1. Other original Declaration documents have been examined with some of these techniques. In 1975 the Library of Congress made such an examination of the Dunlap Broadside, reporting the results in Goff, Frederick R., The John Dunlap Broadside: The First Printing of the Declaration of Independence (Library of Congress, 1976)Google Scholar.

The examination revealed that there were two issues of the Broadside; that the form holding the type was slightly askew on the press; that the watermarks show that some of the paper used was of Dutch origin; that letters of type were damaged in the printing, making it possible to determine the order in which copies came from the press; and that at least eleven copies were folded before the ink was dry. Ibid. at 7–11.

2. Among the millions who have viewed the Declaration, some must have wondered about the reason for the oddly-lettered heading. Yet the only published comment on it seems to have been made by Herbert Fridenwald, a former Chief of the Manuscripts Division of the Library of Congress, who referred to ‘a carelessly composed heading to the engrossed document’. Fridenwald, Herbert, The Declaration of Independence, An Interpretation and an Analysis (New York, 1904) 135Google Scholar. I refer to ‘The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States’ as the title, in accordance with the usage of the Continental Congress.

In 1916, Gaillard Hunt, also a Chief of the Division, identified Timothy Matlack as the engrosser, and said, ‘probably there was not at that time a man in the country who was Matlack‘s equal as a penman’. Gaillard Hunt, ‘The Penmanship of the Declaration of Independence’, The Youth‘s Companion, June 29, 1916 at 355. Hunt made no comment of his own on the title nor did he repeat Fridenwald's conclusion that it was carelessly engrossed.

The appearance of the rest of the Declaration stands as a sufficient answer to Fridenwald's charge that Matlack was careless in engrossing the title.

3. In his notes on the proceedings of the Continental Congress in 1776, Jefferson wrote:

the debates having taken up the greater parts of the 2d. 3d. & 4th days of July were, in the evening of the last closed. The declaration was reported by the commee., agreed to by the house, and signed by every member present except Mr. Dickinson.

The word ‘present’ was interlined, probably in 1819. Boyd, Julian P., ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 21 vols. to date (Princeton, 1950) i, 315Google Scholar and n.14.

4. On July 4, 1786, Benjamin Franklin wrote his sister, Mrs. Jane Mecom:

There is much rejoicing in town today, it being the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, which we signed this day ten years, and thereby hazard lives and fortunes.

Bigelow, John, ed., The Works of Benjamin Franklin 12 vols. (Federal Edition, New York, 1904) xi at 262–63Google Scholar.

5. Under date of April 19, 1781, Adams wrote States-General of the United Provinces of the Low Countries:

This immortal declaration of the 4th of July, 1776 … was then unanimously adopted by congress, subscribed by all its members …

Adams, Charles Francis, ed., Works of John Adams 10 vols. (Boston, 1852) vii, 397Google Scholar.

On March 28, 1813, in responding to an inquiry from William Plumer, Adams wrote:

There were no yeas and nays in those times. A committee was appointed to draw a declaration; when reported, it underwent abundance of criticism and alteration; but when finally accepted, all those members who had voted against independence, now declared they would sign and support it.

Ibid., x at 36.

For the 1814 and 1823 letters see text infra.

6. Warren, Charles, ‘Fourth of July Myths’, William and Mary Quarterly, 3d. ser., ii (1945) 237 and 245Google Scholar.

7. Julian P. Boyd says it is highly probable that they were written out in the late summer or early fall of 1776, and that there is no doubt that they were written out before June 1, 1783, when Jefferson made a copy and sent it to Madison. Julian P. Boyd, ed., supra note 3, i at Editorial Note at 308 and 302.

8. During the period of the Confederation and until 1821, public information about the Continental Congress was limited to the thirteen volumes of the Journals, published between 1774 and 1789, covering the actions of Congress from its first convening on September 5, 1774, until it dissolved in 1788 due to lack of attendance. These printed Journals are hereinafter cited by the year covered as 1776 Printed Journal and, when relevant, by date of publication.

