410.]

[Footnote 340: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VII., pp.
72-75.]

[Footnote 341: Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. v., p. 398.]

[Footnote 342: _Ib._, pp. 395, 396.

"It is, perhaps, impossible for human wisdom to contrive any system more
subservient to these purposes than such a reciprocal exchange of
intelligence by Committees of Correspondence. From want of such a
communication with each other, and consequently of union among
themselves, many States have lost their liberties, and more have been
unsuccessful in their attempts to regain them after they were lost.

"What the eloquence and talents of Demosthenes could not effect among
the States of Greece, might have been effected by the simple device of
Committees of Correspondence. The few have been enabled to keep the many
in subjection in every age from the want of union among the latter.
Several of the provinces of Spain complained of oppression under Charles
the Fifth, and in transports of rage took arms against him; but they
never consulted or communicated with each other. They resisted
separately, and were, therefore, separately subdued."--_Ib._, p. 396.]

[Footnote 343: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VII., Chap.
viii., p. 97.

The authority of this new Act was never acknowledged in Massachusetts.
Of the 36 Legislative Councillors nominated by the Crown, one-third of
them declined to accept the appointment, and nearly all who did accept
were soon compelled, by the remonstrances and threats of their
neighbours, to resign. So alarmed was Governor Gage, that after he had
summoned the new Legislature to meet him at Salem, he countermanded his
summons by proclamation; but which was considered unlawful, and the
Assembly met, organized itself, and passed resolutions on grievances,
and adopted other proceedings to further the opposition to the new Act
and other Acts complained of.

Even the Courts could not be held. At Boston the judges took their
seats, and the usual proclamations were made; when the men who had been
returned as jurors, one and all, refused to take the oath. Being asked
why they refused, Thomas Chase, one of the petit jury, gave as his
reason, "that the Chief Justice of the Court stood impeached by the late
representatives of the province." In a paper offered by the jury, the
judges found their authority disputed for further reasons, that the
Charter of the province had been changed with no warrant but an Act