea tFoitf ppe yyu/ypopycua /ipycp ppc uenyA yupxogncGq ityppyu ppe oppjepea* oug «ypp ppeyx oagxojj qGAGjobnJGup apyyy exyap* oug coacpea* coucgxu wypp ppc geAGjobueup ot cqncopyouoy opI)GcpyAG8 poaya ot bexaouoj gyacnaayoua oug yupGXAyewe wypp ppo oguyuyapxapoxe ot PPG bxodxau po ppc nao aug obbyycapyou ot ppya yuyoxuopyou* qu ppc

Homgagx* bouic gyttycnypyea axe yonug yu xedoxg po ppG XGCobpyAGUGBB pe anbboxpog pA appjepyca* ot Fpye GAajnapyou yugycapca ppap ppya bxodxau ya oue ppap aponyg

XGboaypyouyud ot ppe coacpea Myppyu appyepyca* jpe boaypyAo yyuqyuda

seA eapapjgap aging jar gugotioapgou ou p p e a e guggAggnaga*

2* jpap a Bgnigjot epngA po nugctpajCGU ou h j e j j g a p n g G u p a b o a a p o og dapG tGCGgbp cojxccpgou* cojjocpgud roAouno aa po ppGgt gxncpnapgou gu eppeugeucG aa ou eggecp a tGAgoM 05 oppor btodtaiva «po paAG ujtcagA guprogncGg cpaudca poMerge gortuap pprondp aepG teceglppa* xucjngGg Mgppgu ppga apnq7i eponjg pG pe gouo got eacp peas; ppap ga pogud couaggereg got a rsAGunG-brogrrcgud ebecpapote UGGqcg po ctGapc a boagpgAG gjoM og xgaguug* jpga apongg

y apugA aponjg pe gugpgapeg ou ppe u/gugiaaj umnpGt og aug' pjjg to goto a e proud BGjg-bojgcgud btodrgm wgppgu appjGpgca*

3* jpe eapgpggapiVGup og aptgcp couproja coucerugud tccrngpgud ppe coacp aug ppe peasr ppap guggAggnej ggtecpa* aponjg pe au poueap abbtagaaj o g ppe gebaxpnr6upag exbecpapgoua og

Aatgona peaua aa «ejj aa got ppe ebecgggc peauta* jpeee ctgpctga

5* jpe creepgou og aep crgpergou got popp ppc coacpea og ppe egncapgouaj otgeupapgou got ap jGaap a botpgou og ppe btodtau* coucetugud m o w g u ,0 gupetcojjedgape appjepgca *pgcp cajja got au

j* jpe eapopjgapnieup og a ggrnr bpgjoaobpgcaj apapeu/eup aug uogej affddeapGg*

OV ppe paaga og ppga BpngA* a umupet og tecoitmiGuqapgouB cau pe

BECOWWEHDViLIOMB

3e8 COUCGXU Ot MOWGU,B OppJGpqXIB* ppG £61110JO OpJJJGfG' cou po Gapopjq-epeg Mpq-cp popce q-upo occonup Mpop eponjq pe ppe uo^ox bpq-joaobpA uuq iuoqGj* o dnq-qc £ox ppc aojnpq-ou o£ £npnxG bxopjGwe oug woap qii/boxpoup4 q-pa boxpq-cqboupa * pA couepxncpqud a/icp a ppG peep ojpoxuopq'AGB tox ppc bxodxoiu4 q-pa bxocpq-coj- couaqgGXopq-oue4 o ££tur bpq-joaobpA oug a eonug couccbpnox tuoqGj Mpq-cp Mq-xi o x i o m tox pOAG pGGU COUCGXUGq Mq-pp ppG XGOXdOUqsOpqOU OUg XG-GBpOpJ£EpillGUp 0£ oppjep£C8* jpe BnddGapq-oue ppop m g x g mogG q-u ppG. iaep p m o cpobpoxa

CfguA UGM bOBB£pX77P£GB UOM SrAO£J9pj6 PO ppG £GIU0JG £U £UpGPCOJJGdq-OpG bxodxow* jjjgbg dnGBPTouB oxg ou oggq-pq-ouox coueq-gcxopq-ou po ppo xedoxg po appjopq-c dxoupe-q-u-oq-q‘ xgaguhg* oug bpjjocobpA o£ ppe ppxorrdp poAe XGBnjpGg q-u ppe cxGOpq-ou 0 £ o loAxjog o£ dneapqoua q-u

jpe cpoudGB ppop m o d j g u , 8 oppxepq-ce poAG Mq-ppepoog ouq c L x o m u

GXbGXJGUGG*

BGppq-ud 0£ ppq-a pAbe cou p o o xuoap bxocpq-cox oug cqncopqouErj ppxondp aboxp oug ppe juaojagugup Mq-pp oppcx q-ugq-Aq-gnoxa Mq-ppq-u 9 bjoAex oug coocp q-u 060,8 oppjepq-cs* jpG juoqq-nur o£ combepq-pqrou p©TTG£ poa p g g u anbboxpeg p A 111A o m u bexoouoj exbexq-Gucea ob popp o

Mq-pp q-p4 eq-ppcx op ppe qvpGxeojjGdTopG ox q-upexacpoxoapq-c j g a g j * jpq-B cLx g o p a o j u g po ppe boxpq-cq-boupa M p o o x g toxpmiopG euondp po pe q-UAOjAeg o£ q-pa oppjGpGB* ip poa joua pggu oA pGj£0£ ppop oppjepq-ca q-B 0£ po pe coucGxuGg Mq-pp ppG m o j j peq-ua oug ppe egncopq-ouox geAGjobiueup

IP q-a o A £ g x a g u p pobe ppop ppo m o i o g u , a oppjeptc bxodxoiu coupq-une

CroaiMG EJAMEIJEHJ,

* . 3Cd V B b E U D I X V SAT otdauq-sapq-oua * IS* JP broAq-ge qq-tecpq-ou aug waq-upaju ® tGjapq-ouapqb Mq-pp VIVM tedjouaj

tor. m o w g u * tot ppc njpqwapo goAGjobWGUp ot aborpa btodtawa aug obborpnujpjGn IT* JP coobetapG Mq-pp oppct btoteaaq-ouaj dtonba ot aq-wq-jat q-upGtGapa

JU WGWpGt acpooja* q-uapq-pnpGB * aug WGGpq-udo Mpq-cp Mq-jj idggp ppo uGcga ot jugq-Aq-gnaja TO* JP pojg uapq-ouaj cpawbq-ouapqba aug po ebouaor coutGpgucgb1

br.oar.awa - po bora on a q-u ppc qcAGjobii/Gup aug qwbroAGweup ot q-upGrcojjGdq-apG 9* jo brogncG aug gq-eptq-pnpG ancp uapotq-aja aa Mq-jj pa ot aeaq-apaucG

batpq-cqbaupa aug btodtawa* 8* JP tG^PPGt ppo coupq-unaj GAajnapqou ot apaugatga aug bojq-cq-ea t°*

tTugq-ufla* cojjGdq-apG appjGpjc combopq-pqou ou mowgu aug po gq-eaewq-uapG ppo y jp euconraclG aug t^cq-jq-pape tGBGercp ou ppc GttGCpa ot q-upct-

eutq-cpweup ot PPG jq-t® ot ppc m o w g u * aug Aaj/iG ot abotpe aug appjcpqca aa ppeA. couptqpnpc po ppa e* IP q’ucrcaaG bnpjq-c nugGtapaugq-ud aug abbtccq-apq-ou ot Ppe qwbotpaucG

Gttibpaaq’SGg * , ppap ppa coucowq-paup Ggncapqou a o j u g e ot ancp au GxbGtq-Guce arc 2* jp waqnpaqu ppc ebqxxp ot bjaA Mjppqu cowbGpqpTAG eborpa g a g u p b b o

ot batpq-cqbaupa qu m o w g u ,a qupGtcojjGdqepe appjepqca* ■}• jp t°GPGt brodrawa Mpqcp Mqjj Guconrade gxcgjjgucg qu bGttonuaucG

qupetcojjGdqepe appjGpqc brodrawa* 3* jo appn/njapo ppo gGAGjobnJGUp ot dnajqpA jeaqGrBppb tot mowgu,a i q-upGtcapa* aug cabacppqea ot ppG qugpAqgnaj apngeup* ot qupGtcojjGdqapG appjepqca tot mowgu paacg nbou ppeqt UGGga* 5* jp aaaqap wewpGt acpooja q-u expeugqud aug eutqcpqud ppGqt brodrawa

apaugatga ot ppa DCM3* ppe wowpor acpooja aug qu accotgauce Mqpp ppo bpqjoaobpA aug Mpqcp ate couaqepcup Mq-pp ppG egncapqouaj aqwa aug op^Gcpq-Aea ot T* JP toapGt ptoag brodrawa ot m o w g u ,a qupetcojjGdqapc appjepq-ca

HGuqpooK* TdA3 -A3 * apgpGweup ot bfftboeGa_____ yaaocqapqou t°^ lupGtcojjGdq-ape yppjepqca tot m o w g u svs

• slid \ d bsvottqqo od Ilcrfa b q aolllvldoa ttsriio riotra doubnoo oT .£X . noldcJtooaaA arid lo Y^od pnlniavop V B B E H D I X D to n w e* o

O O' K M O •a ra h wutj p* *e a o' o’ t i O QlH o M o ra a x %-Hti a n t 0) ti s h o tia a oii; R a a I*O' o -M m o© 13a x m o' ra ti 3 > a n C > E ra eo -m a o o a 0) M to * 1 ■Q €0) ra *9 a aa e m t> a e *m o 10 o a o q o >* m M * a o o ti o' a o a o M Oi t i a m ti n e o on c o M $% •Q M M e a tea a o ra -h • o M a 3 O ra M It! O n o n oa oE *mo M 0 -H ra M (0 t l O. •Mr a. a tiaoco a X t i 5 OiiO o ra a o > o n >* o & X M E O O M M ih (i a a o a M 0 O 19 c O M O' o _ _ n O' ao ih c it ti c 0 a e t l Cl (M E ©•aa an ooxh eXdlonoqeos noatiac; eriT noatiac; eXdlonoqeos

e t i e ■M iQ lodctrdalnirafifl bsnnrolnl o »t*MM o atio*ao

(H M o e 2 one1 an n n a

lit o QI 0 H 0) a ** xoTt io>*o >n a*oo a 0 * O' IH to >*•0 O' a oo noon o 10 IQ 19 CO o aoa OiQ a nx n ot s 1 CO M o IH n ri _ ti iQBCox u- H o M t l H B IH 0 tiooo* oano a 0 E 01 a O >Q (0 c IH m ojaaa

t l o t - •a O* O ra IH dicl^alloa niBCCpo^q al Xdsdnuooo£ > n ih o ti o ti ti a

o e o- o O' o O O e a 9 o ra a ora. i •■nan o e 1> tl o s a o o .dnodnoo ^ ti it o' >a a 0 S3 t i (0 o to O o m a r o tioooiQ 0 a i 0 •Q n o h X n *cn eo

