on the news of the Port Bill, and acquiesced in
the non-importation agreement: "but upon y^e measure not being adopted
by the Southern Colonies, I embraced the first opportunity and
re-ordered about one-fourth part of such goods as I thought would be in
most demand, and behold! in about three or four weeks after that, I
heard of y^e amazing progress the non-consumption agreement had made
through y^e country; which, in my opinion, has serv'd rather to create
dissensions among ourselves than to answer any valuable purpose."

Many of the Tories held the same opinion. Could not the waverers, they
asked Gage, be induced to change their political faith, and especially
could not the leaders be tempted?

Among these leaders the influence of Otis was waning. He had always been
eccentric and unreliable, and now his intellect was threatened. An
assault upon him had nearly ruined both his health and his reason. But
his place had been taken by others. Samuel Adams, John Adams, Joseph
Warren, and John Hancock were the men whose names were oftenest
mentioned. Sinister rumors were frequent that Gage had been directed to
seize them and deport them to England. Whether or not more evidence
against them was needed, no arrest was as yet attempted. Instead, in at
least three quarters there was some hope of corruption.

Warren the general left untempted; it is no small tribute to the
patriot's character that there could be no doubt of his integrity.
Warren was not yet thirty-five years old, was of good social position,
had an excellent practice and an assured future. His temperament was
frank and manly, and so enthusiastic as to be fiery. Once already, on
the anniversary of the Massacre in 1772, he had addressed the town
meeting in condemnation of the government measures; on many other
opportunities, before and since, he had either spoken in public or
expressed his opinions through the press. While no advocate of violence,
he was unreservedly a Whig, and nothing could be made of him. So far as
is known, no attempt was made to corrupt him.

The case of John Adams was different, at least to Tory eyes. He was
ambitious: no one who knew him could doubt that he was conscious of his
own ability. Further, he was poor, with a growing family to support; he
was known, with the troubled times which he clearly foresaw, to be
anxious for his children's future. Surely there was a possibility that
Adams might be wise, and be tempted to the safer course;