By resolutions of March 27, 1818, and April 21, 1820, Congress directed publication of the Secret Journals. These were issued in 1821, having been edited by John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State. This publication also includes the ‘History of the Confederation’, which is an account of the development of the Articles of Confederation. Aside from some comment on this ‘History’, this publication contains no commentary describing the purpose served by the Secret Journal or its relationship to the other manuscript journals or to the Printed Journals. The inferences are that (i) except for the ‘History’, what is being published is secret material, none of which had ever appeared in the Printed Journal and (ii) probably also that none had ever been entered in any manuscript journal other than the Secret Journal. Both of these inferences are incorrect.

In the 1840‘s Peter Force published relevant extracts from the Journals in American Archives. Volume VI of the Fourth Series covers events through July 4, 1776. Volume I of the Fifth Series covers events beginning with July 5, 1776. Peter Force rarely identified the sources he was using, but apparently he used all of the Papers of the Continental Congress, both manuscript and printed.

Between 1904 and 1937 the Library of Congress published the thirty-four volume Journals of the Continental Congress 1774–1789), as ‘Edited from the Original Records’. This edition is the one invariably used by scholars, and is cited hereinafter as JCC and by volume number. It reproduces the Rough Journal, extensively supplementing it with information from other manuscript journals and other materials in the Papers of the Continental Congress. In the Prefatory Note to Volume II the editor emphasizes, ‘it is to be understood that the text of this reissue is that of the original Journals’ and that material is inserted from the Corrected Journal only if it does not appear in the original Rough Journal’. Editorial practices changed to some extent as the editors changed. For the years 1774 into 1777, with which this paper is concerned, the Printed Journals, as well as the manuscript and printed Secret Journals are almost wholly ignored.

The handling of Declaration of Independence materials in the JCC is misleading. The text of the Engrossed Declaration is inserted as an entry for July 4, 1776. 5 JCC, 510–15. Yet it was the Dunlap Broadside that was inserted in the Rough Journal, and that text in slightly revised form was transcribed into the Corrected Journal and published in the 1776 Printed Journal. The JCC does not even have a footnote calling attention to these variations in the printing of the original records.

9. Chamberlain, Mellen, The Authentication of the Declaration of Independence (Cambridge, 1885) 17–21Google Scholar, Reprinted from the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, November, 1884, quoting letters from S. M. Hamilton and Theodore F. Dwight, Chief of Bureau of Rolls and Library, Department of State, describing the journals then in the custody of the Department of State.

10. 1 JCC, supra note 8 at 5, Prefatory Noted by Worthington Chauncey Ford.

11. 2 JCC, supra note 8 at 6–7, Prefatory Note by Worthington Chauncey Ford.

12. The Journals of the Proceedings of Congress. Held at Philadelphia, From January to May, 1776, published by Robert Aitken in Philadelphia. This is continuously paged and has title pages for January, February, and March, but none for April. In April, Aitken was ordered not to print more of this large-type edition in monthly parts, but to begin a new edition. See Evans, Charles, American Bibliography, 14 vols. (Chicago, Worcester, Mass., 1903–1955) 15145Google Scholar, (hereinafter cited as Evans and the number), and JCC Bibiographical Notes No. 143, 6 JCC, supra note 8 at 1128.

13. The Congress convened on September 5, so this was one of the first orders of business. The resolution establishing the rule was as follows:

Resolved, That the door be kept shut during the time of business, and that the members consider themselves under the strongest obligations of honor, to keep the proceedings secret, until the majority shall direct them to be made publick.

1 JCC, supra note 8 at 26.

14. 3 JCC, supra note 8 at 342–43.

15. The resolution bearing these signatures is in the manuscript papers of the Continental Congress in the National Archives.

16. John Morton, James Smith, and George Taylor of Pennsylvania; Philip Livingston of New York; and Richard Stockton of New Jersey.

17. On September 28, 1786, a motion was made ‘that the injunction of Secresy [sic] be taken off so far as to allow the delegates in Congress to communicate to the legislatures and executives of their several states’ acts passed and questions taken up in Congress respecting negotiations with Spain. The motion was defeated. 31 JCC, supra note 8 at 697.

18. Instead of the printed Dunlap Broadside, the Declaration is transcribed by hand, including the title but omitting the order and names at the end. Manuscript Corrected Journal at 639–46, National Archives, Record Group 360, Microcopy M247, Roll 16. Three words are omitted in the transcription: (1) The word ‘General’ in the clause ‘in General Congress assembled’ in the title; (2) The word ‘Armed’ in the clause, ‘For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us’; and (3) The word ‘of’ in the sentence, ‘They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity’.

