MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.

THE PLAN OF BOSTON, by Lieut. Page, was published in England, in 1777. It is the only plan of Boston, of much value, of the publications of 1775. It contains many names not on the last edition of Price's plan, which is entitled, "A New Plan of the Great Town of Bos. ton, in New England, in America; with the many Additional Buildings and New Streets, to the year 1769." Page's plan is curious, as it shows the streets and principal places in the last year Boston was under British authority, and the intrenchments erected by the British troops. This is the first American engraving of this plan. It is of the same size as the engraving of 1777, and as nearly as possible a fac-simile of it.

THE PLAN OF BUNKER HILL BATTLE is by the same person-the groundwork being from an actual survey by the celebrated British engineer, Capt. Montresor. It is the only plan of Charlestown of so early a date. It is on the same scale as that published by Felton and Parker, in 1848, and the plans will be found to agree as to Main-street, Bunker Hill-street and other streets. The engraving for this work is the first American engraving. It is of the same size as the British engraving, and as to the outlines-streets, houses, trees, fences, line of fire and lettering is an exact copy. It will be observed that the hills are not named correctlyBunker Hill should be Breed's Hill. This plan was first published in 1776 or 1777, and the plate of it, with a few alterations in the lettering, was used by Stedman, in 1794, without, however, any credit being given either to Montresor or Page. A plan was also made by Henry D'Berniere, a British officer. This was first engraved in this country, in 1818, for the Analectic Magazine. The ground plan is not so correct as Page's. I have seen an old MS. copy of this, slightly varying in the streets from the engraving. This plan forms the basis of Colonel Swett's plan of the battle.

THE PLAN OF BOSTON AND ITS ENVIRONS was prepared from several plans. Various maps of this vicinity were published during the Revolution. A curious one appeared in England, in 1775, entitled, "The Seat of War in New England, by an American Volunteer, with the Marches of several Corps sent by the Colonies towards Boston." It is on one sheet of imperial paper, and was published by R. Sayer and J. Bennett, Sept. 2, 1775. This map contains a plan of Boston and of Boston harbor; also, a picture of the battle of Bunker Hill. It represents the town on fire, and the British columns, with colors, marching to the attack. The map represents the New Hampshire troops coming by the way of Andover, Wilmington and Woburn; the Connecticut troops, by way of Providence; and Washington and "the New York Grenadiers" (!) by the way of Worcester. It is more curious than valuable. The Philadelphia Ledger (Aug. 19, 1775) contains an advertisement of a map taken "by the most skilful draughtsman in all America." This was Roman's Map of the Seat of Civil War in America. It is inscribed to John Hancock. It has a rude view of the lines on Boston Neck, and a "Plan of Boston and its Environs." A curious map of Boston and its environs was published, in 1776, at Paris, by "Ch. de Beaurain, Geographer to his Majesty." It purports to be copied from a British plan, probably from a plan drawn by an engineer in Boston, in October, 1775, and (March, 1776) published "by a nobleman." This plan also is curious, but not correct. Other smaller plans also appeared, in various publications. Lieut. Page prepared a map of "Boston, its Environs and Harbor, with the Rebels' Works," &c., from his own observations and the plans of Capt. Montresor. This was published in England, by William Faden, in 1777. It is valuable as to the harbor, but incorrect as to the country. Henry Pelham published, in 1777, a large map of Boston and its environs, dedicated to Lord George Germaine, which is by far the most accurate of the maps of the environs. The plan in Dr. Gordon's History was evidently compiled from Page's for the harbor, and from Pelham's for the country. This was copied by Marshall.

THE VIEW OF CHARLESTOWN is copied from an original MS. of 1775, and communicated by Henry Stevens, Esq.

THE VIEW OF THE LINES ON BOSTON NECK is taken from one of the British prints of 1777. THE PLAN OF THE FORT ON BUNKER HILL is taken from Lieut. Carter's letters, written mostly from Charlestown Heights, during the siege, and published in England, in 1781.

THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PINE-TREE FLAG is from the French map of Boston and environs.

THE STAMPS on the covers are representations of the devices on the gold medal (see p. 319) struck, by order of Congress, in honor of Washington.

THE SIEGE OF BOSTON.

CHAPTER I.

Colonial Politics. Taxation of America. The Boston Port Bill. Acts altering the Massachusetts Charter. Resisted by the People. Hostile Preparations. Boston in 1774.

