University of Virginia Library

To one historian, printing is an art; to another it is a means of communication; to a third, printing is a commercial activity. These aspects—aesthetic, intellectual, economic —all deserve consideration although, for a particular moment in history, there may be emphasis on one or another. In a discussion of the printing of the American Revolution, for instance, the dissemination of political ideas becomes more important than the typography. But the financial operations of the printers of that period are also of interest. How much did printing cost? How was Massachusetts government printing obtained? How many copies of an item were printed? These and similar questions, when answered, bring the printer and his world into closer focus.

Answers to some of these questions appear in government documents where, fortunately for the historian, formality requires greater detail than that found in the usual business papers of the time. Therefore, it is to such items that one turns to find out something about government printing in Massachusetts during the last half of the eighteenth century. Despite the vicissitudes of those years, quite a few documents have survived and while the story they tell is far from complete, they provide new insights into the relations between printers and the government. These documents comprise the bills from printers, petitions, contracts, and journals now in the Massachusetts Archives.[1]

If the government had but one official printer at any time, the task of the investigator would be ten times easier and the resulting data ten times clearer. The Council and the House, however, each ordered

its own printing and, from time to time, would appoint a joint committee to arrange for the printing of other publications. Thus, in 1751, the Journal of the Honourable House of Representatives was printed by Samuel Kneeland, "Printer to the Honourable House of Representatives," and proclamations were printed by John Draper, "Printer to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governour and Council." Another publication of that year, the Acts and Laws, bears the colophon: "Printed and Sold by S. Kneeland and T. Green, by Order of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governour, Council & House of Representatives." Rather than attempt a straight chronological approach to the subject which would be as difficult to follow as a three-ring circus, it seems better to begin by discussing the relations of the House and Council with the more important printers.

John Draper, probably a shrewd politician, managed to secure a good share of the government's business as printer to the Governor and Council. Isaiah Thomas notes that, once appointed, he "was honored with that mark of confidence and favor as long as he lived."[2] While Draper printed for the Council, Samuel Kneeland continued to print the Journal of the House even though competitors tried to underbid him. In accordance with its custom, the House voted every year on whether or not to print the Journal. After the vote to print, the House appointed a committee "to agree with a Printer on the most reasonable Terms for two Setts, one for each Member, and one for each Town in the Province,"[3] or, in some years, "each Town and District in the Province" (JHR, May 30, 1755). Between 1751 and 1756, Kneeland obtained the work and charged 1/1/4 per sheet for paper and printing.[4] On May 28, 1756, the committee appointed to agree with a printer for that year reported that it had agreed with Green & Russell who would print the Journal at 1/1/4 per sheet. The House, however, refused to accept the report and appointed another committee to arrange for the printing. On the following day, the new committee reported a bid of £1 per sheet, and, "after a Debate thereon," the House voted that "Mr. Samuel Kneeland be employed to print the Journal of the House, provided he will undertake to do the Business as cheap, and as expeditiously as any other Printer; and that the said Committee make further Enquiry, and report thereon." On June 4, the committee reported a bid of 19s 4d which Kneeland agreed to meet. The competitive pressure on Kneeland must have continued; during the following five years

he printed the Journal for 19s per sheet (JHR, May 28, 1757; June 2, 1758. Arc., CCLII, 53; LXXXIX, 344).

When John Draper died on November 29, 1762, the Council's printing business became available again, but only momentarily. Within two days, Draper's son, Richard, printed and submitted a petition to the Council asking for continuation of the patronage. Richard Draper must have inherited his father's astuteness, for this is the only example of a printed petition found in the Massachusetts Archives (Plate I). The Council, of course, permitted him to have its printing business.