It appears that the last two omissions were inadvertencies made in the copying, but that the first was a deliberate deletion. This conclusion results from comparing the Corrected Journal with the text as printed in the 1776 Printed Journal, and the text as copied by Jefferson for Madison in 1783. Boyd, Julian P., The Declaration of Independence: The Evolution of the Text as Shown in Facsimiles of Various Drafts by its Author, Thomas Jefferson, Facsimile VIII (Princeton, 1945)Google Scholar. The two omitted words, ‘armed’ and ‘of’ have been reinserted in both the Printed Journal and the copy Jefferson made for Madison, but the first omission remains. Indeed, Jefferson specifically marked the word ‘General’ as being one of ‘the parts struck out by Congress’.

19. For reasons shrouded in mystery, but related to Congress's flights from Philadelphia, two different printers printed Journals for 1776. The imprint bearing the date of 1777 was published in Philadelphia by R. Aitken and reprints a resolution of Congress of September 26, 1776, directing the Committee of Congress to employ Robert Aitken to reprint Journals. This is Evans at 15684 and JCC Bibliographical Note 144 (6 JCC, supra note 8 at 1128).

The other printing of this Journal, by John Dunlap at York-Town, bears a 1778 publication date, and prints a resolution of Congress of May 2, 1778, directing the committee superintending publication of the Journals ‘to employ John Dunlap to continue to print the said Journals, instead of Robert Aitken’. This is Evans at 15685 and 16137 (duplicate entries) and JCC Bibliograhical Note 145 (6 JCC, supra note 8 at 1128).

The first 417 pages, through signature G3, of these two Journals are made up of identical pages from the same press run. The remaining pages (97 in Aitken and 104 in Dunlap) are from different typesettings, but apparently from the same typeface.

20. The two omitted words, Armed and of, in the Corrected Journal are inserted, eleven ampersands are changed to and, spelling changes are made—independant to independent and connections to connexions. As in the Corrected Journal, the word General is omitted in the phrase ‘in General Congress assembled’. 1776 Printed Journal 241–45 (Aitken 1777 and Dunlap 1778).

21. See text infra at 193–94.

22. Burnett, Edmund C., ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress, 8 vols., (Washington, 1921) i, 535Google Scholar n. 4. (Hereinafter cited as Burnett, Letters.)

As a source Burnett cites, ‘Henkels, Catalogue, no. 1236, item 193’. The letter is now at the Delaware Historical Society, in the Rodney Collection. It is also in a letterbook in the Adams Papers. Adams's comments in this letter are directed primarily at the roles played by Caesar Rodney and Thomas McKean in the independency proceedings. He says that he is incapable of searching for books or dates, ‘and my memory may not be depended upon, but according to my recollection…’. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Adams's recollections of the larger events.

23. Edmund C. Burnett, ed., supra note 22 at 535 (no. 760).

24. See text infra at 193–94.

25. It makes no difference what ‘copy’ was sent to the printer for use in setting the type, it makes no sense giving a printer an ‘authenticated’ copy.

26. See note 22 supra.

27. 6 JCC, supra note 8 at 1082–83. Adams did not take any notes between May 10 and July 25.

28. The last entry minutes remarks made by Jefferson.

29. 6 JCC, supra note 8 at 1102–06.

30. This is Evans at 32655.

31. The earliest known draft of this letter, dated August 4, 1796, is in the Emmett Collection, No. 1537, New York Public Library. It is printed in Hazelton, John H., The Declaration of Independence: Its History (New York, 1906) 299–301Google Scholar. McKean's copy of the letter sent to Dallas, dated September 26, 1796, is in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania and is printed in Edmund C. Burnett, ed., supra note 22 at ii, 533–34. Dallas's extract is printed in Volume I of the Laws (Philadelphia, 1797) in the Appendix at 54 as footnote x.

32. This is Evans at 17656.

33. ‘The manuscript public journal has no names annexed to the Declaration of Independence, nor has the secret journal; but it appears by the latter, that on the 19th day of July, 1776, the Congress directed that it should be engrossed on parchment, and signed by every member, and that it was so produced on the 2d of August and signed.’ I Dallas, Appendix 54, n. x (1797). The Secret Journal not only does not have any names annexed to the Declaration, it does not have the text of the Declaration. McKean never does say in this letter when he signed the Declaration.