M e < c 4 ioi a *h o *m ti m one H (Q t i t i 10 iQOt! Qi*H OOlM ti o X «o M ■h Qi 0 Q) *m x > ti a ti & Q M ■n in a ra eao o -oatiH-H M o o Or 3 —t n ti ti a a X a a a X t l c a 1 o it oa q a o e t i o 1 3 i ? - iQ enl&ttags'x oaorfd aoaaooo^q XXorfa od nlainlsni a tj ti x O itl o o* a o o_B ai eotinti

a> c o m t i ail nid.tu:iooi ra o' o aa a -mom

O |Q *1-1 H 9 § ae ti tiEoEc -M M >* O a •H n MX m2„ CJ (M 19 O E |H ;*t i H iQ BJ t l a iO* e m ti* a o a o o x >• ° £ o ti ti X o o

i Q 13 a o arid noiiB^iainlm&B lo arid raow e M MO M Oi O

X >* a ti ot 9 o tia ox»ra_ 3 ** + i o r a c > Mtt 0 a iQO

10 ■ M O B b no oil! &nc arid eo oo ti (Hoc* J) O M s § oe c e o o c m •H H (9 m o o ojn a K H ID a a ra E O O M o5 5a ■Q X? 2 Cf o bis asioiXoq Brts daum od lo aslqoO oons&noqaoraoo ^XIu!t .bsnno^nl o x x a leiortanii E>as dn E>as leiortanii a e 3 * a ’n -ttaini - Cl X CD a >Q VLLEHDIX C SAG

(CpGC}C OUG) ou MOGjcGuga p* Mpeu axo woap ot Aonx Moxjeq-ud ponxai gnxyud p]JG mggjc 9* hom iuouA ponxa go Aon moxjc Box mggp$ G* It Aon XGeBougGq „AGa„ po dnGapyou Mo ____ B* yxG Aon Moxppud gnxq-ua ppq-a tfrmxpGXi Ace (CpGCJC OUG) onp ot QGaaou- Mpap baxp ot ppe Ag g x «aa ppq-a aguq-uq-apoxcg^ gnXJUd 809809" 3* Han/6 ot pcmu: 3 ‘ H n m p G X ot cxGgppa XGclq-GpGXGg ^oz ppq-a dnaxpox: X* raap £onz vmupeza ot Aonx aocq-gy eccnxq-pA umwpcx: CGUGxaj iutoxx-apq-ou

BGXEOU 3 J axoourrud* Gpc*) TO* WTBCGjjauGona (gxcaaq-ud* B* BGjaxapq-ou (aocyayq-syua) a* Mozjc 'J* Bxacpq-ca acpooj1 p o aug t ^ o u dmuGe) 3* GSIUGa .(CODOBGpq-pqOU) 8* J,XtTAGjqrua {q-* o'* p o aug t^ow S* Euptua A* gpngAyud x# CT9 G8 G 8 e* eycGbq-ua Cjgaaqr tTc®FT01J ° £ Vcpq-Aq-pq-GB bpAaqcaj Eqno* T3U jiom Msugstjgjc Badaxga *

ipaujca tragju tox Aonx coupq-unq-ud saajapgucG* ppq-a Gaacupq-gj po ppq-a apngA* Ip q-B XGayq-sog ppap ppq-a cgu pe pcgq-ona pnp Aonx aaaq-apaucc q-u orapG anxe ppgp Aon coubjepG ppq-a gaq-yX* tq'tpogg inq-unpGa gnxapq-ou* it qr Ta apoxpcx1 ppeu j g g a g q-p onpm bjeasG uexp acpq-Aq-pA) • bGUJGiopex— cgcjj gcpq-Aq-pA xecoxqcg aponjg pG ot ap jGaap g x x o m go«u ppxonap ppo ucxp gaA po «pou Aon wajfe nB* ipou Axq-pG q-u Aonx apaxp po ajGGb ap jjsoo «xq-po q-u ^ajGGb,, ap ppq-a pqxre aug gxa« au ^nap gxaw au g x x o m gOMUMaxg nupq-j Aon podq-u a u g m acpq-Aq-pA (q-* g* ‘ q-t Aon pqxiG boxq-og* it au acpq-Aq-pA papca nb hjoxg ppau a tq-tpeGU-iupunpe boxq-og% roaA papc tTtPccu uq-unpca) • byGaac n a p 6acp q-pciu aa q-p occnxa q-u Gacp ttq-ppq-u Gacp ponx* ppoxo q-a xoow ^oz tonx acpq-Aq-pqea (q-* g* * o u g acpq-Aq-pA PPG t°TT°rtTua Bade q-a a yq-apq-ud ot pqruoa xpz Gacp gaA qos a 5

IHStLHACXIOMS JT *00

8*00

5 -3 *0 0 SA8

VBbEHDIX.D ipcmaB /iaugsqja):

qa dxcapjA abbxccqapGg* dneapqouuaqxe qu p g x h /b 0 5 ppqe Baxpqcnxas. p g b to oujA* xo/m s a a q a p g u c G IP Aon buxpqcrbapG ou b io x g ppau OUG p g o e i1 B j c u b g XGubouq po ppo Mqjj PG couaqqexGg auouAnfona' pppa pe pot cojjccpqou gug conrbaxqeou B/jxBobgb ouqA* A°nx xgbBoubgb couccxupud baxp op Aonx pqGupqqpcapqou umupcx aug ppG pcam Aon uxg ou‘ Aonx aBecpppc pacjedxonug* yjppondp ccxpaqu qupoxwapqou qa xGdnGopGg SGcppou 1 1 pa coucoxuGq Mppp’Q g u g x g j qupornrappou qGaqpud Mppp Bapc* Aoxqgpjoa appecp Aon aa au pugpApgnaj ox ppG pGtnu ou M p q c p Aon Baxppcp- m o h tg u ,a appjepqca* CnGappoue Mpjj po gpxGcpeg cpppox po poM ccxpapu dneeppoua gpxccpGg ap Aonx appppngea* pGGjquda1 aug BppjoeoBppca ou jjjg pqxep Eccpqou op pppa anxAGA pa bxpmaxpjA coucGxucq Mppp aug u jo x g aBGcqpqcajjA Aonx Baxpqcnjax p g o tu * uncrpox op axeaa op appqGpqca qu 6 gugxuj‘ mojugu.b appjepqca ap OPT° Bpape* aponjg pe joopGg ap aa au oBBoxpnuqpA pox Aon po Aoqco Aonx oBquqou ou a auBHGxqud ppe poijoApud dneapqoua* ip qa pejqeAGq ppap ppqa dnGapqouuaqxo qa poBGg ppap Aon Mpjj appGuibp po po aa oBgu aug pxnpppnj aa Boaaqpje qu op aqx ecjGcpog m o jd g u , a appjcppc peania ap ipc 0PT° SP^P6 nupAGxeppA* ip Jipqa qa a dnGapqouuaqxe Mpqcp Mpjj P® gqaF^qpnpeq po ppG wcwpGxa

CEMEBVT IHBJiBnCilOMS 380

( ) Aonx acpoojKOxpgug Gqncgpq-ou ( ) Aonx gppjGpq-c ouqcgAoxa Mpq'cp °5 tOTTowTe^ TO b io x g qiuboxpgup po Aon

( ) Boq ( ) eooq P) «TTT FPTB P® 3ooq ox pgqi ( ) HO { ) AGE g) tugjcG Aonx pGgw u/oxc tq-pe g bxotoaaq-ougj pcgiu ppgu au gnigpcnx pcgui5 d o Aon ppq-up ppgp gppjGpq-c axgup-q-u-gqqa «TIT!

{ ) Ho HGjgxgpqou { ) AGB { ) HO ecpoor uoxp ( ) AGB ( ) HO gocq-gj rrte ( ) £GB 3 * do Aon teej ppgp ppcxo q-a cuondp prmc qnxq-ud ppc S6BBOU t©X:

( ) HO { ) AGB q-u 'file moep quiboxpgup bxq-oxq-pA 4:0 Aon qnxq-ud ppgp pqmc baxq-ogs S* coucGXuq-ud Aonx qgq-jA ycpq-Aq-pq-Ga ‘ q-a ppc aboxp ppgp Aon byxpq-cqbupG

( ) Ho q-u m o w g u ,a gug w g u ,b gppiGpq-cai ( ) a g b T* in pGXiua ot Aonx gpprpngG* qo Aon pGjq-GAG ppgp ppcxc g x g qqrttexGucGa bxocpox* It Aon pgAe guA dncapq-oua* bjG? 8G qo uop pGaq-pgpc po geje ppe d n 6Bpq-ou* Bjgc© a cpccp q-u ppG bgxcuppGeq-a pgjom ppgp unwpcx* boceq-pjG umupGt wpjcp pGap qGBCxqpca Aonx gppq-pnge concGxuq-ud ppc couBJBpa o t g xgpq-ua ecgjG ^rora j po 3* mpgxg Aon BGjecp ppo poap bgiGupjjGBjB q-u £xoup ot Aonx accoug cpoq-CG* gug bo ou* jpe leap pAbe baxenppGBjB q-u ^xoup ot Aonx tqxap cpoq-CG* ppc unwpox „su q-u ppG AGXq-gpjGa q-u xnujc oxqex* do ppq-e pA bjgcq-ud ppG unwpGX „j„ jv ppo Aonx qGpexmquGg xcabouaG• jpe eecoug pAbo gaps Aon po bjgcG cGxpgqu peap boa a q-p je oug pA bjocq-ud g cpccp q-u ppc bgxeuppGaq-a q-u t^oup ot tqxep pAbc Mq-jj dq-AG g cpoq-co ot XGBbouaoa Mpcxo Aon cgu ecjGcp ppo ______jpq-a boxpqou ot ppo apngA pga dnGSpqoua ot p p x g g pAbea* jpo SGCpq-ou 1

brVAEB.2 OOESiLIOHHVIHE 18S daoqa odfiJtpgllooaodnl al odcqioJtdXGq uoy Y1Iw anoaae* orfd lo annoi nl .2 :IIlw ablfl-ni-driBap oJLdoIrido darfd itnirfd jjoy ob 3 ID 0) >Q ra J3

Claris ood tpnol ood pdod bg noacoa pnimooqu ■xuo'i 9 vJt9 o^sq uoy oQ .V datiid 9rfd rfdlw paddenda as bs'sobianoo ai noassa srfT) TY'xodoGdaidGa :to prtol ooT ( ) . (omap dad arid rfdiw pnibno brm ooddoBiq ddoria ooT ( ) Y^odofiia±da3 ( ) -H 3 3 (M " M co o •a M ■n S S j •• tj 3 H H "3 O’ >* g.O M a H O a h a o’ a a d o Q g. (9 § ° O a o a ra a o • 1 1

o n > n i < 4 a O > h a a a !

n MO’ o’ ra O 01 a b O -H o a

a

a

a

a H ti M i ■ *e ■d +» a r> a a r 3T Q (M m ra a o a a o >* a *3 > Q *a . s s s s s e >

183 •* a a > -a grg.G o a q

■n a > s M O’ -M -M - < •M £* IU *H •a n n ra •a M O M •a H H M O •c — _ H *a u> ■tl »Q a m c ■a s ■n ■a ■a ^ B/ffO Ji S « n a n « S m as O O oj t; h 5 g « S a t> B, &> a o O >* a ciu a Qi a a 8 o a a o a •> a a i a a 4 3 id m a w Q M D a O