Meanwhile the House had been changing the printers of its Journal. Kneeland lost the printing of the 1762 Journal to Edes & Gill who in turn lost the printing of the 1763 Journal to Green & Russell. At that time, some rather suspicious arrangements must have been made. Green & Russell charged 24s per sheet for paper and printing of the 1763 edition (Arc., CCLIII, 176). But on May 31, 1764, a committee reported that Green & Russell agreed to print the Journal of that year for 12s. The House, not unaware of this, voted on March 1, 1765, that a committee "inquire into the Sums granted for printing the Journals of the House the last Year, and make Report." Six days later, "The Committee appointed to inquire into the Conduct of the Committee and Printers of the Journals for the Year 1763, made report, which was Read and Accepted by the House." Precisely what happened cannot now be ascertained. However, Green & Russell did find that 12s a sheet was too low. In June, 1765, the House resolved that Green & Russell would print the Journal for that year "at twelve Shillings per Sheet, for one Sett only, and that for each Town" (JHR, June 5, 1765). A little more than two weeks later, the House, finding that it could not not do without its own copies, resolved to let Green & Russell "print and deliver to each of the Members of the House a Sett of Votes, provided they will undertake to do it at the Rate of six Shillings per Sheet" (JHR, June 21, 1765). Thus the price went up to 18s and stayed there during the following year, too (Arc., CCLIV, 84). Then the House decided to make its agreements more specific: in 1767, it ordered that Green & Russell print the Journals at "twenty-four Shillings for a double Sheet, each Sheet to contain as much as was contained in a Sheet of the Journals printed in the Year 1759" (JHR, June 5, 1767). In all of these editions, Green & Russell used type of the same size. However, the area of the type-page had declined from about 41 square inches in 1759 to about 32 square inches in 1766. In 1767, it occupied about 51 square inches.

Green & Russell, at this time, also enjoyed a good deal of printing

business from the Customs Board, but they eventually found that it was not possible to retain the Whig trade. As Schlesinger points out, "On the Board's confidential advice they declined to publish the 'Farmer's Letters,' and this fact, coupled with the stigma of running a subsidized press, soon lost them the bulk of their subscribers, as well as the work of the House of Representatives with considerable other trade."[5] The House shifted its printing to those "trumpeters of sedition," Edes & Gill; on June 23, 1769, it ordered that "Edes & Gill be the Printers of the Journals of this House the present Year: They having agreed to print them for Twenty-four Shillings for a Sheet; each Sheet to contain as much as was contained in a Sheet of the Journals of the House of Representatives, printed in the Year 1759." These terms obtained until August, 1775 (Arc., CCLV, 34, 72).

The Council's printing remained in the Draper family during these years. When Richard Draper died on June 5, 1774, his widow, Margaret submitted this petition:

The Council, with many more important problems before it, probably spent little time on this matter; Margaret Draper became "Printer to His Excellency the Governor, and the Honorable His Majesty's Council." A year later, 1775, with the government at Watertown, Benjamin Edes became "Printer to the Honorable Council, and Honorable House of Representatives." The House of Draper had finally ceased as government printers when the Whigs secured control.

Although they ordered the printing of some documents, the three Provincial Congresses shunned any publicity about much of their actions and therefore refrained from ordering the printing of the complete Journal. However, during the next meeting of the General Court, the House of Representatives, on August 9, 1775, ordered Benjamin Edes to print five hundred copies of its Journal at 28s per sheet.

Bibliographically speaking, the most puzzling of all the Journals is that of the 1776-77 session: no complete copy exists and some parts were reset. Unfortunately, the bills for this edition cannot be located in the Archives. According to the Journal, the House voted, on October 29, 1776, that its committee agree with Powars & Willis to print five hundred copies at 27s per sheet. Few, if any, sheets were printed; on December 11, the House ordered that the committee formerly appointed to agree with a printer be "directed to get the journals printed in the most expeditious way." Powars & Willis were evidently unable to keep up production; on June 20, 1777, the Court resolved that the Journals for 1776 be printed and appointed a committee to agree with a printer. Finally, on May 30, 1778, the House voted that "Powars and Willis be allowed for printing the Remainder of the Journals of 1776, which are not yet printed, the same Price that Messi'rs Fleet's have for printing the Journals of the present Year." After the Fleets took over the printing of the Journal, the House ordered a committee to investigate the "Grant made some Time since, to Mr. Boyce to enable him to carry on the Paper-making Business, and to devise some Way of supplying the Printers of the General Court with Paper" (JHR, October 17, 1777). Herein may be the clue to the troubles of Powars & Willis. The severe shortage of paper forced the printers to issue an edition smaller in size and number of copies. They continued to make do with the paper available until the arrival of more paper permitted them to increase the size and then reprint some of the sheets.

