Back More
Salem Press

Table of Contents

Continental Congresses

The Committee of Fifty

This association was established on 16 May 1774 by politicians in the colony of New York to protest the Boston Port Bill and other harsh economic measures enacted against Massachusetts by the British Parliament. Out of this committee came a call for a convention of delegates from all of the colonies to meet and discuss what should be done with relation to relations with London—a meeting that would become the First Continental Congress.

The “Committee of Fifty” found its birth in the first weeks of 1774, when secret Committees of Correspondence sent notes around to other colonies from New York to see what could be done against the British economic policies. On 20 January 1774, in New York, the first Committee of Correspondence was established with the name of the Committee of Thirteen, although that did not last. One of the major personages behind the establishment of the Committee of Fifty was John Jay. Historian Henry Flanders, writing a biography of Jay, penned in 1875:

When intelligence of the passage of the Boston Port Bill reached New York, a letter was immediately despatched to the Boston Committee of Correspondence by Isaac Seats, “a creature of much spirit and public virtue,” and that bold, ardent, sincere, and indefatigable champion of the popular cause, Alexander McDougall, recommending the most vigorous measures as the most effectual and assuring them of the sympathy and support of the people of New York. This letter added that a public meeting would be called to give effect to their sentiments. A publication was accordingly issued, calling upon the citizens of New York to meet and consult on the measures proper to be pursued in consequence of the late extraordinary and very alarming advices received from England. The meeting was held on the 16th day of May, 1774. The result of its deliberations was the appointment of a Committee of Fifty, to correspond with the other colonies on all matters of moment. [1]

The newspaper The Pennsylvania Packett reported from New York, 19 May 1774, “Yesterday evening there was a numerous meeting of the merchants in this city, at the house of Mr. Budin [?]. The inhabitants of Salem have declared, that they will not sell, or let an house or lodgings to any person that may removed [sic] thither, in consequence of the passing of the Boston Port Act, they being determined to show their distressed brethren in the capital city, every possible mark of their sincere sympathy.” A letter was then drafted by the members of the Committee of Fifty, which was read to the group and then sent out for publication:

TO THE PUBLIC.

An advertisement having appeared in the Coffee-House, in consequence of the late extraordinary and very alarming advices received from England, inviting the merchants to meet at the house of Mr. Samuel Francis, on Monday evening last, in order to consult on measures proper to be pursued on the present critical and important occasion.

A very respectable and large number of the merchants and other inhabitants did accordingly appear at the time and place appointed, and then and there nominated, for the approbation of the public, a committee of fifty persons, of which, fifteen to be a sufficient number to do business.

That therefore no formality may be wanting to constitute a committee duly chosen: the inhabitants of this city and county are requested to attend at the Coffee-House THIS DAY, at one o’clock, to approve of the Committee nominated as aforesaid, or to appoint such other persons as in their discretions and wisdom may seem meet.

Tuesday[,] May 17. [2]

Columbia University in New York City holds the papers of John Jay, which includes “lists of those in attendance and business contracted.” The documents show that a Committee of Fifty was established on 16 May 1774, with “Jay [as] a member. [James] Duane, Jay and Van Schaack drew up the rules. Jay, [Peter] Van Schaack, Francis Lewis, Alexander McDougall, and Thomas Bache were a committee to write a circular letter to the supervisors of various counties telling them of the committee.” [3]

There is much historical controversy over the true name of this committee—some sources call it a “Committee of Fifty,” while others call it a “Committee of Fifty-One.” You have seen one instance above where the term “Committee of Fifty” was utilized; in a New York newspaper report, 23 June 1774, the latter term is used:

NEW-YORK, June 23.

Mr. Holt,

It was with great satisfaction that I some time since read a copy of the letter wrote by our respectable Committee of fifty one [sic], to the Committee of the town of Boston.—The moderation, spirit, and prudence conspicuous throughout the whole of it, reflect honour upon the Committee, and render it highly expedient that the inhabitants of this city and country should be acquainted with its contents. I have long waited for its publication, but finding no probability of its coming out, I think it of such importance, that the public should know what has been so sensibly done for them, that I must request you would give it a place in your next paper. The following is an exact copy page [of] it. I hope no improper considerations will induce you to suppress sentiments which I have a right to publish and in which every citizen with wishes well to the cause of America must feel himself interested.

