In the course of the same year, 1765, Otis produced another work, with the following title: "Considerations on behalf of the Colonists, in a Letter to a noble Lord. London: printed for J. Almon." The manuscript was sent from New England, dated Boston, Sept. 4, 1765. It was written with great spirit and ability, and was the last printed work from the pen of Otis.

On the 19th of October, 1765, the Stamp-Act Congress assembled in New York. Nine colonies were represented. Mr. Otis was one of the members from Massachusetts. Here, as elsewhere, he stood high in the opinion of his colleagues, for extraordinary energy ana talents.

On his return to the colonial legislature of 1766, Otis was appointed chairman of a committee to reply to the angry message of Governor Bernard. The answer is characteristic of its author. They do not dispute the governor's right to deliver a speech in any way he pleases; at the same time, when it contained sentiment. which reflected on them or their constituents, they add, "it appears to us an undue exercise of the prerogative, to lay us under the necessity, either of silence, or of being thought out of season in making a reply. Your Excellency says, that these times have been more difficult than they need have been; which is also the opinion of this House. Those who have made them so, have reason to regret the injury they have done to a sincere and honest people." More follows in the same tart strain, which we need not quote.

During the session of this year, an innovation was made in the history of legislation which strikingly ind

cates the progress then made in free thought and freedom of speech. On the 3d of June, 1766, Otis brought forward a proposition, which was carried, "for opening a gallery for such as wished to hear the debates." Thus was a harmony first produced between the spirit of a representative government and the masses of the people ; a vast leap in the improvement which tended powerfully to diffuse knowledge and create vigilance among the populace in respect to their inalienable rights. To that little beginning in the patriotic and magnanimous mind of Otis, as in many other particulars, we may trace the stupendous superiority of this country at present over all other nations, in the influence of parliamentary and popular speech.

Repeated revolutions in France have bequeathed to that country two Houses of legislation, and a press partially redeemed from military despotism. But the Peers habitually hold their sessions in secret; and the Chamber of Deputies can scarcely be called a deliberative body. The members read their orations from a contracted pulpit, to few or no listeners from among the people. Should a debate chance to grow warmly eloquent, any orator who might hazard an obnoxious sentiment against the crown, is liable to be immediately marched out by an armed force.*

The legislature of England is scarcely more propitious to free and effective eloquence. In theory, the House of Commons contains about seven hundred members; in practice, debates occur and laws are enacted usually in the presence of fifty or sixty. Most of the bills are drafted, not by members, but by clerks hired for that • A change is going on!

purpose; leaving the dignitaries to relieve the stupidity of their stammering debates with frequent cries of “hear, hear!" No popular audience is permitted; only a few bystanders can gain admittance in an obscure gallery, and that under very inconvenient restrictions. Reports of debates are unauthorized, and of course imperfect. No visitor is allowed to have pen or pencil in his hand in Parliament. To render the matter worse, by a strange perversion of the hours, unknown in any other country or age, most of the important legislation transpires in the dead of night, when those who are sane and sound, and who desire to remain so, are reposing in bed, rather than yawning on the lordly woolsack and the soft chairs of state.

There are but three legislatures in the world that are popular, even in form. We have glanced at two of them, and it is evident that they present a meagre field for eloquence, compared with the American Congress. In the British Parliament, for instance, there are not at present, and never were in its best condition, more than two or three at any one time, actuated by the great impulses of oratory. When some of the best productions accredited to the best days of Parliament were praised, Dr. Samuel Johnson said, "those speeches I wrote in a garret." But the masterly eloquence of our Congress has no such origin; it is partly inspired and fully verified by the crowds of freemen who throng free galleries, a right which James Otis early perceived, and happily procured.

Another important feature in the unfolding of our free institutions, was the system of town-meetings which

One held in October

began to be held as early as 1767. of that year was presided over by Otis, and was called to resist new acts of British aggression on colonial rights. On Sept. 12th, 1768, a town-meeting was held, which was opened with a prayer by Dr. Cooper. Otis was chosen moderator. The petition for calling the meeting requested, that inquiry should be made of his Excellency, for "the grounds and reasons of sundry declarations made by him, that three regiments might be daily expected," &c. A committee was appointed to wait upon the governor, urging him in the present critical state of affairs to issue precepts for a general assembly of the province, to take suitable measures for the preservation of their rights and privileges; and that he should be requested to favor the town with an immediate answer.

In October several ship-loads of troops arrive. The storm thickens. Another town-meeting is called, and it is voted that the several ministers of the Gospel be requested to appoint the next Tuesday as a day of fasting and prayer. The day arrives, and Faneuil Hall is crowded by committees from sixty-two towns. They petition the governor to call a General Court. Otis appeared in behalf of the people, under circumstances that strongly attest his heroism. Cannon were planted at the entrance of the building, and a body of troops were quartered in the representatives' chamber. After the court was opened, Otis rose, and moved that they should adjourn to Faneuil Hall. With a significant expression of loathing and scorn, he observed, " that the stench occasioned by the troops in the hall of legislation

might prove infectious, and that it was utterly deroga. tory to the court to administer justice at the points of bayonets and mouths of cannon."

Soon after this, Mr. Otis was violently assaulted at the British coffee-house in State street, by a miscreant named Robinson. Five or six bludgeons, and one scabbard, were found on the scene of murderous attack, from which the assassin retreated through a back passage. Mr. Otis was cruelly lacerated in body and shattered in mind by this assault, to a degree from which he never entirely recovered.

But the bloody 5th of March soon arrived, and with it, nearly on the same spot, the massacre of citizens was perpetrated by mercenary troops. This aroused a whole people to the full atonement of outrageous wrongs.

In 1770, mutilated and dispirited, Mr. Otis retired to the country in pursuit of health. The town of Boston, on the 8th of May, passed a special vote of thanks to him for his great public services, accompanied with strong solicitude for his recovery.

In the debate on the Boston Port Bill in Parliament, April 15th, 1774, Colonel Barré referred to the ruf fianly attack made on Mr. Otis, and his treatment of the injury, in a manner that reflects honor on both of the orators. "Is this the return you make them?" inquired the British statesman. "When a commissioner of the customs, aided by a number of ruffians, assaulted the celebrated Mr. Otis, in the midst of the town of Boston, and with the most barbarous violence almost murdered him, did the mob, which is said to rule that town, take vengeance on the perpetrators of