For printing 560 copies of the Journal for the May, 1777, session, T. & J. Fleet charged £4 per sheet, "each Page comprising more than

double of some formerly printed" (Arc., CCLVIII, 45). Soon they, too, found themselves victims of the paper situation. When they submitted the bill for the sheets of the sessions from August to December, 1777, they included an extra charge of 16s per ream for the paper (Arc., CCLIX, 41). In the following year, the agreement with the House stated the charge for paper and printing to be £5 per sheet, "provided Paper can be got at the Price it is now at. If Paper rises to be allowed therefor, and if it falls they to make an Abatement accordingly" (JHR, May 30, 1778).

The scarcity of paper became so great that, on February 27, 1779, the Court directed the Board of War to import a limit of one thousand reams of printing and writing paper. By April, the Fleets found themselves beset by the general inflation as well as the price of paper:

Eight days later, the General Court responded with a resolution allowing them 10/10/- per sheet "including the rise of paper and the Five pounds per sheet already granted." The Fleets could do nothing more about that contract, but when the new session began in May, they held out for a better price. The committee appointed to agree with a printer for the Journals and Resolves of the 1779 session reported that

"Messieurs Fleet and Gill, would print five hundred copies of the resolves and journals respectively, at thirteen pounds per sheet" (JHR, May 31, 1779). This report, which was accepted by the House, also stated that Benjamin Edes would print the Laws on the same terms. Evidently both House and printers veered from comprehensive commitments, which was logical because of the heavy investment required for paper. Even so, the General Court, on December 18, 1779, advanced £200 each to Thomas Fleet and John Gill to enable them to procure paper.

The committee appointed by the 1780 session in reporting that Nathaniel Willis would print the Resolves for £54 for five hundred sheets declared almost apologetically that "it was their opinion his terms were reasonable" (JHR, June 1, 1780). However, faced with the great increase in price, the committee stated that it was not expedient to print the Journals of the House. The House, concurring with the committee, took no action, but, five months later, the committee appointed to consider printing the Laws and Resolves was directed "to see what additional expense the printing of the Journals will be attended with" (JHR, November 2, 1780). Eight days later, a committee was directed to agree with a printer for printing the Journals "so far as they relate to the organization of this House." Nathaniel Willis secured the work at "nine Shillings L. M. of the old emission for each Sheet" (JHR, November 28, 1780). Although Willis probably thought himself protected by the specification of the money, he, too, became a victim of the deteriorating financial situation. On July 2, 1781, he petitioned to have his accounts settled because he needed the money for paper (JHR, July 2, 1781; Arc., CCXXXIV, 104). The resolution requesting the Governor to grant a warrant for payment points up the monetary problem: it directed the Treasurer, "if he pays the Memorialist in paper money, to pay him in Bills of the New Emission on which no Interest has been paid" (Arc., CCXXXIV, 103).

Soon after the 1782 session convened, the House appointed the usual committee to consider the expediency of printing the Resolves and the Journals. Again the prices were prohibitive; when the House heard the rates proposed, it ordered the printing of the Acts and Resolves, but not of the Journals (JHR, June 6, 1782). The negotiations between the committee and the printers provide a glimpse into the practice of government printing at that time. Soon after the committee was appointed, it received the following letter:

Six days later, the committee made this agreement:

The Resolves were printed on the following terms:

In this way the General Court secured immediate distribution of its Resolves.

Neither Willis nor Edes held the government business. When, in the following June, the House voted to print the Acts and Resolves but not the Journals, Adams & Nourse did the printing at 1½d per sheet (JHR, June 5, 1783; June 10, 1783). On January 1, 1784, Thomas Adams and John Nourse purchased the Independent Chronicle from Nathaniel Willis, thereafter securing a very good share of the government's