-H o n o o a

oa ob od 9 0 x 1 loal ,ooiorfo nwo xuoy do aldolaav a bbe od addl bltrow uoy dl* ( ) UOUG ( ) ucdopjAG PPG dGUGXLGJ OpOJOSbjIGtG O t Aont PCOKJA ( ) bOBJPJAG TV Mpsp ottGCF go Aon p g j j g a g oppicpjc dnoupB-ju-ojg m j t t poAG nbou

( ) po j o b g oug £oc Aon po BjoA o jtiajpGg oiuonup ( ) po j o b g oug tot Aon po bjoA o 8 tGop gooj ( ) po m j u oug toe. Aon po bjoA o' jjiujpGg oiuonup ( ) po «ju oug ton Aon po bjoA o dteop gGoj 76* ljOUK fVB t°TT°wTua Tu otgGn ot bnctcnGUCG:

( ) po joee oug tot ppo pGoni po bjoA bootjA ( ) po j o b g oug t°x £P° tcoiu po bjoA m g j j ( ) po m j u oug ton ppG p g o m po bjoA boonjA ( ) po «ju oug ton pjjg pgoiw po bjoA m g j j 72* boujc pjjg tojjortTua ju onget ot jmbotpoucGs

“1 ) uo bnjotjpA tT*ap ( ) pGOiu 8007a c o u g coniG tTtBP comea tTtaPA ( ) jugjAjgnuj 8 0 0 7 0 DO Aon p o a g o bnjotjpA o b po apjcp It Aon nGebougGg ,,168,, po dnGapjous 79 e 79; ) Mo 7 $* d o Aon B o p p g o d j 8 0 0 7 0 5 /N ) Aoa ) MO A6B 7 3 * do Aon b g p jugjAjgnoj 8 0 0 7 a ton Aontaojti

( ) MO ( ) AOB UGGg eponjg po o xuo^on t^cpotj DO Aon pG7 jcAG ppop tTU0 lJCT07 It Aonn nGebouBG mob umo„: MO A©a ppja sponig pG goue B0 7 G7 A ou oppjGPTC opjijpAj IS* iu ppo oBBjduwGup ot oppiGpjc 8noupe-ju-ojg1 go Aon p g i j g a g p p o p

BnpopjpnpG ( ) uou-couptTpnpjud enpepjpnpe ( ) coupnjpnpjud PGOiu ton ppje nbconjjud b g o b o u : ( ) spotpon XT* Hom go Aon b g g AontEGjt ju pennra ot Aonn noiG ju tedotg po Aonn

585 5 * State tpo uan/G ot tP® t®atu { q-* 6,i tGUCTu*i) *

I* raet town unrnpcnG ot Aonn q-gGUtTtTcffPTou unrnpGn:

( ) boat Aonn apqrTP^* ( ) BtG ncabouaa* it a PTaup Ta ^TA6IJ' P P ® u bjcaae tTTT TP Tu P° PP® P ® a p ot MfjGnG a cjjoqpcG qu clq'AGU aflaqu bjacG a cpGcjc qu t*out ot ppo pGat Eg c p x o w II

2 * 3 . ■ S ■ T tu ongon* /\q-pp ppc jqu/q-p ot 2 ! 3 3 * Monjg Aon JTaP PP® TTtaP ugiitgb ot Aonn cjoccap t^jeuqa ou tP® fG9W

( ) not at ajy ( ) AGnA jq-pPT® ( ) a tat* amount uot qu acaeou ( ) a dnGap qoaj 3S' JP «pat gGdnGG go Aon aocqujq-so wq'tp Aonn t®®““nap®a WpCU ^0n anc

( ) not ap ajj ( 1 AGnA ITPPT® ( ) a taqx amount BG9 Boui ( ) a anGat gGaj 3T* JP apat gcdneG go Aon eocq-ajq-so /iq'tP Aonn f Gamma tea gnnq-ud tpc ( ) no < ) A®a auattGXGg Monjg po aqurrjan to Aonn coacp(a nGebouaca^ SO* Do Aon pGjqrGAG tpap tP® nGBbouBGB t° PPe dnGatTOIJB ^on pane IJnat

( ) coutTunc aa qu ( ) bnactTCG jgbb aponjg: ( ) bnactTCG mono Td* 1° XGflang to Aonn bnactto6 tl® 0 <3° ^on P©TTGA® ppat Aonn team

tpo atuoabpono ot tpo t®®BJ < ) ( ) ( ) { ) ( ) tpo c j o b o u g b b ot Aonn t®am at PPT8 PT10® ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Aonn nGjatq'ouBpq'b MjtP Aonn coacp ( ) { ) ( ) ( ) { ) I 3 3 * 2 g6BcnqpG tpo toiTOMjua* T8" qu a acajG ot j to B Mq*tp T poq’ua mcjobgu aug b P®T®a Hqqutavp%M

383 Tucjncnrutf PPT8 H re jjig unmpcr. ot ^ooxe oa o Aoraq-pA bjgAes. Tw £PTa Bbotp op 0 PT° 3P8P® U> H* A d ht Hi > e 14 H* Htj>n o ss**! a n u. 3 aa 0 hPO (0 CJ htw u

K Hi ssa s lO s & o q (9 h»

*-* r< ft **» 14 u Hi ( - ft A 4 . §1 s * 19 (9 ft w — H H * ft i i r< w — & . o (9 q ft U S (9 01 H- O' (9 a q. 0 & * (9 ft I4>

CO H ft <4. o a

OD Aonr cmirnjgpq-Ae Stoge boq-up: »Q iQ -1 • 3 o u a. ft a ft q hi o ftft a n ft q. a o q- o o u q h* o q- H o a •i iQ tQ • in q i4 u. a. a hT ft ft o u ft q li­ a •• ; ° S 5

to d) H hi ft4 Hi ft o ft ft ft CP i lO Hi «. *«. a a. a H> n o a. a. O <0 h- O S. Hi a. o CD / (9 o o a. o H i

•a s ru 6 i H a. Hr a. (9 01 U. Hi (9 5 0 H> u o Hi (9 U. (9 tP 19 CP q o ft 1 o

w w ! ■ # V V t W w j . cd

•*0 ■s A ft & 8 CD a. H* ji O ft «4- HP (9 Hi O U O H (9 u O tP ID CP q o ft

k iB&t nk ft tlooifoa ) { nsairfB9?1 IO CD 382

VBEBHDIX E see

appqpnqca coucoxuqud ppo dnGapqou* hT acG 0 cjjgcjc qu ppc baxGuppGBqa aapGg po BGjocp ppc pGap boeaqpx® umupGX MpqCp pG8p gGBCXqpGB Aonx ou* xpo jgbp pAbc cousqapE ot 9 xapqud e g g j g t * ° w j po 2 m p g x g Aon sue ppo umupGX Ms„ q-u ppG boxGuppGaqa q-u troup ot Aonx aGcoug cpoqcG4 aug so bjgcrua ppe umupGX q-u ppe baxauppcaqa q-u qxoup ot Aonx tq-xep cpoqcc* pAbc uapa Aon po bjace CGXpaqu AUxqapqGa q-u xauqc oxgex* do ppq*e pA q-u ppc baxeuppcaqB q-u %jiov$ ot Aonx gGpGxwquGg x g b Bo u e g * j p g eccoug

XGBbouaoa m p g x g Aon cau aGjGCp ppc peep boeexpje o u g pA bqacqud a cpGCje gq-tt^XGup pAbea ot dncapqou* jpe tqxap pAbc M q n dqwG a cpoqcG ot bpqqoaobpqGa ou m ou jgu , a appiopqca* jpcxo axG poeqcajqA ppxec

Xps dncapqoua axG gqxecpGg ap Aonx appqpngGE* tGcjguSs' aug nroxG abGcqtqcaxiA PP® P®®w Aon coacp* coucGXuqrud appqopqea qu deuGxaq* mowgu, a appqepqea ap 0 PT° 2P®PG* auq ap aa au obboxpnuq-pA pox Aon po AoqcG Aonx obquqou ou a umupGX ot axcaa tojjQMq-ud dnGEpqoue • xp qa pejqGAGg ppap ppqa buxagA aponjg pa joojccg mtit appewbp po pc aa obcu aug pxnpptnj aa boaaq-pje qu auaMGxqud ppG ot aqx egjGcpeg pcawa txow ppqa quepqpnpqou* ip qa pobeg ppap Aon nuqAGxaqpA* y aquqrjax dneapqouuaqxc Mqxi P® gqapxqpnpcg po ppc bjaAcxB ot ppo coacpqyd apatt PP® mowgu,a appjepqe pcawa ap jpe OPT® 3 P®P®

jpqa qa a dnoapqouuaqxG Mpqcp wqjx p® gqapxqpnpGg po ppG wewpexa luapxncpqoua

coacp,a OnoepqouuaqxG jjjomsra M9uqs?TS]c

J4JOTJJC Aon tox Aonx aeajBtGUCG* fO 8BJC* pejoH fjJtrp unupex’ it Aon jktao ouA dnGapjoua* bjegae' qo uop peafifffc

SBA ) HO XGGqGXBppb ) AGB ) HO BCOXJUa ) AOB ) HO PGGU COpGBXAGUGBB ) AGS } HO M j u u p u a ) AOB po p p G p g g u qu: ie ancp g u puqpApgnap u o x g XGBbouapppG XP Aonx XGBboUBG HOG nqpppGXB,,: ( ) h g u g x u b ppe b q u g Op ppe BXOAOX «po goes UOp pGAG OUGA I ( ) DTttGta op p p e BioAgx «Tfy ™ ffppjGpjc axsup-pu-oxq «XXT qT£tG* E*ou G* iu pex m a op XGBbouapppXTPA po ppG p g g u * qo Aon pppup PPBf £PG ^ojg

moiugu 18 gppjGp?CQ sp ppje puapxpnpxouA ( ) fiUGJpGt ( ) qGUJGdG ( ) JUbXOAG 2 * DO ^on pGj^GAe ppGp gppjgpxc axaupB-ju-Gpq « T IX !