34. Force, Peter in American Archives, Fifth Series, 3 vols. (Washington, 1846) i (1584 and 1597Google Scholar) the entries printed, from the Corrected Journal, but since Force did not give his sources this was ignored or little noticed.

35. Mellen Chamberlain, supra note 9 at 23. (Emphasis added.)

36. Referring to the Rough Journal he wrote, ‘This is the true Journal of Congress for the 4th of July…’.

‘Now compare this with the spurious printed Journal, and the falsity of the latter clearly appears.’ Ibid. at 18n.

37. 7 JCC, supra note 8 at 48.

38. It appears that the compositor did not understand the order of signing, that is, by states from North to South, and across the sheet from right to left. In setting forth the names of the Goddard Broadside, the printer moved from left to right, reducing the number of columns of signatures from six to four. In doing this the order of the states became mixed up.

39. Hazelton lists copies in the state depositories of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maryland, and four in libraries, all apparently being duly authenticated copies. John H. Hazelton, supra note 31 at 581–82 n.l. See also 489–90 n.21 for New York.

The Journal of the House of the Colony of New Hampshire has the Declaration recorded in red ink in something of a mix of both the Dunlap and Goddard Broadsides. Documents and Records Relating to the State of New Hampshire 31 vols. (Concord, N.H., 1874) viii, 200–03Google Scholar.

40. Smith, Paul H., ed., Letters of Delegates to Congress 1774–1789, 8 vols. to date (Washington, 1980) vi, 171Google Scholar (hereinafter cited as Delegates Letters).

41. Letter of June 8, 1776, Ibid. at iv, 171; Letters of July 2, Ibid. at iv, 371–72 and 373. In response to the June 8 letter the Provincial Congress told the delegates that it was ‘unanimously of opinion that you are not authorized by your instructions to give the sense of this colony on the question of declaring it to be, and continue, an independent State; nor does this Congress incline to instruct you on that point…’. John H. Hazelton, supra note 31 at 184 and Delegates Letters, supra note 40 at iv, 171 n. 1. The Provincial Congress, being adjourned when it received the July 2 letter, never answered it.

42. 5 JCC, supra note 8 at 560.

43. In his letter of May 12, 1819, to Samuel A. Wells, Jefferson said, ‘New York did not sign till the 15th, because it was not till the 9th, (five days after the general signature) that their Convention authorised them to do so’. Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 4 vols., (Charlottesville, 1829) i, 98–99Google Scholar.

44. The copy is in the New York Public Library. The identification was made by Paul Leicester Ford. Hazelton expressed some doubt as to whether the handwriting is that of Charles Thomson and says that if so, it was ‘evidently written by him when advanced in years’. John H. Hazelton, supra note 31 at 208.

45. The first three attended Congress on both July 4 and August 2. But General Lewis Morris was not in attendance on either July 4 or August 2. Morris, a member of the Provincial Congress of New York, attended its sessions in White Plains from July 9, the day it convened, until the morning of July 11, and then again from July 22 until after August 2. Journals of the Provincial Congress 2 vols, (Albany, New York, 1842) iGoogle Scholar, passim. He was absent from July 11 until July 22. Although this is not mentioned in the records, it is probable that Lewis Morris went to Philadelphia for the purpose of delivering the New York resolution adhering to the Declaration and to confer with the Board of War on military matters. This view of events is supported by Joseph Alsop's letter of resignation from the New York delegation, dated July 16, in which he protested New York's having notified the President of Congress directly of its action, instead of following: ‘The usual method, hitherto practised … to give their Delegates instructions to act and vote upon all and any important questions’. Delegates Letters, supra note 40 at iv, 466–67.

46. Rowland, Kate Mason, The Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton 1737–1832 2 vols. (New York, 1898) ii, 341Google Scholar. Niles' Weekly Register August 5, 1826 at 394, published in Baltimore, reported that Charles Carroll told an inquirer ‘that upon the first day of his taking his seat he signed the declaration’.

47. 5 JCC, supra note 8 at 574.

48. Thomas McKean said that George Read and Robert Morris voted against the resolution of independency. He says that on the 4th George Read voted against the Declaration and that Robert Morris was not present. Letter of June 16, 1817, to Messrs. William M'Corkle and Son, Nies' Weekly Register, June 28, 1817 at 279.