business until Nourse's death in 1790. The derangement resulting from the Revolutionary War had ended, permitting a more orderly conduct of affairs. Nevertheless, Adams & Nourse did not find the government an ideal customer. They had to be alert to competition, for the business was placed on a temporary basis and other printers constantly solicited for work; the volume of work varied, depending, for instance, on whether or not the Journals were printed; the government did not pay promptly. Finally, perhaps the most serious threat may be seen in an order of June 7, 1786, wherein the committee considering printers' proposals was "instructed to consider the expediency of governments providing themselves with a press of their own." This did not occur. However, all of these factors required the printers to cultivate governmental authorities and to keep prices within reason. Their price did not change in 1783, but in the following year it declined to 1d per sheet for the Acts and Resolves and ¾d for the Journals (JHR, June 9, 1784; June 14, 1784). In 1786, Adams & Nourse agreed to perform the printing business of the General Court for 3/5d per sheet, even though they first offered a price of 2/3d per sheet.[11] The House had agreed to the higher price, but the Senate suggested the possibility of a government press as well as a reconsideration of the bids (JHR, June 7, 1786). Adams & Nourse then reduced the price. Entirely different terms were agreed upon when negotiated the following year: Adams & Nourse printed sets of the Acts and Resolves gratis in return for the privilege of all the other government printing as well as for official printing in their newspaper (at 3s per square) (CR, June 23, 1787). They secured the same terms in 1788 (CR, June 14, 1788). By this time, they found that the burden of financing government printing was almost unbearable. In November, they submitted a petition declaring that "they are in very large advances per account of the Commonwealth—that notwithstanding the Resolve passed the 25th of March 1788, in which they among other Creditors, were intended to be provided for, they have not as yet been able to obtain any Monies from the Treasury — and that unless some speedy relief is afforded them they must be inevitably ruined" (CR, November 21, 1788). The General Court, after considering this petition, resolved "that the Treasurer of this Commonwealth be, & he hereby is empowered & directed to borrow the sum of one thousand pounds especially for the purpose of paying the same to the said Adams & Nourse" (Ibid.).

When the 1789 session began, a joint committee was appointed, as usual, to consider the printers' petitions. Again competition forced a reduction of prices: Adams & Nourse were appointed "Printers to the Commonwealth," but the terms were 2s per square for newspaper printing, government printing at ten per cent less than the previous year, and the sets of Acts and Resolves gratis (CR, June 17, 1789).

Though the Commonwealth appears to have been a shrewd customer, it was also a sympathetic one. When, because of the deaths of John Nourse and David Bemis, the paper merchant, Thomas Adams found himself obliged to close the accounts of Adams & Nourse, he petitioned the government for immediate payment. This time the General Court did not delay; it ordered the Treasurer to pay the money due the firm as soon as possible (CR, March 5, 1790).

The members of the General Court finally tired of the cumbersome process of choosing a government printer; in 1790, they appointed a joint committee to consider a more suitable method. As a result of the report of this committee, the Court authorized the Secretary and the Clerks of the Senate and of the House of Representatives to contract for the printing business of the Commonwealth, "on reasonable terms, not to exceed the terms given the year past" (JHR, June 8, 1790). Similar resolutions passed both chambers in 1791, 1792, and 1793 (CR, June 7, 1791; June 18, 1793; JHR, June 26, 1792). In all of these four years, Thomas Adams became "Printer to the Honorable the General Court." However, maintaining the government printing contract on "the terms given the year past" proved too difficult. Adams eventually found that this could not be done. In 1793, he petitioned for additional payment, whereupon the Court, on June 22, resolved to pay him three hundred pounds "in consideration of the delay of payment aforesaid, & of the very low terms on which the said Adams has executed the printing business of the Commonwealth a number of years past." This sum, it should be noted, was "in full of all compensations & demands for the work aforesaid, previous to the month of January one thousand, seven hundred & ninety two." To help in managing the business, Adams admitted Isaac Larkin to partnership on July 1, 1793, the firm name changing to Adams & Larkin.

At the beginning of the 1794 session, the General Court again decided to review its procedure for choosing a printer; another joint committee was appointed "to consider & report at what rate the printing business can be performed the present year" (JHR, June 10, 1794). Again other printers, this time Young & Minns and Joseph Belknap, submitted petitions (JHR, June 10, 1794; June 11, 1794). But the

joint committee could not improve past practice; it reported a resolution directing the Secretary and Treasurer and Clerks of both Houses to contract for the printing. This resolution included the "not to exceed the terms given last year" clause as well as two additional conditions: that they give public notice of the time proposals will be received and that the contract will be awarded to the printer offering the most advantageous terms upon presentation of evidence that the printer is able to do the work (JHR, June 26, 1794). Adams & Larkin retained the work, but the other printers continued to exert pressure. Within seven months, two reports on printing were submitted to the Court, one by the Treasurer and Clerk of the Senate, the other by the Secretary and Clerk of the House (JHR, January 15, 1795). The joint committee appointed to consider these reports recommended a new committee to contract for printing and the Senate approved of this, but the House non-concurred and ordered that "further consideration of the subject should subside" (JHR, January 22, 1795). One month later, the Senate again ordered that appointment of a committee to contract for the printing, but the House, after debate, ordered that "further consideration be referred to the next Session" (JHR, February 26, 1795). The people behind the Senate's persistence cannot be identified with certainty. However, it should be remembered that when the Senate issued the 1795 election sermon of Peres Fobes, Young & Minns printed it.

