money for the public. Every day fastened him more permanently to the side of freedom. Then came the famous riot of the fifth of March, which stirred up the popular hostility to the British troops with such vehemence at the moment, and the attempt to keep up the indignation by the observation of the annual recurrence of the day. Among the thirteen orators who successively officiated on this occasion, John Hancock appears as the fourth. His oration remains as a production creditable to the principles and the patriotism of the speaker.

The year succeeding this event, Hancock was selected as a delegate to attend the meeting of the Congress at Philadelphia, in addition to the four chosen in the preceding year. The proclamation of General Gage excepting him from amnesty, and the rumor of the attempt to seize him and Samuel Adams at Lexington, contributed greatly to spread his reputation all over the country. His polished manners and agreeable address had their effect after he came to meet the delegates from the Southern States, so that when it soon happened that Peyton Randolph of Virginia, elected President of the Congress, was imperatively called home, he was at once summoned by a unanimous call to fill his place. This was the position, above all others, for which he was peculiarly fitted. It was also that which has given to his name a lustre that can never be dimmed. His fine, bold handwriting on the great paper creating an independent Nation on the broad North American Continent cannot fail to be transmitted forever to the eyes of the latest posterity.

Hancock was a man of society, genial, self-indulgent, and perhaps rather a free liver. In the position he now occupied there was naturally much confinement indoors, and more of fatigue than opportunity for wholesome exercise. The consequence was an access of the gout, which now began and continued with him at intervals to the close of his career. His health had declined so rapidly in two years that he decided to resign his place in Congress, and accordingly took his leave of that body in October, 1777. A resolution of thanks was formally voted to him, though not without

serious opposition from his own New England brethren, who were too stern to admit that the performance of duty could claim any higher reward than the satisfaction of conscience.

The next event of political importance in Massachusetts after the return of Mr. Hancock was the establishment of a form of government by the people themselves in the room of the obsolete royal charter, an obvious consequence of independence. A convention of delegates was called and Mr. Hancock appears to have been returned as one of them. But it does not appear from the record of the proceedings that he took any active part whatever. The probability is that he was still suffering from illness. But on the adoption of that instrument, when perfected and submitted to the decision of the people, at the first election held for the choice of the officers designated in it, he was chosen the first Governor in 1780, and re-elected in each succeeding year until 1785, when he again voluntarily withdrew.

The times were growing very dark. The Continental Congress had lost what little of authority had ever belonged to it, and the State Governments were in no situation to supply the want. James Bowdoin had been elected in Massachusetts, as Governor in the place of Hancock; a man of excellent character, and perfectly competent to the service to which he was called, a service of no ordinary trial. For the people were suffering severely from poverty consequent upon the struggles for independence, and the absence of confidence in any effective policy of restoration. Numbers of small debtors stood in terror of the exactions of the law in the hands of persons not disposed to soften its severity by any compromises. Presently these grievances made themselves visible by attempts to stop the process in the courts by force. Then came signs of a formidable insurrection, in the western section of the State. Governor Bowdoin lost not a moment in making the necessary preparations to meet this danger. By his energetic will, seconded by the solid support of the independent class of citizens in Boston, an adequate force was raised for the suppression of these disorders. Peace was restored without the shedding of much blood. Nothing

but praise can be awarded to him for the firm and yet moderate policy under which he restored the public confidence in the power of the government. Yet there has never been an instance in the history of the country in which a public man has been treated with more marked ingratitude. The disaffected party, smarting under the pain of their defeat, resorted to a method of vengeance as curious as it was effective. On the return of the annual election for the Chief Officers of the State, they put in nomination for Governor the popular favorite John Hancock, and he was elected by a large majority over the man whose labors had saved them from the danger of absolute anarchy.

