tadel in Boston; the stationing
of a fleet in its harbor; the experiment of martial law; the
transportation of "incendiaries" to England, and the prohibition of the
New England fisheries, at the same time entreating of his correspondents
in England to keep his opinions secret.

For these errors of judgment he paid dearly in the obloquy heaped upon
him by his countrymen, and his exile from his native land, in which he
earnestly desired that his bones might be laid. The recent publication
of his diary and letters shows that he not only acted honestly and
conscientiously in opposing the popular current, but that he, at the
same time, used his influence to mitigate the severe measures of
government. He counselled them against the stamp act; against closing
the port of Boston, and against some features of the regulating act, as
too harsh and impolitic. It was his sincere wish that his countrymen
would admit the supremacy of parliament, and he believed that such a
result could be attained without bloodshed. He was courteously received
in England,--where his course was very generally approved,--and offered
a baronetcy, which, however, he declined on the score of the
insufficiency of his estate. His judgment in American affairs, though
often sought by the ministry, seems to have been seldom followed. Candor
requires that in the light of his letters and diary, in which his real
sentiments appear, the harsh judgment usually passed upon Hutchinson,
should be materially modified.

His opponent, Samuel Adams, the great agitator, possessed precisely
those qualities that the times required. His political creed was, that
the colonies and England had a common king, but separate and independent
legislatures, and as early as the year 1769, he had been a zealous
advocate of independence. He was the organizer of the Revolution,
through the committees of correspondence, which he initiated, and was
one of those who matured the plan of a general congress. A genuine lover
of liberty, he believed in the capacity of the Americans for
self-government. It was Samuel Adams who, the day after the "massacre"
of March 5, 1770, was chosen chairman of the committee, to demand of the
governor the immediate removal of the troops from the town of Boston.
The stern and inflexible patriot clearly exposed the fallacy of
Hutchinson's reply to the demand, and compelled the governor to yield.
No flattery could lull his vigilance, no sophistry deceive his
penetr