able length, adjourned to three o'clock in the afternoon." At the appointed time, they "resumed consideration of the Instructions, and, having made some progress therein, adjourned to nine o'clock tomorrow morning." 55

Maryland charged her Delegates, January 11th, that, "should any proposition be happily made by the Crown or Parliament, that may lead to or lay a rational and probable ground for reconciliation, you use your utmost endeavours to cultivate and improve it into a happy settlement and lasting amity . . . We further instruct you, that you do not, without the previous knowledge and approbation of the Convention . . . assent to any proposition to declare the Colonies independent . unless, in your judgments . . . it shall be thought absolutely necessary for the preservation of the liberties of the United Colonies; and should a majority of the Colonies in Congress, against such your judgment, resolve to declare these Colonies independent . . . then we instruct you immediately to call the Convention . . . and repair thereto with such proposition and resolve, and lay the same before the said Convention for their consideration; and this Convention will not hold this Province bound by such majority in Congress, until the Representative body of the Province, in Convention, assent thereto."

Nor was this enough. On the 18th, the Convention entered a declaration on their journal 56 wherein they avowed that they "never did, nor do entertain any views or desires of independency."

Indeed, as late as May 15th-the very day, as we

have seen and shall more particularly see, when Virginia instructed her Delegates to propose to Congress to declare independence, the Convention" (of Maryland) took into consideration a resolution (adopted on the 21st) which declared that "this Convention is firmly persuaded that a reunion with Great Britain on constitutional principles would most effectively secure the rights and liberties, and increase the strength and promote the happiness of the whole empire. . ... the said Deputies are bound and directed to govern themselves by the instructions given to them by this convention in its session in December last, in the same manner as if the said instructions were particularly repeated."

Of the same mind doubtless was the Council of Safety 58; for they say, in a letter to the Delegates, on June 8th when they must have known of the resolution of Virginia: "[Md] The intelligence with regard to 7000 men rising and declaring for independence is without foundation; we take it to be news from some incendiary

A few of the leading men, however, of Maryland held different views or were wavering. On January 30th, Alexander writes, from Philadelphia to the Council of Safety: "[Md] the Instructions 59 of the Convention are come to Hand, but not as yet laid before Congress. I am much pleased with them, they entirely coincide with my Judgment & that Line of Conduct which I have determined to persue, the Farmer and some others to whom in Confidence they were shewn, say they breath that Spirit, which ought to govern all publick Bodies, Firmness tempered with Moderation." On February 27th,

however, he writes from the same place to the same body: "[Md] . . . with me every Idea of Reconciliation is precluded by the conduct of G. Britain, & the only alternative, absolute slavery or Independency, the latter I have often reprobated both in public & private, but am now almost convinced the Measure is right & can be justified by necessity."61 Indeed, Chase writes, to John Adams from Saint Johns, April 20th: "[Qy] In my Judgment You have no alternative between Independancy and Slavery, and what American can hesitate in the Choice! but don't harangue about it, act as if We were." Stone writes, from Philadelphia to Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, four days later: "[Md] M' Johnson wrote to you yesterday . . . If the Commissioners 62 do not arrive shortly and conduct themselves with great candor and uprightness to effect a reconciliation, a separation will most undoubtedly take place. I wish to conduct affairs so that a just & honorable reconciliation should take place, or that we should be pretty unanimous in a resolution to fight it out for Independance, the proper way to effect this is not to move too quick, but then we must take care to do every thing which is necessary for our Security and Defence, not suffer ourselves to be lulled or wheedled by any deceptions declarations or givings out. You know my hearty wishes for Peace upon terms of Security and Justice to America. But war, any thing is preferable to a surrender of our rights I shall set out on Saturday or Sunday next to meet my wife."

It also is interesting to note that The Maryland Journal, and the Baltimore Advertiser 63 contained, in its issue of

May 22d (Ba), the following: "Serious QUESTIONS addressed to the advocates for DEPENDANCE upon the crown of Britain . . . Are not the advocates for INDEPENDANCE the only true friends to the principles of the British constitution? . . . Is not RECONCILIATION an untrodden path; for where can we find an instance of a people's returning to their allegiance to a tyrant, after he had violated every political and moral obligation to them? . . . Is not Independance a trodden path? Did not the United Provinces, and the Cantons of Switzerland, establish their liberty by declaring themselves INDEPENDANT, the one of the Court of Spain, the other of the House of Austria? ” 64

"[QyC] In January 65 1776," writes John Adams to John Taylor, April 9, 1814, "six months before the declaration of independence, M Wythe of Virginia passed an evening with me at my chambers. In the course of conversation upon the necessity of Independence M: Withe, observ[ed] . . . that the greatest obstacle in the way of a declaration of it, was the difficulty of agreeing upon a government for our future regulation. General Charles Lee writes, to Washington, from Stamford, on the 24th of the same month (January, 1776): "Have you seen the pamphlets Common Sense? I never saw such a masterly, irresistible performance. It will, if I mistake not, in concurrence with the transcendent folly and wickedness of the Ministry, give the coup-de-grace to Great Britain. In short, I own myself convinced, by the arguments, of the necessity of separation."

On the 4th of February, Adam Stephen writes to R. H. Lee from Berkeley: "[M] Indeed my affection is not only cooled, but I begin to be inveterate, and it is impossible that I can ever again have any attachment to the Mother Country." On the 16th, General Charles Lee writes from New York to Rush: "[BT] Your Common Sense is an admirable performance, but such is the timidity and nonsense of the greater part of the Community that I question much the effects were it not so happily seconded by the violence and insanity of the Ministry which must cram down your throats independence in spite of the squeamishness of your stomachs. It strikes me that reconciliation and return to your former state of dependence is as much a Chimera as an incorporation with the Mongolian Tartars On the 20th, a member of the Convention (of Virginia) says: "Some people among us seem alarmed at the name of Independence, while they support measures, and propose plans, that comprehend all the spirit of it . . . Whenever I have been an advocate for dependence, I have felt a conscious want of publick

A letter from Williamsburg dated March 5th tells us: "The Tories and tools of Administration are constantly crying out that Congress is aiming at independence.

On the 1st of April, Washington - still at Cambridge writes, to Joseph Reed: "[Y] My countrymen I know, from their form of government, and steady attachment heretofore to royalty will come reluctantly into the idea. of independence, but time and persecution bring many wonderful things to pass; and by private letters, which I