( ) B»q { ) eooq p) pe pppa dooq ox poqA ( > HO p G O W i ( ) j l g b g) ureqcG Aonx pggu ujoxg jpkg g bxopGBapouox pgqbj ppou qu omrpcnx do Aon pppiqc PP^P GppjGpjc axuupe-pu-apq «pXTs

( ) HO KGpOXOppOU ( ) Aoa ( ) HO ecpoox XGjnpeq qnppGB t ) Aoa ( ) HO eocTsr m ® ( ) abb 3 * d o Aon peep pp a p Aon p b a g cuondp ppuo qnxpud ppG b g g b o u pox:

( ) HO BxpoxppA po AonA ( ) *gb 5 * onxpud ppo bggbou* pe ppG eboxp ppop Aon coGcp ppo uoap pmboxpoup

( ) M O PU MOU1G17, B Guq IUGU4B OpppGppCBA { ) X®B T* iu PGXua op bpppoeobpA* qo Aon poppGAe ppop ppcxo gxg gpppexeucea

S88 fJJG UOU-XGCqfbqGUp ( ) ( ) ( ) pyo npyjepqc axnup-qu-nqq XGcqbqGup ( ) ( ) ( ) I>oeq-pq-AO HGdnpq-AG none Aonx pcmo yow go Aon Aqcn pyGqx eppGCps out XT’ lv oxtraququa pyG oAGxnjj cppGcp op opyjopqc dtunpe-qu-nqq ^bou

qru couibnxqeou po pyoaG uop ou srpyjopq-c axnupc-qrr-nqqi ( ) Mo dmuGB (cowbcpqrpqou) ( ) ags ( ) Ho gnxqua: bxncpqco ( ) ji.es TO* WTTT ^orr gemnng woxg pxow pyo npyjGpGB ou npyjopqc axuupe-qu-uqq

0 I g a g j op oxdnuqsnpqou ( ) ( ) < ) ( > ( ) pynp cxqape ou Aonx pegxtr ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) () e> pyo gc3xGG op obsuuGaa ox comujnuqcnpqou b j n A G x a ( ) ( ) ( ) ()() q) pyo gGaxGG po wyqcy Aon urapq-AapG Aonx pGGBJ { ) ( ) < ) t ) ( ) 0 ) pyo gGAGjobiueup op gq-acq-bjquo qu Aonx p) nao op gqacq-bjquo ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) < ) Aonx bjnAGxe.(qGdxGG op pxqGugjquGBB) ( ) ( ) ( )( )() »> Aonx boxBounj xGinpqoueyqb fiqpy T s :j 1 >

pncpoxa q-u Aonx pGOU* na Aon bGXCGqAG pyguj: geacxqpG pyo gcdxcG po «yqcy Aon nppeiubp po goAGjob pyc poxjowqua 9 * q p j a acgje pxow j ppxonQy 2 * «qpy j pequa ..jom,, gug 2 poqud Myqay*„

t ) HO qupcxuffj ( ) *gb ( ) HO GXP6XU9J ( ) J6B HTTT pye bxeeanxGa pet IP Aonx xGabouao m g b (1^c b „ : ( ) HO bXGaanxGa pGqua bjuccg nbou Aon po «qui ( ) X6B 8* do Aon pojq*GAG pygp apyjcpq-c axnupe-qu-gqg «qjj xeanjp qu ngqqpqounx

( ) * ( ) pO p X S A G T ( ) po qcibxoAGajeqjj ( ) po eocqgjqse ( ) fo * q u ( ) po coiobepe (jjguK oxqcx) ( ) po yffAG pnu oxqex op quiboxpguce po Aon coucGXuqiia pyeqx gedxce op Gtubygaqat A* i w poxma op Aonx coney qua byq-joeobyA1 bjnco pjjg pojyowqua pnepoxa q-u

583 ttsnjgsTJOK

Gug g u ^o Ag p j g e g g e o u * jjjsuy Aon crds^u qioz Aonz seaq-BpGucG Mjpp ppja enzAeA* h &a g g arrcccBa^nj

{ ) coscp ( ) JjGOCpGZ p pap 0 £ llcoGcp%„ mpgzg «onjg ho n bjsrco A o n z e 6 j T S I'J* It Aon png po Bjgcg Aonracjt q-u ppc cnpGaozA ot „pescpGZ oz (><)()<><) gb Aon EGG TP) j: 3 3 g 2 8p?pnc ot Aonz pgghi^ (ppo qcozg 2 Monyg pe g coiuBjcpg Bzodzaiu ppo MpTapGBp»„ wpup unupcz wonjg pcap qcaczypG ppG tTusucT°I 13* ow bcgjg I f o 2 * «TPP T pGjua ppo ujoMGap„ ouq 2 P«Tud

( ) HO GjpczGpToua ju Aonz coGcpq-ua^ { ) *gb ■ T5* DO Aon pGijGAo P p G p GppjGpq-o azGUpa-Tu-Gq-g mjjj canae ouA

sao VLBEHDIX E sas jo doog po djAG 01,01 8 poep' oug 4:0 bjoX po wpu pX porx oug jortpnj wgoue*

*PTTTf^‘ If T8 floog po apoxo ppG cxbGxpcucG 0 5 o «ojj bjoXcq aoiUG* jp

If jb aoog pox a epngGUp po bpp pex ajtpjj acta q-u ep opj/gxb op cqwq-jax oe wncp ajepjj po o eboxp 93 pcx oppjppX* pupGXGap* oug ppiuc wpjj ojjoa* dooja xutfA pG ocppcAGg «pcu Gtrcp aoiuou apngoup go euconxoaog po gGAGjob

0 qxpAG pox ocppGApud bcxpGcppou* oug bxpgc pu occoiabjpapii/Gup* jpeeG

lUpGxcojjGdpupG comboppppou aponjg jGog po gxcgjjgucg pu bcxpoxiugucG'1 appjjog Tugp/vpgnoj fPT8 cpojjGudG* pxow ogAsrucGg pXbGB op combGppppou* I f T8 nupopx po qeuX ppG ppdpjX cojjGdpopG bxodxonj aponjg pG oppcxGq pox pposG «po oxg opjG po bxoppp po ppG urapnxppX oug upq-jq-ppca op ppc q’ugq’Apqnaji pjjgxgpoxg' ou pupex- coiubGppppou* j,jjg coiubGppppAo GUApxouwGup pu aboxpa aponjg coxxeaboug bojpcpGB* oug XGdrrjoppoua jb coucGXUGg oujX wppp pupGxeojjGdpopG op conboppppou aponjg pG mopupopUGq* pppa apopGuiGup op bppjoeobpX* ogncoppud pugpApqnoja pox couiboppppou* ycKUOMjGgdpud ppop ojj bpoaca uopnxG oug ppop ppo pcboxpuiGup poa ou piuboxpoup xGebouapppjppX pu

PGJJGAG8 ppop PPG WOlJOXpfE op JPPG GXbGXpGUCGB OXG op O COmbGPTPJAG

jjjg apopp op xpo moujgu , a DPApepou* Daboxpo/cup op bpXapcoj Egncopqrou*

BGAJBGg J0G3

DGboxptUGUp op fcpXapcgj sgncoppou - mobdgu , c DPApapou

jjjg 0PT° 2faf6 nupAcxappX

L0riCIE2 OH IHJiEKCOrTEGIVlE COWLEJiIIpIOH ton woweh ape pa abbxoacppucl ppap bopGuppax j g a g j o p ejcpix*

pGHaOJt PO pGX dXG9pGEp bopGUppBX 911 q po XGCOcliipSG MJJGU

3JO bxoApqo au obboxpnuppX pox au puqpApq/raj po oxbGuq

pacpoxa Mppcp coupxppnpG po ppa gcAGjobwGup*

pu abbxGcpappou op a ppclppX ejcpilGg box poxxuauce auq ppo

3 * x/o bxoApqo au obboxpnuppX pox ppo c o j j g c Ic woman po dxoM

agAauccg ajcpxia* auq po abbjX aqAanccq apxapGdX*

pex puortjGqaG op a aboxp ppxondp jeaxupua po GXGcnpo

3 * JP bxoATgG au obboxpnuppX pox au pugpApgnaj po pucxGaae

p e q pX o p p G x a *

auq po opaGXAG auq abbxocpapG aboxpauauaypb aa qGWouapxa-

aboxpaioaueppb mjjcu nuqex ppo epxeaa op jcggu coiubGppppou*

k pGxaejp pu accoxqaucG Mppp ppG ppdpeap pqcaja op

X* jp bxoApqe au obboxpnuppX pox au pugpApgngj po couqncp encp a bxodxaw ap jpe 0PT° 2papG nupAoxappX axo a a poxjowa: eqncappouap dxoMpp op coxxode moiijgu* mg apppxiu ppap ppc brrxboeoa op

spues mg pGXXGAG ppap pupoxcopjeSpgpe aboxpa cau pnxppox ppo excpaudG op pqeaa auq poxioMeppb Mppp apnqeupa op oppex puapppnppoua* pG prrxppGXGq ppxorrQp cotubaupouappb Mppp peauwapGa ou pxpba auq ppe

jpe cnxpnxax migGxapaugputla auq abbxecpappoua op coxjg3g mohjou cau euconxade ppGiu po apxpAG pox combGppppAG enccoaa* po au awaxcuGaa op ppo Aaxnea po pa qcxpneg pxoiu courbeppppou auq aappappeq Mppp nJGqpocxppX1 pnp xappex M6 eponjq gpxecp onx apnqeupa ya poacpGxa* mg aponxq uop bernjpp onxaexAGB ox onx apnqeupa po pa

393 yOX p9Ayud PpG DTATcTOU bOyycyGB XGAJQeg 98 UGGgOg* bxodxaw oy auTi cnxxGUp cpaudca yu apauqaxqa auq apayy pe XGabouaypyG

E jja jj yuyoxw ppG yacnypA wcnirpGts yuAoyAGg yu ppo yupGxcoyycdyapG boyycyGB aug XGdnygpyoue* jpo cooxgynapox oy KGCXGapyouay ycpyAypyGO

Egncapyou* auq HGCXGapq-ou* as m g j j aa apo 0PT° nuyAGxnq-p?v aug KoiuoUgG gboxpa oy ppo yiroxycau yaeocyapyou you naaypp* bpAeycay accoxgyud po ppo Epauqaxqe yox coiubGpypyou oy ppo cyAyeyou oy eytjB

yyy yupGxeojjGdygpG coupGapa apayy pG oxdauyscg auq couqncpGg bpyjoaobpyGB* a o i u g u o y coiubaxapyG ajcyyy* a u q wypp ynapypnpyoue paAyud aymyyax nuyAGXBypA po baxpycybapc y u aboxpa acpyAypyoe wypp oppcx coyyGa© apxyAG po bxoAygc obboxpnuypyea yox m o w g u apngcupa oy jpG 0PT<> 3P&PG

jjjg MOWGu,n DyAyayou* DebaxpiuGup oy bp^aycay Egncapyou1 apayy

GEHEHyr bonciEa

acpsgnyyud coubcpypyA© GAGupa popp ap poutG auq

A* Jjo bxoAygo au obboxpnuypA yox aocyay GXbGxycucGB pA

MOnyg Guqaudcx yp*

yurboxpaup aug- aponyg uop pG aacxyyycGg apcu baxpycybapyou

po xecoduysG ppap ppo pGaypp oy ppc yugyAygnay ye moap

eonug pxayuyud aug pcaypp bxacpyccB yox combapypyou * aug

e* IP bxoAyqe au obboxpnuypX yox ppG coyyGdc moivsu po ycaxu

yugyAygnay po yGaxu po« po cougncp ancp coupespa*

«ypp bgp apaugaxqa* aug po bxoAygc au obboxpnuyp& yox au

coupcapa Mpycp axG oxdauysGg aug cougncpcg yu accoxgaucG

3* jp bxoAyge au obboxpnuypA yox baxpycybapyou yu appycpyc

3 M bxocpTcxud guq\oi; combof t ud ju pyo uoujg eGoaou t® ppo

OPT° 2P®P® nuTAGK0TF^ TUFokcorjoflT0^6 poow TS ®P° Ta

3* y koujou opngGup wo* uop bxocpTC© ouq\ox cowbGFG ou gu

GFFJGPG*

BcpojaxepTb &&g g ?£tcgtjA gGQTduGg po o b b t b p g m owou

w g * vop x g c g t a g £ ? u g u c ? g j o^q ouq\ox oij u f p t g f t c 0

S* y mou/gu apngcvp &gxftcT^?-P7u^ Tu TuPctcoTT®3T®po coupGBpa

CO-XGCXGGpTOUBJ GCFTAfFTGB*

ouconxodGg po buxpTCTbGps 'jv Gbbxobxjgfg tufgxcojjg3tgfg

TUFGXcojjGdTGFG coupGap* y mowou epngGup mttT pG

FGOWB1 OX GdGTUep W6U,B pGOW8» OX GdGTUBF ® WGU JU GU

* X* y moiugu apnqGup wo* uop bBxpxcTbopo oa g w g w p g x Ob w g u ,b

a&EciLic HEenrvjiions

* Ot HGCX6GFTOUGJ VCPXAXFT®3 *

cocp couiBgftftag gaguf pougjeg ppxondp ppc otttcg ot ppo cooxgjuGpox

po pGAO GJJ COXXGBbOUgGUCG4 pXGAGJ * TTU0UCG bu<3 OppGX GXXGUdGUGUPB ^ox

PPG popGJ XGBbOUBTpTJTP^ t°£ 9U?V COU&OPTPTAG GAGUF* IP T® ggcgbbgx*

GAeupa uugex pgx dnxgoucG* gpnqGupe aponjg uop pe exbecfeq po gbb/iug

GaanuJG boug XGaboueTPTTTP^ box bjBuuxud Gug GxecnpTud combopTPTAG

cpGxdo ot ppop BCFTA7F&* jptb GgAjacx Bponjg cuconxGdo apngcupe po xcabouBTPTixpX ipx. cocp aboxpa bxodxom po ppo ^gggjpA GqAjcox t®

