gress, on November 3, 1775, recommended “to the provincial Convention of New Hampshire, to call a full and free representation of the people, and that the representatives, if they think necessary, establish such a form of government, as, in their judgment, will best produce the happiness of the people, and most effectually secure peace and good order in the province, during the continuance of the present dispute between G[reat] Britain and the colonies."

The provincial congress of New Hampshire, elected with power to resolve itself into a house of representatives, took such a step and adopted a temporary constitution on January 5, 1776. This action was not taken without opposition. The instructions to the representatives of Portsmouth had declared in favor of a continuance of government by the congress. Petitions from a number of towns were presented against the taking-up of government, and several members of the house also protested against this action." Portsmouth protested on January 10, 1776, that "we would have wished to have had the minds of the People fully Taken on such a Momentous Concernment, and to have Known the Plan, before it was Adopted, & carried into Execution, which is Their Inherent right;" and the instructions given to their representatives in the succeeding July provided specifically "that they nor any other Representative in future shall consent to any alteration, Innovation or abridgement of the Constitutional Form that may be adopted without first consulting their constituents in a matter of so much importance to their Safety.'

The objections of the eastern towns of New Hampshire

5 N. H. State Papers, viii, 2.

6 N. H. Provincial Papers, vii, 701. 7N. H. State Papers, viii, 14-17, 33.

8 Ibid., viii, 301.

were based principally upon opposition to such a pronounced step toward independence, or upon doubts as to the expediency of such a step; but the towns of the county of Grafton, in the New Hampshire Grants, objected both to the method of adoption and to the substance of the constitution. Several towns refused to elect representatives because "No Bill of Rights had been drawn up, or form of Government Come into, agreeable to the minds of the people of this state, by an Assembly peculiarly chosen for that purpose, since the Colonies were declared independent of the Crown of Great Britain." Indeed the agitation in the western towns became so serious that it was necessary for the assembly to send a committee to conciliate that section, and to assure its inhabitants that the form of government adopted in 1776 was purely temporary.10

The proceedings of this committee with the meetings of the towns of the New Hampshire Grants are of interest as bearing upon the earlier steps leading to the adoption of a permanent form of government in New Hampshire. At a meeting of the town of Walpole in February, 1777, it was resolved that "a new and lasting Plan of government is necessary to be formed. And if the necessary business of the State forbid the dissolution of the present Assembly, and calling a new one for the purpose aforesaid, that the present Assembly issue Precepts to the several incorporated Towns within the State for such a Number of Delegates to be proportioned to the several Counties within the state as they, the Assembly, shall think proper for the express purpose of the Organization of Government; that a plan thereof be sent to each Town for their [its] approbation; Which, being approved of by a Majority, shall be the Constitutional

9 N. H. State Papers, viii, 421-425.

10 Ibid., viii, 422, 450.

"9 11

Plan of Government for this State. The convention of the united committees of the towns of the New Hampshire Grants, which met at Hanover in June of the same year, insisted that "the further establishing a permanent Plan of Government in the State be submitted to an Assembly that shall be convened . . . for that purpose only." 12

The subsequent constitutional procedure of New Hampshire followed the lines laid down in the petitions of the western towns. The House of Representatives voted on December 27, 1777, "that it be recommended to Towns Parishes & places in this State, if they see fit, to instruct their Representatives at the next session, to appoint & call a full & free Representation of all the people of this State to meet in Convention at such time & place as shall be appointed by the General Assembly, for the sole purpose of framing & laying a permanent plan or system for the future Government of this State." 18 The Council took no action upon this matter, but many of the members of the next assembly were instructed to call a convention, and the two houses voted in February, 1778, "That the Honble the President of the Council issue to every Town, Parish & District within this State a Precept recommending to them to elect and choose one or more persons as they shall judge expedient to convene at Concord in said State, on the tenth day of June next. . . . And such System or form of Government as may be agreed upon by Such Convention being printed & sent to each & every Town, Parish & District in this State for the approbation of the People, which system or form of government, being approved of by three

11 N. H. Town Papers, xiii, 603. See also ibid., xi, 23; xii, 57. 12 Ibid., xiii, 763.

18 N. H. State Papers, viii, 757.

fourths parts of the Inhabitants of this State in their respective Town meetings legally called for that purpose, and a return of such approbation being made to said Convention & confirmed by them, shall remain as a permanent system or Form of Government of the State, and not otherwise.' The convention called by virtue of this vote adopted a constitution in June, 1779, which was rejected by the people.

99 14

The procedure in calling the second constitutional convention of New Hampshire was the same as that pursued in calling the first convention. The precepts issued in October, 1780, for the election of members to the next assembly contained the following clause: "It is also recommended to empower such Representative to join in calling a Convention to settle a plan of Government for this State." 15 When the new assembly met a joint committee was almost immediately appointed, which recommended another convention, and the resolve of April, 1781, provided that the constitution should be approved "by such number of the Inhabitants of this State in their respective town meetings legally called for that purpose, as shall be ordered by said Convention. . . And if the first proposed System or form of Government should be rejected by the People, that the Same Convention shall be empowered to proceed and make such amendments and alterations from time to time as may be necessary—provided always that after such alterations, the same be sent out for the approbation of the People in the manner as aforesaid." 16 In sending its first constitution to the people, in September, 1781, this convention provided that a two-thirds vote should be necessary for its

14 N. H. State Papers, viii, 775. 16 Ibid., viii, 894, 897.

15 Ibid., viii, 874.

adoption." The constitution was rejected as was also a revised copy of it submitted by the same convention in August, 1782. The convention met again in June, 1783, and sent out another constitution which was agreed to by two-thirds of the voters.18

The development of the constitutional convention in Massachusetts was similar to that of New Hampshire, but of a slightly later date. The resumption of the charter in 1775 was accomplished by the provincial congress, without any reference to the consent of the people. By a resolve of September 17, 1776, the House of Representatives recommended that the towns authorize their representatives to form a constitution. Many towns granted the requested authorization, but Boston and several others refused to do so, a meeting of the committees of Worcester County voting that "a State Congress, chosen for the sole purpose of forming a Constitution of Government, is (in the opinion of this Convention) more eligible than a House of Representatives;" 19 and the General Court did not at that time carry the matter further. The request was repeated on May 5, 1777, and a sufficient number of towns took the desired action. Such action was uniformly coupled with the demand that the constitution framed by the members of the General

17 N. H. Town Papers, ix, 877.

18 Ibid., ix, 883-895, 903-919. Another illustration of the popular submission of constitutional questions in New Hampshire during this period is found in the state's action upon the Articles of Confederation in 1777-78, and upon the amendment thereto proposed in 1783; the questions of adopting the articles and of approving the amendment, were submitted to the towns for action. New Hampshire State Papers, viii, 754, 758, 773, 774, 981, 982. My attention was directed to these references by Lobingier's The People's Law, 180, 181.

19 Boston Town Records, 1770-1777, 247. Force, American Archives, Fifth Series, iii, 866. J. Franklin Jameson in Johns Hopkins University Studies, iv, 204.