THE New England colonists always claimed the liberties of Englishmen. They brought with them the principles that the people are the fountain of political power, and that there can be no just taxation without representation; and contended for the right of applying these principles according to their wants. They brought with them, also, that republican spirit which animated the English Puritans, and their early ideal was the establishment of civil commonwealths on the basis of Christian principles. To their vision, this form was a divine institution, the government of angels in heaven, and which ought to be that of men upon earth. It was instituted by God himself in the Holy Scriptures, whereby any nation might enjoy all the ends of government in the best manner.' Hence the New England communities became republican in form, while they had for their "quickening spirit, equal rights, freedom of thought and action, and personal independence." "

It was this spirit, and the bold application of these principles, that made the colonists, so far as their internal policy was concerned, virtually independent; while, so far as their external politics were concerned, their allegiance to the crown did not include an admission of the supremacy of Parliament. In fact, they regarded themselves as capable of organizing Eliot's Christian Commonwealth, Preface, 1650. 2 John Q. Adams, in Mass. Hist. Coll., vol. 29, p. 210.

local governments, contracting alliances with each other, coining money, making war, and concluding peace. The institutions that grew up, shaped in a great measure as experience dictated, were admirably adapted to strengthen and develop a love of liberty united to a respect for law. The almost coutinual struggles with the aborigines and the French served as an invaluable school in which to learn the discipline, and to become inured to the dangers, of a military life; while schools, and colleges, and churches, maintained with wonderful perseverance, nurtured an equally invaluable intelligence and public virtue. Persons and property were secure, and labor was less burdened with restriction, and more free to reap a fair reward, than it was in any country in the world. In a word, there grew up a system of local administration well suited to the condition of a rising people, united to a general organization, capable, in any emergency, of affording it protection. The colonists, in the enjoyment of so large a measure of individual freedom, developed in a remarkable degree the resources of the country, and increased surprisingly its commercial and political importance.

This progress, which ought to have been regarded in Great Britain with pride and pleasure, was beheld with jealousy and apprehension; with jealousy, lest the industrial enterprise of the colonists should compete too successfully with that of the mother country; and with apprehension, lest their rising importance should invite them to assert political independence. These feelings were strengthened by the representations made of their condition by agents of the ministry and by royal governors. Quarry's memorial in 1703 affords a striking illustration of these reports. "Commonwealth notions," he wrote, "improve daily; and if it be not checked, in time the rights and privileges of British subjects will be thought by them to be too narrow." Various measures were recommended to check these ideas. Sagacious royalists saw the republican tendencies of the prevailing system of local government,— the Congregationalism in the churches, the town organizations, the local assemblies, whose influence reached the roots and fibres of the social system; and it is worthy of remark, that their recommendations reached the foundation of this tendency.

JEALOUSY OF GREAT BRITAIN.

3

Randolph in 1685, Quarry in 1703, Hutchinson in 1773,1 advised an interference with the towns, and the adoption of the policy of centralization. Other recommendations were made, and commercial regulations were established, which bore with monstrous injustice on their rising manufactures and trade. The colonists, however, had enjoyed their social and political advantages too long to relinquish them without a struggle. They determined to retain their admirable system of local government, and to keep free from foreign taxation. They claimed the right to go on in the path of freedom and progress they with so much toil and treasure had laid open. Why should a country, clothed by the God of nature with all his highest forms of magnificence and grandeur, be governed by an island of the Old World? Why should it be impeded in its career by manacles thrown about its giant limbs by the selfishness of its parent?? The tyrannical revenue laws were never fully submitted to; and if they were not openly opposed, it was because they were not rigidly enforced.

The British ministry, dissatisfied with so easy an allegiance, resolved, after the conclusion of the treaty of Aix La Chapelle, (1748,) to adopt a more stringent policy with respect to the colonies, by enforcing the revenue laws, and asserting the principle of British supremacy. They introduced into Parliament a bill which proposed to sweep away the colonial charters without the form of legal judgment, and which authorized the king's instructions to be enforced as law. This bill excited great alarm, and was successfully resisted by the agents of the colonies. War again broke out with France, and William Pitt, who was opposed to this policy, became prime minister. This great statesman resigned in 1761, and the Grenville ministry subsequently renewed it. In consequence of this, politics became the chief concern of almost every local community.

1 Hutchinson, March 10, 1773, wrote, "Is there any way of compelling Boston to be a corporation, by depriving them of their present privileges, and not suffering any acts of the town? The charter of New York city might be a good pattern. Can no restraint be laid on the other towns, from acting in any other affairs than such as immediately concern them respectively?" Smyth's Lectures, vol. II., p. 357. 3 Minot's Massachusetts, vol. 1., p. 147.

2