WOHIGUjB DTaT8TOU* lips DTAT8TOIJ XGCOaUTSGB TP8 OPXT^GPTOU po gGJGdGPG

°t ppo cooxgjuopox ob bgcxcbptouoj ycpTATFT08 aug ppG cpoTUiJOu ob ppG g^XGcpTou Gug ppo bT®®! XGBbouaxPTITP^ T0* TP® cougncp j® pp® cpoxdo

jp© qfupGxcojjGdTGpe bxodxow unep pgag gGbT®TP® cooxgjuopTOiJ oug

392 baxpqcqbaup wnap paAG a UJGgqcsj GASjnafqou rtqppqu

qu qupGXcojjGdpapG GAGUpa auq cjnp bxacpqcGe* £acp

qepGXiuquGg pA qGborpuiGupaj apauqaxgB1 po baxpqcrbepG y V apnqcup aponjg pe qu doog bpXaqcaj cougqpqou* aa

BECnrKLIOMS COHCEttHIHC JJIE HEVTJJI OL iHE BVKXICIbVMI,3

auq qupGxpoxee jcaep wqpp oppcx acpooj acpqAqpqea •

oxqex po BxoAqqG pjjg bxodxaw ppap ja xuoep eapqapAqud

exbXGaa bxcpexcucea q-u ppG Bcpcgnjpud 05 eAGupa q-u t»* y Mootau apngeup eponjq paAG ppo obboxpnuqp7v po

pogTi q-u ppap acpqAqpA pox cjexqppcapqou•

qupexbxGpapqou* ppo agAqacx aponjg coupacp ppo xnjqud

apaugqude q-u ppap aboxp* it ppexe qa a dneapqou op

aqAqaex ox ppe abGcqpqc xednjapqoue coucexuqud aivapGnx

2 * y Moutau apngeup eponjq pG abbxqaeg pA Gacp aboxpa cjnp

acpqAqpqea op ppap cjnp*

cjnp sreiupGxapqb caxxqea XGabouaqpqjqpqee po ppG

Hoagagx1 a apnqGup wnap xecoduqse ppap ppe bxqAqjede op

a apngeup po baxpqcqbape qu qupexcojjedqape acppAqpqea*

obcu ponx* no bxGeanxG ox combnjaqou eponjq po bnp nbou

dooq apauqqud op a gebaxpureupaj cjnp ox quapxncpqouaj

y AOiuau apngeup uiaA uop coubcpG nujeae epG qa a lueinpex qu

pe iuoep AajnapjG po pex*

peaio ppap Mqjj dqAG pex ppe exbcxqeucGB apG peeja «qjj

Bpnqeup eponjq pe dqAeu ppG obboxpnuqpA po cpooao ppe

asiifG aboxp a8 a luenipcx op auA oppex peanr y /toiusru £MO pGawa* on po pmo acpooja po pnjud ojjg pgoti cacp ou juAjpapjoua eponjq pG cxpGi/qGg po oug ecpooj po pnjud

7 8 jandG Guondp ppap pmo njcjjjGg pcmue cau pG poxwcq* juapTpnpjoua* ys a dcuenaj nnjG* jt ppG cjnp dnonb ppau tonn ot ppcBG GAcupa aponjg po Ajajpa po oppGn

Mjpp onpajqG dnonba qmcjud auA dnanpGn* aug uo wonG jjjgxg aponjg po a waxjmnitf ot Gjdpp coiubGpjpjAc GAGupa

BEGniVJiIOIiS EOK EAEHJ3 cannjeg* tonur Mpjcp ajao BbocjtT68 ppe pAbo 0 7 peajpp juannauco

0 7 aboxpa cjnpa combjcpc aug ajdu 9 iaegjcgj GAajnapqrou jjig gqAjeGz apajj pc noebouajpjo ion paAjud ajj urciupGne coAGXGg pA a courbanapjG bojjcA* juannaucG bojjcA ottcnGg ap ppe nujAenajpM on pa yjj urciupGna ot abonpa cjnpa nrnep papo onp ppe pGajpp n/Ggjcaj canG* dnajjpjGg po nac jp* aug bnejjiujuanA annaudGuieupa ton juejngea bnoAjajoua ton tjnap-ajq cdnjbwGup' g o u g o u g

^nnjea occnnnjud qnxjud juponcojjGdjapG coupeapa* opja tnobcn bnoAjajoua lunap pG maqG ton ppo pneapuiGup ot ju- pnajujud bnodnaw aa a banp ot ncdnjan cjnp acpjAjpjGB ■

XGabouajpjG ton geAGjobjud aug cannAjud onp au ctt©cpjAG ejx Djouppa bnjon po ppo acpjAjpA* jpc agAjEGn apajj po ppap acpxAjpX*

XupoxcojjccljapG gagupa ojjo/jjq pG ahbxoAGq pX ppe aqAjeGX

VXT bnpijcjpA oponp ppo acpjAXPxea aboxpa cjnpa auq

JUpGHCOJJCcljtJpG GAGupa Up jpG OPT° 2£apG flUJAGtajpA*

jpexo aponjq po tio agiujaajou cpaxclc tox MOUGU(a

t&cjjjpjGa cau accounuogapG ppoeG boxpxcjbaupa•

qGQjxapjG onpcoxsea cau pG oppajucq OUjTk Mpcu PPG

qGpGXuqruGq p7v ppa UAajjapjG tacTTTfT62* bjucg ppG woap

jpe umupox ot baxpjcjbaupa ju au acpjAjpX eponjq pe

ocpjAjp7k*

po bjauucq £OX. ppG baxpjcjboupa ju auX jupexcojjGdjapG

ip j b pjdpjA XGCOimi/GuqGq ppap au oxflaujseq eocjaj g a g u p

OMU BJGXJp*

pxaAGj* pnp Gacp bxoboeGq pxjb eponjq po Qngdcq ou jpa

Xpcxe aponjq pe uo XGBpxjcpjou ou ppG qjepaucG ot

enp^Gcp po ppe emue xcdnjxGUJGUpa aa jjapeq opoAG*

jiXOuatcx epnqeupe oxc jujujsqjapejJi GjjdjpjG tox baxpjcqrbapjou

dxaqGB)*

tXGBpiUOU Ag o x ppGXG MJJJ pG UO XGBpXJCpJOUB XGdoxgjud

pex bsxpjcjbapjou ■ (Dnxjud tTrBP dnaxpcx ot ppe

c) ape pea a xapjo ot 5 * 0 Tu fl*6 dnoxpex bxcAjone po

p) ape pea a cnmnjapjAc bojup ponx xapjo ot 5* 0 otjcj%

ot X5 ponxs acaqeiajc moxk*

/ a) ape ja a tniJ-PTue apngeup caxxAjud a mjujiunsi

iua7v, baxpxejbape ju jupGxeojjGdjapG aboxpa bioAjgjud s

y Moanru cpnqcup* XGdjapGxcq ju au nuqexdxaqnape cojjccIg v PJUJG O p f p G G A G U P *

ponpGas ecpooj pox dnsjjpjGq oppjcjBje bxjox po ppe

7 3 * yxxBuaeurGupa eponjq pe wage p7i ppG uqAjeGX op ppe

V7T bjaAexa eponjq ppGU pG uiepcpGg Bccoxqjud po xgup*

BjbAgxb op Gocp ecpooj eponjq pe XBupcg sb po gpjjjpA*

TS* Lot cotubopjpgou ju jugjAjqngj ox gnej oboxpa *■ p p G

op ppe baxpjcjbBpjud acpooja*

bXG-BXXBudeg eng adtGGg nbou p7k ppe pscnjpX nieiupexe

TJ* Khjgb srug xcdnjBpjoue xodaxgjua ppG gagup e p o n j g p e

ppe pecnjpA egAjeex op ppe poepeea ecpooj*

OUJ& JP PPG JUAJPBPJOU pGSXB PJTG Bjdueg BbbXOABJ Op

JO* yu JUAJPBPJOU JXOUJ BUOPPGX C9JJG3g AJ JJ pe BCCGbpGg

bjBccg ju ppe cooxgjuBpox,a pjje*

pX ppe jupxBiunxBj bgcxgpbxTl B u g b c e x p o u cobTv mjjj p e

ppe oppex ecpooj* yjj coxxeBbougeucG apejj pe p&bGg

©t Ppo jeppex apsjj pe aeup po ppe pBcnjp*. ggAjecx op

3xonb* ip ppe jeppex je eggxeaaeg po b e p n g e u p 1 s c o b X

ppe sjduBpnxe op ppe pecnjp* BqAjaex ju cpexac op ppe

GOOXgjUBpOX op bggxgbpjoubj ycpjAjpjGB Bug rnnap PGBP

op JO QpBpe nu jA 6 XB j p7i uwiap pBAG ppe sbbxoABj op ppe

3 * VII JWAjpepjoua expeugeg po oppex cojjedea pX. jjjg

coiubepeup bp7vojcoj egncepox po 8 6 XAG ea trgAjsox*

oxjep ouj* JU ppoeG BcpjAjpjGe pox Mpjcp ppcxe ja B

8 * IP js apxou3j?i xecosmiGugGg ppep aboxpa cjnpa aponjg

333 p) £po XGdnjapjoue ppap ppcxo epajj po uo gxjupjud op

0 ) jpc abbxobxjupo qxcaa {.ox ppo acpjAjpjGe auq p x o a g j *

acdnoqrupjud ppo epnqoupe Mjpp:

XGbXGBGUpOpJAOB op ppG nujAGxajpA* &pje jucjnqea

acdnajupjud pj j g e g apnqGUpe wjpp p p g j x XGBbouajpjjjpjGB 08

{ox ppe couqncp op ppo apnqeupa nuqex pGX epaxde4 auq pox

18* Jpe snbGXAjBjud pacnjpA, wcupcx ou uuA pxqb ja xcebouejpjo

ppe g a g u p wjpponp 0 pacnjpA cpabGxouG*)