Yet it may be regarded as a fortunate result for the State, and the United States, that John Hancock should have assumed the chair, which he never left again until he died in 1793. In the interval came up the gravest of all public questions that have agitated America; the formation of a government adequate to the purpose of keeping the different States of the Confederacy in one common bond of unity, and yet energetic enough to cope with any disturbing force from outside. The result of the labors of the Convention of 1787, is the government under which we now live and prosper. It is needless to enlarge upon the subject further than to point out the fact that one of the most serious obstacles to the ratification of the form of Government when submitted to the consideration of the separate States, was removed by the agency of John Hancock. In the convention of Massachusetts, he had been chosen to preside over its deliberations. There was much division of opinion on many points, and a large if not preponderating resistance. A negative from that State would probably have turned the scale in the convention of others equally divided, and thus have defeated the measure altogether. It was in one of these critical moments that John Hancock rose from his seat and submitted a proposition of a conciliatory nature. This had probably been carefully matured in a private council of leading men, but it came supported with the strong position of the President, without which it could scarcely have been carried. It is due

to Mr. Bowdoin to say that it met with his earnest co-operation. It was finally adopted by the Convention, and that adoption turned the scale in favor of the Constitution elsewhere. It makes a dignified conclusion to the career of an eminent man, whose name can never be forgotten.

John Hancock died with harness on his back, 8th October, 1793, and great honors were paid to his memory.

PATRICK HENRY.

BY WILLIAM WIRT HENRY.

(Centennial Collection.)

PATRICK HENRY was born at Studley, Hanover Co., Virginia, May 29th, 1736, and died at Red Hill, Charlotte Co., Virginia, June 6th, 1799. John Henry, his father, was a Scotchman, the son of Alexander Henry and Jean Robertson, nephew of the historian Wm. Robertson, and first cousin of the mother of Lord Brougham. Sarah Winston, his mother, was of Welsh blood, of good family, and of marked intellect and piety. His father, a scholar, gave him a classical education. Marrying at eighteen, he first tried farming, and then merchandise, but without success, and finally came to the bar in 1760. His fee books show a large practice from the first, but he discovered his great eloquence first in December, 1763, in the "Parson's Cause." Amidst cries of treason he then took the ground on which the Revolution was afterwards fought, holding that "A King, by disallowing acts of a salutary nature, from being the father of his people, degenerates into a tyrant, and forfeits all right to his subjects' obedience." On 29th May, 1765, nine days after taking his seat for the first time in the Virginia House of Burgesses, he moved his famous resolutions against the Stamp Act, and by his great eloquence carried them against the old leaders. America was inflamed, and the Revolution commenced.

From that time he led Virginia. He sat in the Congress of 1774 and of '75. He opposed, seemingly single-handed in the debate, the plan of reconciliation brought forward by Joseph Galloway, which would have prevented independence. On his motion, March 23d, 1775, in the Convention, Virginia was put into a state of defence. In May, 1775, he led the Hanover Volunteers against Lord Dunmore, Governor of Virginia, making the first forcible resistance to British Authority in that Colony. He left Congress to accept a commission as Colonel of the 1st Va. Regiment, in 1775. In May, 1776, he was the great advocate of independence in the Virginia Convention, and by his eloquence produced unanimity in the instructions to her delegates to move it in Congress. To him we are indebted for the article in the Virginia Bill of Rights securing Religious Liberty, and for the first Amendment to the Federal Constitution embodying the same principle. Elected Governor of Virginia in 1776, he was re-elected in 1777-78-84 and '85, declining in 1786, and again elected in 1796 and declining to serve. His great executive talents were invaluable during the Revolution. In 1778, at the suggestion of George Rogers Clark, he set on foot the expedition to the Northwest, drew up the instructions indicating the plan of operations, and induced Clark to take command. By one brilliant campaign, a vast empire was secured to the United States. He led the opposition to the Federal Constitution in Virginia, and procured amendments which satisfied him apparently, but his predictions were prophetic. Washington offered to make him Secretary of State in October, 1795, and Chief Justice in December, 1795; and Adams to send him as a Minister to France in April, 1799. Private reasons made him decline. He retired from public life in 1791, but was induced by General Washington to offer for the Legislature in 1799, to oppose the famous resolutions of 1798 and '99. He did not approve, however, the Alien and Sedition Laws. Death prevented him from taking his seat. He married twice, his second wife being a granddaughter of Governor Spotts