Adams & Larkin held on to the government contract though they must have realized that their grip was insecure. On January 25, 1796, they petitioned for "further allowance for Services," only to be rebuffed by the committee's report that they have leave to withdraw their petition. The House did not accept this report, instead it voted to pay them in full for their services (JHR, February 16, 1796). The Senate concurred in paying them five hundred dollars, "they to be Accountable for the Same in the Settlement of their Accounts with the Commonwealth" (CR, February 29, 1796).

In May, 1796, the General Court decided to try another method of selecting a printer, namely, by ballot. Word of this spread quickly; within a few days petitions for the printing business of the Commonwealth arrived from Edward E. Powars, Benjamin Sweetser, Benjamin Edes, and Young & Minns (JHR, May 30, 1796; May 31, 1796). Probably to no one's great surprise, both Senate and House voted for Young & Minns (JHR, May 31, 1796; CR, May 31, 1796). From that time through the end of the century, Alexander Young and Thomas Minns were "Printers to the State," or "Printers to the Honorable the General

Court." Choosing a printer by ballot ended after the second year; the Court then reverted to the joint committee system. Young & Minns apparently had no difficulty in holding the privilege until June, 1800, when Adams & Rhoades submitted their petition "praying to be employed as Printers for the General Court" (JHR, June 3, 1800). The day after it was received, the Court ordered a joint committee "to confer with the printers who executed the printing business of the Commonwealth for the last year & ascertain upon what terms they will contract to perform the same for the present year." One week later, a resolution reappointed Young & Minns (JHR, June 12, 1800). The 1799 contract with Young & Minns, renewed in 1800, presents such a detailed enumeration of printing costs that it is printed in Appendix I.

The men thus far mentioned were by no means the only printers who worked for the government. During this half-century, the General Court called upon other printers for particular jobs when expedience or convenience required. This was especially true, of course, at the time of the Revolutionary War. Rather than detail their work here, it seems more worthwhile to discuss the large classes of government documents, introducing the names of some of the printers in the course of the discussion.

From time to time, the Court issued compilations of the Perpetual and Temporary Laws, keeping them up-to-date with supplements as well as single copies if warranted. Because the publication of a compilation entailed comparatively great expense, proposals for new editions were carefully examined. Other factors such as bickering between House and Council or pressure from the booksellers also served to delay the appearance of a compilation. For example, the 1755 edition of the Temporary Laws resulted from a proposal by the Council in December, 1753, that a joint committee consider what should be done about the lack of complete sets of Temporary Laws (JHR, December 13, 1753). The joint committee suggested that the printers be directed to strike off a sufficient number of the out-of-print laws. The Council concurred in this report, but the House did not; instead it ordered that a joint committee be appointed to reprint the laws (JHR, January 23, 1754). The Council finally agreed to this, the volume appearing the following year (CR, April 9, 1754). Four years later, in 1759, the House, learning that the Perpetual Laws were no longer in print, ordered a committee to consider the matter (JHR, January 5, 1759). The committee found no copies available for sale and, after conferring with printers, reported that a new edition would not cost more than 2d per sheet provided the Court would take about three hundred copies.

It estimated that a bound volume would cost about 20s. When the House received this report, it directed the committee to make further enquiry (JHR, January 19, 1759). The second report of the committee received an even cooler reception; the House ordered the report recommitted and that the committee "confer with some of the Stationers, to know of them, whether they would undertake a new Impression of the Perpetual Laws, they having an exclusive Patent, and on what Terms, and Report" (JHR, January 26, 1759). The House must have realized that the first price submitted was too high or perhaps Samuel Kneeland spread the word among the members. At any rate, he received the order to order to print three hundred copies and deliver them bound before August 1 at a price of 12s per copy (CR, February 10, 1759).

