Papers of John Adams, volume 1
Friday1 Night 10 OClock
Yesterday I wrote you a few Lines by Docr. Tuffts informing you the Sons of Liberty Desired your Company at Boston Next Wensday and Mentioned for What Occation.2 I would now Desire it as a favour if you Can spare the time to Come on Monday Next Because they want you to Write those Incriptions that I mentiond to you when Last at 172Boston, one in favour of Liberty Not forgiting the Tru Born Sons and Another with Encomiums on King George Expressive of our Loyalty—which if you Can Do by wensday we will Excuse your Coming Sooner.3 Pray Lett them
Destroy this after Reading it. Mr. Saml. Adams sends his Complements and Desire you would Come.
Ps we Expect the News of the Repeal of thet Act Commonly Called the stamp Act in three weeks from this by the News we have had by the Last Ships from London which I dobt not you have heard of.4 NB an Answer to Letter Sent by the sons of Liberty Last Saterdy will
I had Wrote this Letter before I Received yours6 and hope you Will
Friday was the 14th.
No letter from Crafts of this date has been found. Crafts, a painter, was a member of the Loyal Nine, which grew into the Sons of Liberty (Morgan, Stamp Act
, p. 121). By 1772 JA thought that Crafts was cooling toward the whig cause (
Diary and Autobiography
, 2:72).
The “Inscriptions” which Crafts wanted from JA were probably intended for use at the ceremonial burning of stamped paper, which took place in Boston, 20 Feb. 1766 (Boston Gazette, 24 Feb. 1766). It is not known whether JA complied with Crafts' request.
Probably a reference to a certain Capt. Disney, who arrived in Boston, 10 Feb., carrying among other things extracts from private letters written in London hinting that the Stamp Act would soon be repealed (
Massachusetts Gazette
, 13 Feb. 1766).
No letter from the Sons of Liberty to JA dated 8 Feb. has been found. Since Crafts says “sent” rather than “written” last Saturday, he may be referring to the letter of 5 Feb., above.
Not found.
Boston Gazette
MessieursPRINTERS,
Cockleboro', near
Barnardston,1 N. E.
12th May1766
Seeing a Piece in the New Hampshire Gazette of last Friday, mentioning the Composition that was made by Mr. Cockle2 and the G––––r some Time ago, it occur'd to me to enquire what was be-173come of the Money compounded for by them, for the Duties on those Cargoes of Molasses;3 I have heard that the G––––r received his third Part last September was twelve Months, that Mr. Cockle received his before he was dismissed; the other third Part which I understand belongs to the Province, I have never heard any Thing at all about. I am informed that it amounts to upwards of Eight Hundred Pounds Sterling, which may be worth the Attention of those who have a Right to Enquire into these Things; and if the Province Treasury is in no want of Money, why may not this £800 Sterling go in Part towards the Requisition that is to be made for the Sufferers,4 or be applied to the erecting a Monument to Mr. PITT, or to the cultivating that fine Island Mount Desart.5 But however it may be disposed of, the Money I am credibly informed is at present, and has been more than Eighteen Months in the Hands of some of the Gentlemen of the Court of Admiralty.
I am your constant Reader,
Boston Gazette, 19 May 1766). JA's recent use of the pseudonym “Clarendon” (13–27 Jan. 1766, above) and the consistency with which newspaper writers used such pseudonyms, already mentioned (Editorial Note, 3 March – 5 Sept. 1763, above, and work cited there), justifies attribution of authorship to JA, although no draft or fragment has been found for this letter.
That is, Bernardston, founded in 1762 and named after the Governor; Cockleboro' is fictitious (Historical Data Relating to Counties, Cities and Towns in Massachusetts, Boston, 1966).
On James Cockle, former royal customs collector in Salem and Marblehead, see JA, Diary and Autobiography
, 1:328–329 and note.
The New-Hampshire Gazette, 9 May 1766, printed official documents and unofficial commentary about the alleged collusion between Bernard and Cockle in profiting in illegal trade. In 1764 they were supposed to have allowed about 2,000 hogsheads of molasses from the foreign West Indies to land in Salem under false clearance papers and then to have brought suit against the merchants involved. In consequence of their action, the merchants were able to settle out of court instead of having their cargo seized by the royal surveyor of customs. Thus, the merchants had to pay only £2,400—one-third of which went to Cockle, Bernard, and the provincial government each—rather than more than twice that amount in customs duties to the king (Jordan D. Fiore, “The Temple-Bernard Affair: A Royal Custom House Scandal in Essex County,” Essex Inst., Hist. Colls.
, 90 [1954]:58–83).
As long ago as 25 Sept. 1765 in his speech to the House of Representatives, Bernard had called for compensation for those who had suffered at the hands of the Stamp Act rioters. Among the sufferers were Thomas Hutchinson and Andrew Oliver. See Mass., Speeches of the Governors, &c., 1765–1775, p. 42; Gipson, Empire before the Revolution
, 11:16.
That is, Mount Desert, off the Maine coast, which the General Court had granted to Bernard, 27 Feb. 1762 (Bernard to Lord Barrington, 20 Feb. 1762, postscript 27 Feb., Edward Channing and Archibald Gary Coolidge, eds., The Barrington-Bernard Correspondence . . . , Cambridge, 1912, p. 50–51).