Robert Morris's letter of July 21 to Joseph Reed shows a continuing opposition to independence, but also foreshadows his signing on August 2. Delegates Letters, supra note 40 at iv, 511.

49. Edward Rutledge's letter of June 29 to John Jay shows that at the time he was opposed to independence. Delegates Letters, supra note 40 at iv, 337. Since it is doubtful that he would have had a change of heart by July 4, the conclusion is reached here that he did not sign on July 4. The conclusion that Arthur Middleton also did not sign is based on the appearance of the signatures on the Declaration. In signing, Rutledge appears to have left sufficient space for Middleton, who was next in precedence according to the credentials, to sign. Middleton, who had a bold signature, did not use the space, but signed at the bottom instead. If they both signed at the same time, in light of Rutledge's opposition to independence, the inference is that Middleton did not sign until August 2.

This view, that they probably acted in concert, is strengthened by the fact that they were brothers-in-law, close friends and in the early 1780's corresponded about public affairs. ‘Correspondence of Hon. Arthur Middleton’, South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine xxvii, (1926) 1Google Scholar.

50. Jefferson wrote Wells in his letter of May 12, 1819: ‘The Convention of Pennsylvania, learning that it had been signed by a minority only of their delegates, named a new delegation on the 20th…’. Thomas Jefferson Randolph, supra note 43 at 99.

51. 6 JCC, supra note 8 at 920.

52. It is not clear whether his vote was for the resolution of independency on July 2, or the report of the Committee of the Whole on July 3, or on that report in Congress, or on agreeing to the Declaration on July 4, or on all of these actions.

53. Correspondence Between John Adams and Mercy Warren, (New York, 1972Google Scholar) reprinted from Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Fifth Series) 10 vols., (Boston, 1878) iv, 505–07Google Scholar.

The McKean letter to Adams was printed in Niles' Weekly Register, July 12, 1817, at 307–08, but Adams's covering letter to Mercy Otis Warren was not published until 1878.

54. Edmund C. Burnett, ed., supra note 22 at i, at 536 (no. 760).

55. Ibid. at n.4.

56. Edmund C. Burnett, ed., supra note 22 at ii, vl–vli has an extensive note on McKean's attendance during this period. See also Coleman, John M., Thomas McKean: Forgotten Leader of the Revolution (Rockway, 1975) 180 and 279–80 n.314Google Scholar.

57. The Journals of Congress show that he was appointed to a committee consisting of one member from each state on September 25 and to a three-man committee to consider some New York resolutions relating to General Schuyler on September 27. 5 JCC, supra note 8 at 821–22 and 831. Inasmuch as both of these committees were named to deal with business of a military nature, it could be that McKean was appointed even though he was not attending the Continental Congress. Edmund C. Burnett, ed., supra note 22 at ii, xli also says his name is appended to a letter of a secret committee dated October 13. October 13 was a Sunday so again some doubt can be expressed as to whether this shows actual attendance.

58. The Editors of Delegates Letters, supra note 40 at vi, in describing the Goddard Broadside say ‘[T]his broadside is also marked by one other distinguishing characteristic—the still unexplained omission of the name of Thomas McKean of Delaware, which is probably the result of nothing more portentous than an oversight by the printer’. Ibid. at xxiii. The Editors attach no significance to the fact that this is an authenticated document, and if there had been any oversight by the printer in omitting McKean's name, it would have been corrected before Hancock would have declared this to be ‘A True Copy’.

59. ‘On July 28, 1777, the Supreme Executive Council offered the Chief Justiceship of Pennsylvania to McKean, who forthwith accepted it.’ John M. Coleman, supra note 56 at 211. ‘McKean managed to reach Delaware on September 20, immediately taking over as acting President.’ Ibid. at 217.

60. Edmund C. Burnett, ed., supra note 22 at ii, vli.

61. 20 JCC 733 and 21 JCC 1061–71 and 1100.

62. 3 Stat. 415.

63. 3 Stat. 609.

64. The Washington National Intelligencer, June 5, 1823, said that ‘after a labor of three years’ Stone had completed a facsimile of the Declaration. David Mearns, ‘The Declaration of Independence: The Story of a Parchment’, reprinted from the Annual Report of the Librarian of Congress for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1949.