In 1762, the House ordered a committee to prepare a new impression of the Temporary Laws (JHR, May 28, 1762). By the time it appeared in the following year, Kneeland had lost the favor of the government and the printing went to Green & Russell who submitted a bill for four hundred copies, each copy containing 52 sheets at 2d per sheet (Arc., CCLIII, 162). Green & Russell quickly seized the opportunity to hold on to this job. On June 16, 1763, the House directed them to print the Temporary Laws of the current session and on December 30 it resolved that they have the privilege of printing the Temporary Laws until further notice. Kneeland, seeing this work lost to him, then submitted the following petition:

The committee to which this petition was referred reported that further consideration be deferred until the next session when Kneeland would exhibit his accounts (JHR, February 3, 1764). On November 1, he submitted another petition asking liberty to present his account. This was granted, Kneeland sending in a bill for 414 copies at 25s L. M. per copy (Arc., LVIII, no. 534a). Since £220 had already been paid on it, the balance amounted to 297/10/-. The Court voted him one hundred pounds on account, but it was not until 1765 that he was voted the balance of 197/10/- to complete payment on the 1759 compilation (JHR, November 3, 1764; CR, November 3, 1764; CR, February 18, 1765).

At this period, signs of friction begin to appear. Upon receipt of a petition from Green & Russell, the House voted, on February 19, 1765, to direct him to print the Perpetual Laws from time to time at 2d per sheet. The Council concurred in this, but the Governor did not consent to it (CR, February 19, 1765). Matters soon became worse when the House realized that the Province was charged for the printing of unsavory laws. On January 17, 1766, a committee appointed to investigate the method of printing the laws of the Province reported that the Council had ordered Draper to print the Stamp Act and the Mutiny Act. With this information in hand, the committee considering the grievances of the people submitted these two, among others:

A little more than a year later, the House again protested such payments for printing, insisting that "at least this ought to be done without expence to the province where such re-publications take place" (JHR, March 6, 1767). A minor result of the growing dissension was the failure to issue another compilation before the Revolution; in

1773, for example, "The Secretary according to Order attended the House, and being askd by the Speaker, Whether his Excellency had given his Assent to a Resolve of both Houses at the last Session of this Court, for the new Impression of the Province Laws? he answered that his Excellency had refus'd to give his Assent to said Resolve" (JHR, January 12, 1773). Furthermore, the government had ceased to allow only Green & Russell to print the Laws; the Drapers and Green & Russell jointly printed them. Thus the government shifted as much business as possible to the Draper firm.

After the Revolution, compilations appeared again. In 1784, for instance, Adams & Nourse received a contract to print twelve hundred sets of the Perpetual Laws at the rate of "one penny lawful money" per sheet (CR, March 23, 1784). And in 1788, when Isaiah Thomas presented his edition of the Perpetual Laws to the House, a resolution declared that "as it is the duty of the House of Representatives to promote the public Good by every means in their power, and as the encouragement of our manufactures is peculiarly the object of it it is with pleasure the House accept the Volume" (JHR, June 7, 1788). Along with the sporadic issue of compilations, the regular appearance of the volumes of Acts and Resolves continued beyond the eighteenth century.

In addition to the various series thus far mentioned, the government ordered much job printing: proclamations, notifications, laws, resolutions, military orders, oaths, tax blanks, and all the other forms required for its purposes. For these items, the House and Council used their printers, or appointed a committee to agree with a printer, throughout the seventeenth-fifties and sixties. In this way, Edes & Gill and Green & Russell, having been selected by a committee, secured work at times when they were not official printers. In the seventeenseventies, orders to print were voted by House and Council as well as by the three Provincial Congresses and the Committees of Safety and Supplies.

The records of the Provincial Congresses supply some interesting information and most impressive is the emphasis on rapid communication. It was not unusual for copies of documents to be sent to all towns and districts, but in these records the need for speed is observed in such phrases as "Ordered, That Mr. Gerry give the express going to the press, his orders for the enlisting papers," or "be published in all the newspapers in the province."[13] The Third Provincial Congress ordered

a committee "to confer with the printers, Edes, Hall, and Thomas, and know of them respectively, upon what terms they will print handbills, and also such pieces as may be desired by this Congress to be put in the weekly papers" (PC, p. 349). Benjamin Edes, who moved his press to Watertown about May, 1775, received a good share of the work of the Provincial Congress, but other printers were also called upon. In Salem, Ezekiel Russel and the two Halls, Samuel and Ebenezer, put their presses to work for the Congress. The Committee of Safety and the Committee of Supplies also used the Halls' printing; on May 1, 1775, the Quartermaster-General was directed "to clear that chamber in Stoughton College, occupied by S. Parsons, Jr., for a printing office for Messrs. Halls" (PC, p. 530). Once installed at Cambridge, they resumed their work, as the following letter testifies:

It should also be noted that the Committee of Safety and the Committee of Supplies also provided paper for Isaiah Thomas; on April 29, 1775, they sent four reams to him and on May 12, 1775, sixty reams of printing crown and eight reams of printing demy were supplied (PC, pp. 527, 542).

