Nov. 29, 1770

Gillespy1 swore to this Effect—that he was at Sylvesters Tavern at the South End & that in going there he met diverse Clusters of the Inhabitants armd &c. This is designd to prejudice the Character of the Inhabitants as being the Aggressors. Note—Mr. Robert Pierpont & Edward Crafts2 had both been knockd down by the Soldiers at the South End that Evening.

One of the Witnesses for the Crown swore that one of the the Soldiers Gun at the Left flushd in the pan. It was also sworn that one of the Soldiers followd a Boy with his gun. Is it not likely that this was the same Soldier whose pan flushd, he being the Left of the Circle.3

One of the prisoners Witnesses swore (I think it was Hewes) that five of six young Lads attempted to get the Legs of the Butchers Stalls.4 Would not any person at such a time who was without a Weapon of Defence have done the same.

The Lusty Gentleman with a red Cloak mentioned by the Scotch Evi Witnesses, might as probably have advisd the people to have calld the Main Guard to quell the Soldiers at Murray's Barracks & more so if he was a Gentleman, than that he have advisd them to attack the Main Guard. Here is an artful Insinuation that at least one person of figure was a principal Aggressor.5

If the Evidence is to be confind to the Action in King's Street did not the Centinel begin the Quarrell by attacking Piemont the Barbors Boy, who did not Speak to the Centinel, till he attack'd him.

Mr. Quincy made a flourish about the Narrative, that the Evidences were taken without giving them an Opportunity of cross examining—Note Coll Dalrymple was notified.

481

Coll. Marshall swears that he did not go out as a fireward, at the Cry of fire because he had been told that the Soldiers intended to do Mischeefe.

If Eight Men agree to do an unlawful Act, & one of them kill, are not all of them principals.

Have not the Inhabitants as good right to walk the Streets armd, as the Soldiers have especially after Eight o'Clock.

Mr. Knight swore that he heard an Inhabitant say, Damn them, let us go & send the Main Guard to Hell first. This was after it was known that the Soldiers, had abusd many persons, & there was an apprehension among the People that they designd a general massacre. Yr. hum. Servt.,

S . A—6

If the Prisoners Council bring on new Matter, I mean Evidence to prove that the Inhabitants were the aggressors & consequently that the Soldiers were not, Should not the Council for the Crown have the Liberty to produce Evidence to invalidate theirs, by making it appear that the Conduct of the Inhabitants was the Effect of a just apprehension founded upon the prior Conduct of the Soldiers.

RC ; addressed: "To Robert Treat Paine Esqr. Present"; endorsed: "Saml. Adams X 1767 1770."

1.

The testimony of John Gillespie, merchant, in the case of Rex v. Wemms is printed in Adams, Legal Papers, 3:178–179.

2.

Neither Pierpont nor Crafts appears among the witnesses or in the trial testimony.

3.

This piece of evidence is otherwise unreported.

4.

The testimony of Shubael Hewes (1732–1813), tallow chandler, is printed in Adams, Legal Papers, 3:176–177. Hewes was later "Butcher Master-General" to the British Army during the Siege (Thwing Index).

5.

The testimony of James Selkrig, merchant, and Archibald Bowman, auctioneer, is printed in Adams, Legal Papers, 3:177–178. Both Selkrig and Bowman became loyalist refugees in 1776 (Thwing Index).

6.

Samuel Adams (1722–1803), easily the leading figure in the popular party which opposed the small group of wealthy, conservative families virtually ruling the province up to the outbreak of the Revolution. Although Adams was to hold various public offices in Massachusetts after the Revolution, including that of governor (1794–1797), his "effective career," in Carl Becker's words, "began only with the opening of the quarrel with Great Britain," and "so it may be said to have ended with the final breach." See Becker's account in the DAB and the critical essay by Clifford K. Shipton in Sibley's Harvard Graduates, 10:420–465. Hiller Zobel in The Boston Massacre has suggested that Adams was the mysterious "Lusty Gentleman with a red Cloak," who instigated the events now known as the Boston Massacre.