65. Domestic Letters of the State Department, quoted in Letter dated 8 August 1985 from Milton O. Gustafson, Chief, Diplomatic Branch, Civil Archives Division, National Archives, to author.

66. I Annals of Congress, 18th Cong., 1st. Sess. 915.

67. 4 Stat. 78.

68. He died August 16, 1824. John H. Hazelton, supra note 31 at 208.

69. The text of John Quincy Adams's letter to Charles Carroll is published in Goodrich, Charles A., Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence (New York, 1829) 361–62Google Scholar; the letter to Jefferson is in the Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress. Jefferson's letter of acknowledgment is printed in Lipscomb, Andrew A., ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, 1905) xix, 278Google Scholar. The letter to John Adams is in The Adams Papers. Celeste Walker, Assistant Editor, has kindly supplied me with a photocopy and says that the Papers have no record of an acknowledgment by John Adams.

70. Webster, Daniel, A Discourse In Commemoration of the Lives and Services of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, Delivered in Faneuil Hall, Boston, August 2, 1826 (Boston, 1826) 31–32Google Scholar. the City Council ordered 7,000 copies printed for distribution. In this Discourse, Webster created an imaginary speech of John Adams, speaking in favor of the resolution of independency. Thereafter, Webster frequently had to deny that it was the actual speech that John Adams delivered. This imaginary speech found its way into books, including schoolbooks, as a model of eloquence.

71. The very last action was dictated by the military situation. Congress directed the Secret Committee to sell 25 1b. of powder to John Garrison of North Carolina. 5 JCC, supra note 8 at 518.

72. 5 JCC, supra note 8 at 517–18.

73. On July 9, Adams wrote to Samuel Chase:

As soon as an American Seal is prepared, I conjecture the Declaration will be Subscribed by all the Members, which will give you the opportunity you wish for, of transmitting your Name, among the Votaries of Independence.

Delegates Letters, supra note 40 at iv, 414.

The first letter has been read as evidence that the Declaration was not first signed until August 2. This is a tenable interpretation only if it is assumed that the Declaration had not previously been signed by Adams. If first signed on July 4, then this letter clearly means that Adams is telling Chase that Chase will have an opportunity to sign, and not that both Adams and Chase will have the opportunity. Adams says you and not we.

74. Delegates Letters, supra note 40 at iv, 678–79.

75. 5 JCC, supra note 8 at 689.

76. 5 JCC, supra note 8 at 691.

77. 22 JCC, supra note 8 at 338–40.

78. ‘The Great Seal of the United States’, Prologue xvi (1984) 189Google Scholar. Charles Thomson produced the design that provided the basis for the one finally adopted. This design by Thomson has the thirteen stars at the top, with one positioned so assymetically that it appears to have been added later. Ibid. at 188.

79. Elbridge Gerry left Philadelphia on July 16. Edmund C. Burnett, ed., supra note 22 at ii, lii. Lewis Morris was about to leave. See note 45, supra. Neither Elbridge Gerry nor Lewis Morris was in Philadelphia on August 2 so as to have been able to sign on that date.

80. Act of 27 Hen. 8, ch. 11 (1535). This Act has several references to writings being ‘passed under any his Grace's great seals of England’ or ‘passed under any King's said seals’. Pollock and Maitland say, ‘very little was done by the king that was not done by a document bearing the great seal; it was “the key of the kingdom”’. Pollock, Frederick and Maitland, Frederick WilliamThe History of English Law 2 vols. (Cambridge, Eng., 1895) i, 194Google Scholar. Lord Campbell says, ‘letters patent ought always to state the authority under which they have passed the Great Seal’ and ‘to guard against grants improperly passing under the Great Seal, an ordinance was made in 1443’. Campbell, Lord, Lives of The Lord Chancellors and Keepers of the Great Seal of England 12 vols. (Jersey City, 1880) i, 22Google Scholar.

81. This a is found inserted in one copy of the Dunlap Broadside. See no. 7 at 32–33 in Goff, Frederick R., ed., The Dunlap Broadside (Washington, 1976)Google Scholar.

This is the subject of a forthcoming article by the author, ‘From the Here of Jefferson's Handwritten Rough Draft of the Declaration of Independence To the There of the Printed Dunlap Broadside’.