crudities and excrescences, and to pursue steadily the general course towards which its history points, in order to reach the perfection of its ideal; that, therefore, we need no revolution of our system, which would in fact drive us from the line which leads to the attainment of our ideal; and that we are compelled to regard those who should favor and advise such a revolution as the enemies in principle of the American republic and of the political civilization of the world.

JOHN W. BURGESS.

THE ADOPTION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION OF 1776.

THE

HE long and fierce struggle of the so-called "Constitutional" and "Republican" parties in Pennsylvania over the state constitution framed in 1776 was greatly confused and complicated by the old party divisions between the eastern and the western counties, by the proprietary controversy of 1755-65, by the ethnic and religious divisions of the colony, and by the movement for national independence. It is therefore necessary to trace certain events prior to the apparent beginnings of the constitutional struggle, in order properly to understand it.

The Pennsylvania Assembly, elected in October, 1773, was controlled by the "eastern" party- a coalition of the Quaker, German and commercial interests-led by Joseph Galloway. The qualified franchise under which the assembly was elected may have somewhat lessened its representative quality, but the majority unquestionably acted as the moderate elements of the community wished, in deprecating all violent or illegal action. in the controversy with Great Britain. When, therefore, the letter of the Massachusetts committee of correspondence, announcing the passage of the Boston Port Bill, reached Philadelphia, May 19, 1774, the "popular" or "violent" party recognized that other means than the action of the assembly must be employed to give the colony even the semblance of "supporting Massachusetts." It was necessary, however, to make this support a moderate one; for any extreme action might fail of acceptance even from the mass-meeting that the "popular party planned to employ as the vehicle for promulgating the sentiments of Pennsylvania. A plan of action was arranged among the leaders of the "popular" party, Dickinson, Thomson, Reed and Mifflin.1

1 See Stillé, Life of Dickinson, 341; New York Historical Society Collections, 219; Diary of Christopher Marshall, 1.

It was judged proper to call a meeting of the principal inhabitants to communicate to them the contents of the Letter and gain their concurrence in the measures that were necessary to be taken. As the Quakers, who were principled against war, saw the storm gathering, and therefore wished to keep aloof from danger, were industriously employed to prevent anything being done which might involve Pennsylvania farther in the dispute, and as it was apparent that for this purpose their whole force would be collected at the ensuing meeting, it was necessary to advise means so to counteract their designs as to carry the measures proposed and yet prevent a disunion, and thus, if possible, bring Pennsylvania's whole force undivided to make common cause with Boston. . . . To accomplish this it was agreed that Thomson], who was represented as a rash man, should press for an immediate declaration in favor of Boston, and get some of his friends to support him in the measure; that Mr. D[ickinson] should oppose and press for moderate measures, and thus by an apparent dispute prevent a farther opposition and carry the point agreed on. . . . The meeting was held in the Long Room. The company was large, and the room exceedingly crowded. The Letter received from Boston was read, after which Reed addressed the Assembly with temper, moderation, but in pathetic terms. Mifflin spoke next, and with more warmth and fire. Thomson succeeded, and pressed for an immediate declaration in favor of Boston, and making common cause with her; ... Dickinson then addressed the company.... After he had finished T[homson] . . . simply moved a question, that an answer should be returned to the Letter from Boston; this was put and carried. He moved for a committee to write an answer; this was agreed to, and two lists were immediately made out and handed to the Chair. The clamor was then renewed on which list a vote should be taken. At length it was proposed that both lists should be considered as one, and compose the comtt. This was agreed to, and the company broke up in tolerable good humor, both thinking they had in part carried their point. . . .