When the General Court resumed on July 26, 1775, it concerned itself with military affairs, these matters being reflected in the orders for printing: fifty copies of the Resolve appointing committees to purchase guns, one thousand copies of a pamphlet containing the Militia Acts and the Rules and Regulations (JHR, February 16, 1776; April 23, 1776). In 1776, such work was sometimes given to Benjamin Edes, sometimes to John Gill. Since they performed these tasks under miserable conditions, the wonder is that a greater number of errors did not appear. Government documents, however, must be very accurate

and when errors were found in a Fee Bill, the General Court took immediate action. On June 14, 1776, it directed the printer, probably Edes, to reprint the sheet containing the errors and the House appointed "a Committee to inspect the Press, until further Orders, and see that all Acts, Resolves and Journals, that are ordered to be printed by this House, are correctly done" (JHR, June 13, 1776; CR, June 14, 1776).

The advent of the Revolution brought one typographical alteration in government documents; on December 7, 1776, the House ordered that "the words 'State of Massachusetts-Bay' be inserted on the top of all acts and resolves that shall hereafter pass this Court." It also required more rapid production; in June, 1777, the General Court ordered that the Resolves be printed daily and distributed immediately (CR, June 16, 1777). This pressure for quick work did not cease; one year later, the House ordered a committee "to enquire of Mr. Gill respecting the printing of the Laws, and more especially the late Militia Law" (JHR, June 16, 1778). The press was the major medium of communication and the government realized that its efficiency had to be maintained. Very few printers's bills of the Revolutionary period have been preserved in the Massachusetts Archives; those which survive contain entries for printing Treasurer's Notes, receipts for collection of taxes by Constables, proclamations, and extra copies of resolutions, among other items such as charges for printing in newspapers. As prices went up, the House occasionally became more careful of its orders. On September 24, 1782, the Clerk was directed to find out what the printers would charge for printing 120 copies of a report on finances. When, in the afternoon, the House heard the Clerk, it voted not to print. Usually, however, the House continued to order the printing of whatever it thought necessary. The Journals, therefore, contain records of the printing of items for which bills do not now exist. After the Revolution, the mechanics of government became stabilized and there are fewer such references in the Journals.

Far more interesting in content than these forms, reports, resolutions, and proclamations are the longer documents, usually pamphlets, which the government ordered printed. In them one sees the variety of subject matter which was even then required in official publications. During the seventeen-fifties, the House printed reports of the conferences with the Indians and even reprinted, in an edition of 250 copies, Governor Dummer's treaties of 1726 and 1727 (Arc. CCXLVIII, 120A, 148). Nor was domestic economy ignored; on March 1, 1765, the House, after hearing a report on A Treatise on Hemp-Husbandry,

voted that it be printed. The report stated that the treatise "contains many suitable Instructions for the raising and manufacuring of Hemp, and may have a great Tendency to promote the Production thereof within this Province; and that it is advisable for this Court to order the printing of four hundred Copies . . . one for each Member of the General Court, and one for each Town or District Clerk . . . for the Use of the respective Towns and Districts . . . the remainder to be presented to Edmund Quincy, Esquire, as an acknowledgement for his Trouble in compiling the said Treatise."

The records of the General Court also disclose that the Province evidently paid for the printing of the well-known Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre (1770). On November 19, 1770, a motion to reimburse the Town of Boston for the cost of printing was introduced in the House and assigned to a committee. The next day, the House voted, on recommendation of the committee, that consideration be referred to the next session. When it was reconsidered in June, both House and Council voted to pay 49/-/6 to the Treasurer of Boston "in full Discharge of the within Account of Messi'rs Edes and Gill, and Messi'rs Thomas and John Fleet, which Sum has been advanc'd and paid by the said Town of Boston" (JHR, June 29, 1771; CR, July 2, 1771). Two years later, another document of the Revolution appeared when the House ordered that "the Speech of his Excellency the Governor to both Houses at the Opening of this Assembly, together with the several Answers of the Two Houses, and the whole Controversy thereon, be printed in a Pamphlet" (JHR, March 6, 1773). Of this pamphlet, Edes & Gill delivered seven hundred to the House and one hundred to the Council at 2s each (Arc. CCLV, 72).