A Citizen, and no Member of the Committee. [4]

The differences in the usage of the two terms may be pure semantics, or there might be real substance to two differing names for such an important group. In a work by Jay’s son, William Jay, published in 1833, it was stated, “The passage of the Boston Port Bill, on the 31st of March, 1774, disclosed to the American people the vindictive feelings of the British ministry, and taught them that a prompt and vigorous resistance to oppression [ ] alone preserve their total freedom. The news of this act excited universal alarm. A meeting of the citizens of New-York as assembled on the 16th of May, to ‘consult on the measures proper to be pursued in consequence of the late extraordinary advices received from England.’ The meeting nominated a committee of fifty ‘to correspond with out sister colony on all matters of moment.’” [5]

However, historian Joseph Tiedemann, in a history of New York on the eve of the American Revolution, wrote:

A few blocks farther up Dock Street was Hanover Square, where Hugh Gaine printed his New York Mercury and where James Rivington would print his loyalist Rivington’s New York Gazetteer in the 1770s. If the area was not as exclusive as Bowling Green, its residents were nonetheless politically active. Here lived Theophylact Bache, an Anglican dry-goods merchant, charter member of the Chamber of Commerce and member of the Committee of Fifty-One, which was formed in May 1774 in reaction to the Coercive Acts. So too did Abram Duryee, a Dutch Reformed dealer in dry goods, paints, and oils, who was also on the Committee of Fifty-One; and Samuel Broome, a Presbyterian cutlery merchant, who served on the Committee of One Hundred, which was created in May 1775 after the battles at Lexington and Concord. [6]

Historian John Austin Stevens wrote in The Galaxy magazine in 1876, “The New York delegation to this [Continental] Congress was nominated by the famous Committee of correspondence of Fifty-One, and their nomination [was] later ratified by a unanimous vote of the freeholders of the city. They were Phillip Livingston, John Alsop, Isaac Low, James Duane, and John Jay, three merchants and two lawyers.” [7]

The impact of the Committee of Fifty—or, if we wish to call it, the Committee of Fifty-One—was short, but extremely critical to the history of America. The Boston Port Bill had pushed these merchants in New York City into action; their clarion call for a meeting of delegates from all of the colonies grew into the First Continental Congress. The American Revolution had already begun.

[1] [1] Flanders, Henry, “The Lives and Times of the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States” (New York: James Cockcroft & Company; two volumes, 1875), I:50-51.

[2] [2] “New-York, May 19,” Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet, or General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 23 May 1774, 3.

[3] [3] See “The Papers of John Jay,” courtesy of Columbia University; this specific document’s URL is http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/search?mode=search&action=search&match=all&p=1&aut=&submit=Search&recip=&keywd=&rep=&jayid=&y1=1774&m1= 05&d1=15&y2=1774&m2=05&d2=20&sort=date&resPerPage=25; while the document can be viewed online.

[4] [4] “New-York, June 23” The New-York Journal, Or, the General Advertiser, 23 June 1774, 3.

[5] [5] Jay, William, “The Life of John Jay: With Selections From His Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers. By His Son, William Jay” (New York: Printed and Published by J. & J. Harper; two volumes, 1833), I:24.

[6] [6] Tiedemann, Joseph S., “Reluctant Revolutionaries: New York City and the Road to Independence, 1763-1776” (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997), 21.

[7] [7] Stevens, John Austin, “New York In the Continental Congress,” The Galaxy, XXII:2 (August 1776), 151.

Citation Types

MLA 9th
"The Committee Of Fifty." Continental Congresses, edited by Mark Grossman, Salem Press, 2016. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=Cong_0076.
APA 7th
The Committee of Fifty. Continental Congresses, In M. Grossman (Ed.), Salem Press, 2016. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=Cong_0076.
CMOS 17th
"The Committee Of Fifty." Continental Congresses, Edited by Mark Grossman. Salem Press, 2016. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=Cong_0076.