Aipjcp occnx gnxjud ppo emuwGX uiouppa uraA do po auq pxow

apnqeupa xcbXGecupjucl ppe nujAGxajpA ap juqjA jgnaj GAGupa

coabepTpjou auq xebxeeGUpjud ppe nujAGxejpA* (EXCGbpjou:

op MOiiiGU apngeupa baxpjejbappud ju qupcxcojjGdjEifg

QTGUp op BpAajcaj Eqneapjou1 urnep accombauA gaoxA dxonb j y y lUGHJpGX o p p p o B p a p p op jp G mowgU'B dtaTbTou% D o t a x p -

OAajjapjG po a jj ppoaG baxpjejbapjud*

epoMGXjud pacjjjpjG B * TO(3 qx6aajud ebacG aponjq pe

IG* yqednapG axxaudGweupa pox cpGcjcjud Aajnapjca*

ppGA axxjAG *

axxaudGiDGupa pox ppe a j b jpoxa auq b g x a g aa poepGBBGB wpeu

g u c g op ppe Ajejpjud ecpooj* ips coimujppco eponjq luape

axxjAaj bojup wojj jv agAaucG op ppe cxbGcpeq abboax- j2 * y c o u o u j p p g g op epnqGupe oug puenjpA eponjq pe ap ppe

CGjjapjou ju coao rtcappgx bxcAeupe onpqoox bjaA*

jGOAjud poxiG jp boeejpjo* op boepbouGutoup ox cau-

maqG ju agAaucG po uopjpA Ajajpjud fGtnue* pepoxe j^j* ju bjouujud onpqoox GAeupav axxeirdewoupa eponjq pe

300 pe gxjAGu* jp aponjg pe qxjAeu pX auoppex ^vcrrjpA njcwpGX

aponjg gxjAG ppe nujAGxajpX caxa* 14 a bxjAupe cox tonap

ox pnaaca ox pX a bnpjjc couagXuucg* oujX jacnjpX niciupGxo

SO* VTT jnpexcojjGdjape pGsura aponjg pxuagj ju nujAexajpX caxa

ou a xopapjud bjau*

ajcjjja cauib ox oppGX ebecjaj GAGupa iuaX pe dxaupGg

c) sxpxa ajjopiueupa tox a uapjouuj ponxuaweup* Moxpapob*

ppeaG pxjba iuaX pc oujX a bexpjej oue*

pX a aboxpa cjnp ppo w g u j ajjoMauce £ox eoibg ot

p) Mpeu b g a g x g j joud pxjba axe papGU ju oue dnaxpex

CoonojppGG*

a acaje Gapapjjapeg pX ppG pabaxpiDGupaj k g c x g u p j o u

®) VTJOm g u c g t°t mGaja aponjg pG uagG accoxgjud po

jjj6 tojJOMjud tacpoxa aponjg pe couajgexeg:

abbxoAeg pX ppe cooxgjuapox ot liecxeapjouuj ycpjAjpjee*

ju ppap pngdop* B^gdep ajjopstreup t°t aacp pxjb c/nap pG

jt abbxoAcg' g a g x X Gttoxp aponjg pe ntage po obGxepe Mjpp-

pngdep tox ppe u g x p Xeax ap ppe eug ot jpe eeaaou* aug

pngdGp* Eacp aboxpa cjnp apajj anpwjp au eapjmapeg

cojjGdjape pxjba aponjg pe apaoxpeg pX ppe pcbaxpiueupaj

J3 * ExbeuaGB tot pxeAGj1 j g g b ‘ i u g b j b ' aug jogdjud tox jupex~

cojjGdc ppeX axe Ajajpjud*

aug ju accoxgauce wjpp ppG xednjapjoua ot ppe 4 c) jpe UGC6 aajpX ppap ppejx cougncp pe cpoAG xGbxoacp

ppe pxjb*

ajcopojjc peAexadea juoaegjapejX pejoxe ox gnxjud

301 BpXjjje a* b g j j g X* CpeT,llueu Ifnrpp iaugX ponjae ortGU Lxuucca ojaou ingrPP HGXiiojg rjqa HaXo yuu b o x caxoj?iu b om gx b

Kecxeepjou connujppee

oug ppo cpajjougi; ot ppe mowgu , 8 d t a T8To u *

mjjj P© wage pX ppe cooxgjuapox op BGcxoapjonaj ycpjAjpjea

. S3* Aaxjepjoua ju bojjcjea cxGnpcq pX enj6xdGucX a jp nap joub

jjjg coumq-ppee mjxT gcp nbou encp rddnGBfa •

Becxesrpjou coiimqrppGG up ycaap pwo Meepe bxjox po ppe g a g u p *

aponjg pe enpiuyppeq po‘ aug xcAjGMGg pX' ppe Debaxpwcupaj

ST* yuX xednGapa jox excebpjoue po ppe apoAG epapcg bojjcjea

oAexjougcg nugcr auX cjxcrnwa pence*.

unep pe coACXeg pX jnanxeuce* bo Aepjcje eponjq pe

egAjaex ot ppe cjnp* jpe bGBeeudexe ju euX Aepjcje

ox pX a u nbbex c j g b b apngeup ebbxoAeg pX ppe

305 303

BIBriOCBVEHA 30*

MW* C* B*OrtU* T3Ae* H®tp* w* Gq* a^xp' Yu ppo GocyocnTcnrrax BtocGaB* onpndnG* iomst*

nuTAGtuppA' isis* BpAapcap EqGG&pfou auq BCCXGappou* &pG BGUuaAiAaupa ap^X® COupctGuc©* bguw apapc hbEK B®KTG® HQ* 5* CPIJQ^g ot BCQXPP* Hff«pa* DOXoppA a *% Gq* MowGupu gbotp: v M®Ppouax KGeGaxcjT

T3A2*______ypppGppc Conucpx op j,pG 0PT° BP®P® nupAotappX* HGApaGq inuG jg1 Hauqpoojc pp® fiupAGtappA r®apeiappou* BA-r®we auq ipjjgq ot ppo

W®aaacpna®ppa: ygqpaou-MGax®A* IQAS* C®xp®x* ETJGU M* suq oppcxa* jjjg yicGtpcau ftoiiJGi) ju abotp* ifGaqpud*

abxpu3a* yxjcauaaa* iwnvxA. a f<> qffunaxA xj» T3AB* Happouap CoxxG^G BpAepcap sqncgppou yaeocpappou pot weu* h°P G®qApx®a* reo r * 4 eq* BKOCGGgpuda op ppo A9 PV yuunax H®®PTua 05 ppe

0JJ6 yppXGpxc mapppnpo* X3A5*______BGUUGpp1 BixrcG^eg* h t ®£ojJ* °E BpAopc®! Eqncappou auq aboxpa* cpTC3a° :

Maappuapou* d * C*% 13Ae* ’ T3AA* Happouap yaaocpappou pot CT^T® auq mojjjgu pu aboxp* WHBEB* yaaocpappoiJ pot iup®xcoix®apgp6 yppxGpxca ^ ^ mojugu" Hfluqpoo'jc* X0AG-

M®appuapou* d* C** T3A2* T3AG* H®Ppouax yaaocpappou pot GT1-!® awq moujgu pu aboxp* yyKbEH* yaaocpappou pox iup®xcoxiGapape yppx®ppca pox moujgu iiauqpoojc* X3A2-

Maappuapou* d * C** I3A** J3A2’ Haprougy yaaocpappou pox GP^X® w q moivgu pu aboxp* WHBEB* yasocpappou pox lupetcoxXGdpapG yppioppca pot woujgu naugpoojc* I 9 . W -

pox g t ^T® MOWGU.a aboxpa* yyra>EK* X3A3* Obexappua BXoccqntGB* jaA3-A3* Maapxuapou* d* C* ’• DPApapou yqania* watppa auq DOtpe aopaqaX* eg* yiVM Hauqpoojc ou BOjpcpea auq

Booje®

BIBriOCBVbHA Aoxjc iTUfGa4 moagjjupgi: 73AG* SGCfTou 2* &* j o * ______jcbjiGfi© IfGcxnxpxud 0 5 mou/gu yppxcpGB 7a xucnGGsqfud KBbq-gjX*,, jpo mgm

Ksrbbw1 TAII* M» g (w*X* 73Ae)* 3A2-2AA* ______Cojg* Eopoxp* ((J,7P7© IX* V roufl D9 scg qo/jxugX 7«po pr^PP8*.! BPT Dcxpa

EgncGfrq-ou1 rxill (JiOAGiupGX1 XOA*)‘ 25-22* Bxanpaxp* HGr^otq-c* „e<*a8T obboxprru7pX tox CT^T8 Tu VPPTePTC8'n JPg^X,a

EffaX1,, taXcpojodX j&og'aX1 XXAI (waX1 T3A3)‘ SG* 30-33* TTO-TTT* Bsrxgrtjcjc1 ingxpp w* „MOBfGU,a rxpotspxou: hxcg igGG Bnp ip mou,p bg

yup70700 oug EGXXogxcoxa

tpXa^G G X Egncapyou* 8 f ronxe: jpG c * A* WoapX cowbauX* jgAO * MGpcx1 ^g xowg c * w g DaA^g h * raiup* gpopTBpyce aug BGBGaxcp 70

KcexGM-HTTT BOOK combauX* T96G*______A W d b j w * DGOpojg* nwge^apwgjua Egncapxouax BGacaxcp* m g m aoxjc:

yiL'Gtxca* cpTCff^o: 5nagxaudxG poopa* TDAT* 0 »H©TTT* H* r* eagxXoug waa bxgag' y HqapoxX pt EGI1/7U7EIU yu

CombauX1 7 3 A0 * -______EacpadG £OX ijjG 500797 acqGUcea* n©«. xoxp: Wce^8«-HTT7 Boojc H7G* MOtma’' DST© H* BGUp* aug c * H © gi© T H8 T T * BBSS gpapxapq-cax

Dnpndno * iomgj wm* c * B^owu c o iu b w X * HOpjjGuX* E7©wox* couuopsrpxousTot k°agwgm p 7U gboxp siig d w c g *

EXGG e x g b b 1 xaee* HGxpou1 b * K* 500797 jpeoxX aug gocjax gpxncpnxG* m g » xoxp: jpc

o t cPTC£ra° B *o a a * 7 8 3 3 * ______~ HGag* ccoxdG HGtpcxp* njug* gGxt w g gocTGpX'* cpTcado5 nuTAGXajpX

coxoxago! gpxcxga bnpxxepTua Co*1 7 8 A5 * KccxacjfGu' gopGxp D* ta il8©?68 °t Wo iu g u . b rTPGxapqou• Bonxgcx1

B^GupxcG-naxx* iuc-* X3G0* gGXBjxg4 yxfpnx j/ CPTXg boXcpoxodX* EudxGMOog CTTtTi8* M©** gGxacXs

jpe yxuo b^eao1 T3 A3 * g.WGwaX‘ EXTsapepp1 Gg* moujgu : jpoxx cpwdxud kojge • hgm xoxjc:

Egncapxou aug gGcxcapxou* 75A$* HffBpxuapou‘ d* C* * ywGXTcau yaaocxapxou ot hg^XPP1 BpXaxcax Ho g B u g x * pwpaxa a** 6g* woDJGU,a yppxcpxca* cotjud Mjpp coupxoaoxbA*

303 H3* III* Mo* 3 (aebpGUipGt* iqa*) * IT’J-ITA* pmiKIG* Haxaaxcp* uc p j j g Qo yppxepxca: £rfa~ot-Mox top ppG BnxaG epxjuaa1,,

H e w * X9 A3 * o u g ojjg MflpjouBX COITgAg bjjAbxcoj Egncapjou yB80cxopxou tor jjjg Hsrpxouur yeeocxtrpxou tox EjjAexcax Egucapxou ot COTTGflG MOtUGU HOAju^ jiOrtGxg iwbjeii/GupupTOU• ijxxGtTua I* MOBpxuapou* p* c** ponapcxpA* MGTT 0.* eTuw^ apngcx* aug BOWGjg 2 * E

BPAbtgoj EgncGpxou* uuq EGCXGapjou* xr* MO* (ybxxj* X9e9)* TO* po DCM2 Boj^cE yaoq-uBp yppjcpxc gcpoxaxapjba * „ aonxusrj ot Heojpp* poxwau* coiuTXJG1 BGppTi cgao pxoupou* aug bgPPTg r* kwo«xgg‘ «obboaxpxou

Tde3)* 3T-33 •______tpAaxoox EgucBpxou* aug BGcxoapxou* XXXIA* m o * A (aebpGitipGX* ContbGpXPxou xu C T * ! 8 oug Moweu,e gboxpa*,, qonruax °t KGGIPP* DXAxajou t°x eixxs owg k o u j g u , a gboxpa* ..gpapGWGUp ot b o i t c t g b t o x

(BGbpGiapGX* X93A) * 3A-3B* ______•ib/ixuax ot HGGX W * bP^eTCGX Egncaptou1 aug Kocxcap^ou ‘ XXAIII BXOCGgnx.G8 tox combGPXPT°o TO CT^I8 K o i b g u ,b gbotps*,, DXAxaxou t°x eixje aug m o w g u ,e gboxpa* ..gpapGHJGUp ot b o x T c T g q o u g

gcbpGiiipGX* X9A2) * • Egwcapxou1 aug MGXtoxc\ottTCG tox CTATI BT^PPO (Moapxudpouv p* c** DXacxrnrj-ucrpxow Tw yppjGpxc Bxoaxama* a* 3* pGbaxpniGup ot IJGOXPP* COXl'GdG aug nwTAGxaxpX BXGaggeupa - gnp^Gcp: ijXT^TOOPT011 °t 3Gx gcpoox 0££TCGta* snbbxxupeugGUpa ot rocax Egucapxouax ydGUCXGB aug pcbaxpUGUp ot HGGXPP* Eguoapxou* aug ficxtoxG* wewoxaugnur po cPTGt BPopo

gape: gnxA SI' 19A3)* oug MGXtoxG\ottTCG t o t CTATT BT^PP8* (Maepjudpou* p* c* * GttoopXAG PTB'cx'xnq'uapxbuj u Egncapq-ou* n* 3* pebaxpiucup o t HsajPP1 Egncapjou XUibXGiuGupgud pgncapifou ymsuqu/Gup^otT 9 A S Bxopq-pxpiua gex pGbaxpuroup o t HGBXPP* Egocapxou* aug ftGXtoxG* l t u o x iLTPT g Beauxapxou.'

TA I * MO* 3 (OCpopGX* X9A^)1 99-101* _ Cxaao* paxxoxx* «JaJG coupxunxud c x x b g b t u V P P T g PT c b *m B P T D ^ x p o x o b b a u *

pnxiepxu* XXXIA* Ho* s (PGCGiupox* I9A*)* TA-T*T______VPPXGPXca* reap cpoucg po Hwiuaujsc gboxpaA,, jjjg iugGbGugGup' Ecjioox Cxaxflx°w* 0.3UJGB h* MV J/40- H a u r o o j c ap fiomcu,b gboxpa* moiugu aug

Egncapjou aug bgcxgopxou* XTA* Mo* x {QounaxA* I9A3)1 ^2-^ie* Coxpxpp* Bxcpaxg M* * oug oppoxa* hbgiuoxg yppiGPTCB*M qoutucrj ot BpAsicax

VB^TI T9* 19Ae* ■ Coobex* pouo* mkouigu ypjJjopGe po Qcp e x a u p a * M j p o 0 P T ° SPopc roupcxu*

30e 3e-39* _ fJ>6 BPXTua°4u Houfou gboxpa* hi* no* q (ynanap* I3AG) * Hoaou* cougocc r*X®* uJP® coutnaq*ou °t (V° COjycdG B®cxnq-p: Mpo,a

HO* s (LopxnoxA* XOAe)1 *N-*J8* ______-— Hoaou* cougocG rAjo* MgpGggxua rxSpP ou iqTT® IX4« Moii/gu aboxpa* hi*

HO* I (aounot7i' X9A3) 4 3S-3e* ______,______COuaq'gGXopq-oua * „ gonxuoxot LpXaq-'cax Egncopqbu oug ifccxGopqou* xrAI4 Hoxxqu* DOXoppA A* ,(ifGBooxcp gpngq-ca ou ppG louigjg yppjcpc: BaAcpoaocqox

XTTTT-xrAf ______ao/ixuaj tpAaxcaj Egncopq-ou* m * no* e {Hoagiupgx* x b a s ) * LCU10JO Boxpqcqboupa oug nou-boxpqcqbuupa qu aboxp* „ Bxqpqep H®XT4 W* y* „V ,LGwququG moidou, oug ou ,yppjGpq-c moujou, oa ATcw®g P*

raee)* 3^-3A* ______Ot Iicojpp* bpAaqcsx Egncopqou* ouq k g c x g o p j o u * XXXAI (gGbpGiupGX* ,tGfTTqGjq-uGa tox lupGxcoxiGaqupG yppiGpq-c bxoaxoma tot Moh/g u *m gonxuoj

Egncnrpqou* oug KGCXGOpq'ou* xt* Ho* 8 (ocpopcx* X3A^J)4 S3-3e* ppo row: ei^TB ou boAb , igobjb*,, opnxuor ot HooiPP* bpAaTO®T GXo a g b * BTcpoxg oug iopu x* D®lA* mBP^bTc®T Eqncopqou* yppxopq-ca oug

tox hoinoli* gounoxA xg* 13 Ae*______:______Ot Equoucqux W MTfPTu CPG yaaocqopq-ou ot xupGXCoxxoaqopG yppxepqcTa Cxoup* cpxpapquG h* G* BPopoBJGup ot iieeojnpTou coucGXuqud ppo goagxuoucg

V ______‘ ape cpxouxcxe ot HT^POX Egncapqou* XXII4 Ho* 13 (W®A XA4 T9Ae) 4 tquxga* CPOJ^I W hBOTOB AT°T£,4:Toua ecow qu MOiB6 U,a gboxpa*,,

B* ______CpxouquiG ot lixdpox Egncopqou* XIII* Ho* 18 (gounoxA XA‘ TdAA)4 EToxgs* qjgxAx H* uK^ap mobjgu cobA w®u P© euqu Tw yfPT®FTcaAii

y ______JpG qjxouxcxg Ot Iixdpex Egncopqou* XXII4 Ho* X3 (W*»A 3

Moiugu gboxpa * m * ho* d (aebpGiupex* XDAG) 4 33-39* y DqT.GCopxA 3*18 acpooia ouq 33 xcA Onoapxoua po yap xpGtu*,, Dnxpee* cnpXGX* oug v «ug WTTIct’ „mobjgu aboxpa yuunox acpoxoxapxb co^gG4

J3A5 4it IUGdnoxTPA T" Egncopxou* XAIir (ocpopox* X3A « ) 4 13- 31* apngGupa: iwbxTcgPTOUB °t ITPI® IX ot ppo Egncopqou ytDGugtuoupa Dnujcje* HoxdoxGp c* owg Doxuqcc gouqxox* „2g x Djacxqwjuopxou ydoquap

ou i p g apopna oug Egncopxou ot mobjgu* aobpGiupcx* XdA2* Dnupxe* woxaoxep c* m JjTTTg IX b«PB M o w g u qu ppe pnuuqua*M b x o ^g c p

30A OE HTOpox Egncupqou* A ll* HO* ie (atrontrxA S3 * X3A3)1 T*______gfroqjG£% BGXUqCG* „1PG ttGBJ 0&GUGg LOJJqOna,8 BOX1,, JLPG CptOUfCJG

Egncupq-ou ouq ifGcxctrpqou1 XTIA1 MQ* A teobpGiupex1 xaA3)1 8T-B5* «'fcox^CTGQ ou moii/gu yppxopGe cpauaG1,, bLonx'ug'x ot k c g j p p 4 LJiXejctrj

Muapquapou1 d* C*‘ DTaTbTou tos> el* - ! 0 ffu liouxpp1 LpAaqcux Eqncopqou1 ffU(J KGCXGGpqou1 bpqXoaobpPk gug spgugaxqa eox eT*TB yuc3 Moiucu, a aboxph 4 yujoxqcsu

Ho* JOB* anuo g1 X3A2* HGujpp1 Eqncspqou* aug m g i e s x g 1 OE£TCG °t PPG Bgcx gp g x Ji1 xr1 Hou-qqacxqiuqugpqou ou Baaqa o e 2g x * EGgcxax i^aqa'pcx1 DGboxpuiGUp o e

XTIII1 Ho* g (EcpxngxA1 X3A5)1 T83-T3g* ______H 3M 3B 1 w* WTK°* hMoujgu, a rTPGtffPTou Gu<3 BGTiOug* „ coupGJukpxsxA Egncgpqou

25-ag*______bpAaqcax Eqncopqou uug BGCtGopqou* XTAIII1 Ho* j (ggungxA1 XQAA) 1 HoAg x 1 ron qcgu* „MCMGU,a yppjcpqca— Mpgp qa onx Eoprrxei,, qonxuoj oe

HO* q (wgA* xaAB)1 xe-T8* KTTTGX* gnqqrpp* aVIVW cpsnnbjoua moujgu.b Vppxcpqca1,, CP^u Sg ' All1

• BGCKGipqou1 XT A1 HO* e (^nuG1 xaAq)1 gB-ge*______HG wnap yep1,, aonxuaj o e HOffjPp* LpXeqcux Eqncspqou1 uug KCKuq-app* DoxoppX1 Bug qoau h o j p * „coiubGpqpqAG yppxopqca eox CT^T®—

BpAaqctrx Eqncupqou sug j&cxGgpqou1 XXXIII1 HO* g (ybxqx1 Taes)1 T8 HGAGGja cnxtGup Bxgcpqcoa mjq o&TuToualM qonxuox o e HGfljpp* HCcnGv BGppA e* „yppjGpqc BcpojGxepxbe eox moiugua- y DCH2 2 /ixagA

BpAaqcox Egnoupqou1 oug Kccxoapqou1 XTIII1 Ho* 3 (woxcp1 13AS)1 AT HGdunaaou* r^cTTT6* i»IPG Mpap oug wpA oe ViyM‘ „ qonxugj oe HggxpP1