Parenthetically it should be stated that some documents were printed on the other side of the Atlantic. In March and April, 1774, Charles Say of London produced seven broadsides by Joseph Massie, accounts of trade and letters. These had been ordered by Dr. Franklin and were paid for by the Colony of Massachusetts. Franklin also ordered William Strahan to print another item.[15]

Under the Second Provincial Congress, more pamphlets and documents appeared, two of which must have been eagerly read as they came from the press. One, Extracts from the Records of the Late Provincial Congress (1775) informed the public of official actions, the other told of what happened at Lexington and Concord. On May 8, 1775, the Congress appointed a committee "to transcribe the narrative

of the proceedings of the king's troops, on the 19th ult., together with depositions . . . to be transmitted to Mr. Thomas for immediate publication." Two days later, another committee was appointed "to transcribe the depositions taken by a committee of this Congress, of the proceedings of the troops, under the command of general Gage . . . and that they transmit them to Mr. Hall, at Cambridge, to be published in a pamphlet." On the same day, it was ordered that a narrative be prepared as an introduction (CR, May 10, 1775). When, on May 19, the work was finished, another committee was directed to get it printed "on the best terms they can." It went to Isaiah Thomas; his edition of A Narrative of the Excursion (1775) is the first book printed in Worcester.

After the General Court resumed in 1775, it issued, on the recommendation of the Continental Congress, Several Methods of Making Salt-Petre which Benjamin Edes printed at Watertown. In the following year, a pamphlet on the manufacture of salt, also recommended by the Continental Congress, was printed by John Gill in an edition of 150 copies (Arc. CCLVI, 177). Other pamphlets printed by the General Court during the Revolutionary War include various addresses to the people, rules for the army and navy, as well as The Proceedings . . . Relating to the Penobscot Expedition (1780).

Once the War ended, the Court appears to have been reluctant to print any but official documents. In 1785, Richard Price's Observations on the Importance of the American Revolution received much attention in the United States after it appeared in London. However, when it was suggested that the House disperse it, a majority voted that consideration subside (JHR January 26, 1785). Even official documents met some opposition: when, in 1793, one hundred members of the House voted to publish and distribute the Constitution and Laws of the United States, forty members voted against the proposal (JHR, February 11, 1793). The farm bloc, nevertheless, was strong enough in 1797 to secure the passage of a resolution "directing the Printers of the Commonwealth to publish the proceedings of Agricultural Societies" (JHR, March 1, 1797). This, curiously enough, was also done in New York (Evans 34221). But undoubtedly there was little, if any, opposition to the publication of orations on George Washington by Fisher Ames and Peter Thacher in 1800.

Another large class of publications comprises the Election and other occasional sermons. With a few exceptions, the Election sermons appeared annually and were distributed to the members of the General Court as well as to the parishes. For delivering the sermon, the minister

received free copies, usually fifty or seventy-five, which he gave away, traded, or sold. During the final half of the eighteenth century, these sermons became political pamphlets; Swift, in his treatise, remarks that The occasional sermons printed officially include such items as Samuel Mather's sermon on the death of the Prince of Wales in 1751, Joseph Sewall's on the reduction of Havana in 1762, William Gordon's on the first anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (for which he received one hundred copies) (JHR, July 5, 1777), and Peter Thacher's at the funeral of Governor Increase Sumner in 1799. At least once, a printed sermon was presented to the House. According to the Journal for February 9, 1784:

During the period covered by this paper, therefore, the government publications of Massachussets encompassed all the phases of government printing to-day: journals, laws, resolutions, documents, and miscellaneous publications. The printers, sometimes operating under most difficult conditions, managed to maintain output, if not quality. Though within these fifty years, the government itself changed by revolution from a colonial body to a state government, official printing never ceased. And, by 1800, it had become pretty well systematized.

The bills abstracted in Appendix II supply detailed information about the prices for printing. Boston, engaging in trade rather than exchanging a domestic staple, did not have the prices-current which appeared in other towns and it is, therefore, very difficult to establish prices.[17] Furthermore, prices during the Revolution are even more difficult to determine because of the inflation. And so these bills are presented in the hope that they may be useful to students of economics as well as students of the history of printing.