Even after this wire-pulling and address, the committee appointed by the meeting to write to Boston was so moderate in feeling that it recommended payment for the tea destroyed, and thus proved only a damper on the patriots of Massachusetts. But the popular party was not content with this moderate action. The project for a general congress was 1 Stillé, Dickinson, 107 and 342.

already a matter of discussion, and the extreme Whigs saw in it their one hope, since they could expect no support from the assembly, of voicing their wishes in some more potent form than the vote of a meeting.1 Another mass-meeting was therefore called, and "though the Quakers had an aversion to town meetings, and always opposed them," 2 it was managed that they gave their consent and assisted in preparing the business, yet with so much doubt of the leaders of the movement as to insist that the speakers should submit their speeches in writing before the meeting. Nearly eight thousand people were said to have attended, and resolutions declaring the Boston Port Bill unconstitutional were unanimously adopted. An address to the governor was also voted,5 asking him to convene the assembly, "in order to prevent further divisions in the city, and to convince the pacific that it was not the intention of the warm spirits to involve the province in the dispute without the consent of the representatives of the people." The governor replied "that he could not call the assembly for the purposes mentioned, and that he was sure the gentlemen did not expect. . . that he would." "The answer was such as was expected . . . and was far from disagreeable to the advocates of America." 6

Promptly upon the governor's refusal to convoke the assembly, a call was issued to the county committees of correspondence throughout the colony, to name delegates to attend

1 "The reason of their . . . determination for a [continental congress] was their not having a sufficient confidence in the members who composed the House of Assembly, and more particularly in the speaker [Galloway], whose influence was great." Thomson.

2 Stillé, Dickinson, 343.

8 Charles Thomson's Narrative. Stillé's Dickinson, 344.

4 New York Historical Society Collections, 1878, 223; Reed's Joseph Reed, I, 69.

Diary of Christopher Marshall, May 8, 1774, p. 6.

Charles Thomson's Narrative. Stillé's Dickinson, 344.

7 The origin of these committees was as follows: "Under the Association which was formed in opposition to the Revenue Laws of 1767, and which lasted for upwards of two years, Committees were established not only in the Capitals of every Province, but also in most of the country towns and subordinate districts. In the commencement of the present opposition these Committees had been re

a "Provincial Conference" in Philadelphia, July 15. The governor at once realized his mistake in giving popular feeling only an extra-constitutional body to speak through, and, using an Indian outbreak as an excuse, he issued warrants summoning the assembly to meet July 18, hoping thus to forestall the conference. The popular leaders, however, "had no confidence in the members of the assembly, who were known to be under the influence of Galloway and his party," and they therefore carried out their plan. When the conference met, it adopted a series of resolutions framed by Dickinson,2 and "instructions" to their representatives in the assembly "requesting" them to appoint delegates to attend a congress of deputies from the several colonies; and to reënforce this "request," it was announced that if the assembly failed to accede, the conference would name delegates itself. The assembly was further "instructed" to demand

a renunciation on the part of Great Britain, of all powers under the statute of the 25 of Henry the Eighth, chapter the 2d- of all powers of internal legislation of imposing taxes or duties internal or external and of regulating trade, except with respect to any new articles of commerce, which the colonies may hereafter raise, as silk, wine, &c., reserving the right to carry these from any one colony to another—a repeal of all statutes for quartering troops in the colonies, or subjecting them to any expence on account of such troops of all statutes imposing duties to be paid in the colonies, that were passed at the accession of his present Majesty, or before this time; which ever shall be judged most advisable — of the statutes giving the courts of admiralty in the colonies greater power than courts of admiralty have in England of the statutes of the 5th of George the Second, chapter the 22d, and of the 23d of George the

vised, extended and reduced to system; so that when any intelligence of importance, which it was necessary the people at large should be informed of, reached the Capital, it was immediately dispatched to the County Committees and by them forwarded to the Committees of the districts, who disseminated it to the whole body of the people." Charles Thomson, in New York Historical Society Collections for 1878, 218.

1 Charles Thomson's Narrative. Stillé's Dickinson, 345.

2 Printed as An Essay on the Constitutional Power of Great Britain over the Colonies... (Philadelphia, 1774), as well as in the Journal of the House of Representatives of Pennsylvania, . . . (Philadelphia, 1782).