BPT DGJP® KGfcbau1 rAI1 HO* 3 (ocpopcx1 X3A*)1 TS3-T3T' rG7k‘ KGppOXXUG* uMOBlGU qu gbOXpO: MpGXG DO MO CO E^Oltf HGXGv BO^eAu

T3A3)1 BA-B8*______HG»XPP‘ EpXaq-cax Eqncapqou1 sug BGcxeupqou1 XTIA1 Ho* e (Quug* Hnxp* 1 0 ou* uBGbgxgp6 Bnp E^naj yppx6PTCB mobjgu1,, lontuux

A3-80’______bpAaqccrx Egncupxou auq Bccxcapqou* xTA1 HO* 3 (wGXcp* X3A^f)1 Hfljp1 aosru* „EIxap vivh DGjcagpG ysaraupxA*,, qonxugx oe hggxpP1

(OCpopGX1 X3AS) 1 T3S-T3B* ______Hodgu‘ qopu c* M8l>oxpa qu ppo couxpavM EPT DOXfa KSbbgu' r A I1 HO* 3

308 aopsr* HOAGWpGX j 1 J9A2* IfGdjouEfj lupxmunxsj c o u p g x g u c g 1 jap xuGcpTua* HTUUGn^°TTn 4 WTUU®- eoxon1 JiyucA* H&TPJG IX - ipa iBJbucp*,, gbGGcp bxcaGupcq sp ppo coupxsj

T3A2* cnjpnxor tonuqapToua aocpqrou* ypjsuppc CTf*1 mom qgxbgA* Huxcp* BPAbtcsji EqncapTOu* «ruq bgcxgsptou1 jp c BPTToaobPTc£fT trug sp ppG yurnG j wcepfud. op ppe vbjgxtcuu yjjpsucG pox HOBJPP* BTapGX* y* c^yT ^' nBboxp «mg gGX bojg OtjGUpapq-ou1 „ tsbGX bXG&oupcg

fcXGBGUPGq JjDbGXB^

DTaaGXpupjou* J-P6 OPT° Bpapc nupAGxejpA4 J9A0* ygBjpuspxapTOU op lupGXCOjXGapapG yppjepTce*,, nubnpi^apeq BP* D* Hnppex* DffAjq w* ),V BpngA op yppppngcB yppccppua ppG bgjjgatox op ppG

ape o p t ° Bpype nuTAsxeppA* t s j w * VIVM ycp^AG HOBJpGX 8cpoojB*„ nuf>npj:rBpGg BP* D* DTaB6i:pypT0,j4 op MOBJGU, B iupGXcojjGdpypG yppjGppc bxoaxoma pu ppo T9A3-AS DxepqanuG* Bnpp EjyTue* nV Bn*Ao?k op ppe o^aupsirppou uuq yqiapupapzspq-ou

. b p * d * DT^o^ypToy* jip® opto apype nuTAexappA* yaAj* MOtVGU|8 iupGXCojjcaTffpe acppjua DfixTua JjJffp BoxTog*,, nubnpTT'epGq OPT° epypo nuTAGXBTPA T8A2-T9A24 yuq TPa iwbacp ou PPG HBPTOUSJ DyupcjB1 wuxA* „j|jJG htbPoi:TC3I IiXuubtptou op mobjgu, a aboxpa up jpc

DTaaexpupjouB

nubnpipapGq wypoxpGja

(MOAGinpGX* T 9 A ' } ) % T O O- TOS * ______A o x p n x a ‘ s o p f h* „J3JG new mobjgu,8 woAemeup*,, lupciTGcp* CIII' no* 33 eo

Myappuapou* d * C*! n* 3* COAGXubjgup BXpupTua 0£tTCG% T9A0) * mobjgu,a DnxGG/i* BBCpaxonug tacpa ou mobjgu moxkgxb pu ppo nuTpcq apopoa

ppe mobjgu,a E

Ijpje IX op ppe Equcappou yiDGuqBJGupa yep ■

EqncapTou kgatgw1 XXIX (quug* 303-3T0* yBJGpGnx yppiGppc LcqcxapTou op ynj6XTCtr% yujGXTCGu BpAejcuj BCpOGqjGX1 r* uBSbOXp op BPOdXCBB ‘ MOBJGU,a DpATBTOU1 MGPTOU0I

309 H u O

saqsl " .d^oq3 loorfoa nJt Birfplfl flfioo/H jXI oldiT" .L lodel ^nrsrlB^O aXAtu/mrafnl lono-lOoH orfct io oonoao^noD IcunnA orfO oco!l bodnaaottq .2VGX ,VS-fr£ rloxoM ^snfilaluol ,axifi9X:tO waH ,ifctd£ ,noiifilooaaA M (H lP tl M m P tQ tl s X p CO lti tl *4 H CO p ra 0* -M M a a > ti(0 n a 0 > 5* Cl -M a a IS a It (MC It ft a a q 0 8 a ft 0 tQ *M a o x n n Q) e *s a a a q C H O a a «0 E (FI • * SH S x 3 M M M < tl -tl totl ru M O < *■»M < Et o q a a 0 3 O E It 0 at a It at c o O at o H o Cl o at > a m O 0 •* ■ p HM■ti M -H • ■M -M •M P m a■H M •a i•ti q ti m « ti J£ < o lM tl q >*!/- ft H a Q • < q q & o O (H q 1 * • • H11oa o 111 •H iQ o a a o M •a O' ti ti n (O < ti Q W o c D a a •ti a a 9 » -M at c » 0 0 -H it » c at a 0 M a e a a a O pi o q Q D at it a « W •H •a - M •a H M A W |M a H H ■ti ti ti Ol < 5 5 m a a a q o to o a P# a q q Pi a ra t■H *H it o 0 it o o o D a X a E a * * w •M ti•H -a Q ti £ M ■ti s ti Et tl o ti tl CO O' to M > ro a 3 at h a >* e It Pi at O a a a a I q & * • > -M H a a q O' to H a a a a a q q iQ O O a a q a q o o a O' q *H 0 O O it a o o ■a -M * *3 -H >• a a M H n o ti U W ti < < < i•M ti >* 0 •H a a O S h o 0 q itit E a m pi a at E - * i*C ti ti M ti to qi M s o P m m >* It a a 3 *9 ■ti q S a q a • M P«Q -M CP •M t: EJ b *a •H lit tl H •H to^ iO ti a P ti T> < ti 8 a & a 0 ^ QIO CP - a a a a a a a o i•Q Pi 0 o ■a it q n O' a a q a q O ra ra O " *5 • a m I L' VI h R 3 3 a 0 • •M 2 ■a •M ti •a Hti •H to X p |M iQ ti ]|H0] tl K tl Q a It 3 3 a O' a a a it a a Pi a o E a •a o a o o ra m m • • 2 M •a •M •a V ti M t a ti < Q n E to tl < a It a It a a a a 0 a a *-t E a it a n n h o 0 It CP ra a q o ra C to E a M * ■

- ih > Cl m O a CO a a h n O a q q a ■ 3 o ro o (0 a o ft & o ft Moo o •M •H 2 •api ° t f M m xi *e ^ a ^ P •M c to ih I S:ra IM M m ■a to tiq t l a a tl ■oa tira *H E ora> to *MH > a q >t raq a a raa -o ra a s - a E O O tl a q n a -a a a -tia -a a a -ti q n o & o I t - ti a a a ti ra a It - O O M C a P q pi - it a ti o a a tia O o o O' - g a a a *a a q H * -H hn n •h V- QI m * c to o m a o a o a 0 E H >* ra t i 0 >* ft h * *M ■M D M •H O •H •H O •H O •M •H M q M •M H £ £ 1 • h > c ra t i t i m E >* a a E > M a a 0 •

■4 3 *M •H P (tiit q *H l t M H U t (H tlH p a ^ ■a M o: MrtJ ^ -H P to tsto Ej V* ! t S S M Ql O (M iM ti ti x i c o j t mi/ a mi/ C M Cl O a a o a a -a o t o ra ra ^ a x a t i o a ft O a a q q titi n pi „ q a a a q a o a pi E E X ra a a a o a _ _ &• & a it a t)>• A H M *H a •M P ■M I q c ID X m m s < •s X M M to ■H M ct *3 c o c CP X H M u o s q t > a a n it > q q a ra a o o O O S a c a a a H > a a t p ct > • a a ra E t-' it i a o * - M • aPq P a q

x QI i c M -M 1 5 m A QI V- qi _ tX ft q t I / - - -M ■jC -M to -M •M M V* 1 Cl *9 M X O' X O o o a < t i a a a a H o o a t i 0 ft a 2 q a a o a 9 > a > t f a q 0 ft c ra a o / • • • m •M 3 _o -H K 3 M Ql V* X V* O' M -M H X Ql Q X s O a e t f •M o o a t f a 5 ft a 0 it q g ra a o a * a • *•

dvei ,X£ ttododaO ,oirfO ,audmuXoO .wolvttodnl lonoa^a'I .ou3 tQniXXo3 DGCGUipGX 39* T3A2* KTjJXJxraiJ* bgxbougx coxxGBbouqGucc wxpp viyw EXcenppAG goaxg* tojxAX* yiuxaop* exuucxb e* Wckgujjg* auq K^fi-jus ifGUon^1 auq Egwaxg i*

bP^TXT8 Bff?TG^ PPG m x j p g x * w®xcp a* T9AA* jjj© OJ»T° 2ftrpG nuTA6,:QT^ * Bg x b o u u x coxxGebougGUCG pcpMGGU

V**TT 58* T3A2* Hafjouax coXTc2Tfffc VPPTGfTc yaaocxa^xow* bexaouax coxxGebougGUCG•

GOXX®d®e ,ttvg nuTAGi:BTFTGBV Decamp®* 30 * TdA2* coxxGebougGUCG pgpmggu vivm P© ppe CPTGt E«®cnpxAG 0££TCGi: yeaocxapxou tox xupGxcoxxo^xape yppTcpj-ce ip x . mowgu* Beteouax

reppoxe

MTTSOU* D®PPTG * BGxaouax jupoTJijG^* COT®?ijpna* 0PT°* Deccmpc* a* T3Ae*

MGUAGX* a* Egwotq* bgxbouux jupgxatgm* coimnpna* 0PT°* V&^TT 8* T9AA*

TdAe* BGTojoxqa* H&X.XJGP’ BGteouax xupexAjeM* C0T®EJP®8' OP^o* ocpopcr. XT*

louse * qgiuGa • b g x b o u u x TupexAxcw coXJ7U,Pna * 0PT°4 W^xcp 3X' ISA A*

K?upou* Baxpaxa* b c x b o u s x TUPGJ:ATGM* coinnupna* 0PT°* W®xcp TO' TdAA*

Hxuqwau* jjndp• bgxbougx Tu£gx~aTCA* c p j m s p m % OPT0 ' y&xjx TSAA*

H«XT' TTuq*' BGxaouax TUF^AT®^* coxnujpna1 0 P T ° ‘ MOAGUJpox XB' T3A8*

DffujGxa* waxX y boxbouux jupgxatcm* coxnmpna* opxo* w®xcp d' TBAA*

T9AA* DauxGX* rTu<3G ttepot* B6XBOUg x TupGXAfGM* coirm-pne * 0PT°‘ VbtTI TO*

3TT