1 A complete draft of the "Rights of the Colonists," in the handwriting of Adams, is in the Committee of Correspondence Papers, Lenox Library; in the same collection is a copy of the "List of Violations," said to be in the handwriting of William Eustis, a medical student under Joseph Warren; also in the same collection is a draft of the " Letter of Correspondence," with corrections in the autograph of Adams. The preface to the English edition of the "Rights of the Colonists" is printed in J. Bigelow, Complete Works of Benjamin Franklin, vol. iv., pp. 542-548, and in the Boston Gazette, May 3, 1773. 2 In the Committee of Correspondence Papers, Lenox Library, is the original warrant for this town meeting, with the original return thereon signed by the twelve constables of the town. The collection also contains the rough draft minutes of the meeting, made by the town clerk, William Cooper. 3 See Locks Letters on Toleration. 4 A Government within a Government- 5 So printed. The draft and pamphlet edition read "clearly." 6 See x. Wm. and Mary. St. 2. C. 18 - and Massachusetts Charter. 7 Lord Cokes Im.2 Blackstone, Commentaries - Vol. 1st, Page 122. 2 So printed. The draft and pamphlet edition read "Inst." 8 See Lock and Vatel - 9 Locke on Government. Salus Populi Suprema Lex esto - 10 Locke - 11 So printed. The draft and pamphlet edition read "member." 12 See the Act of the last Session, relating to the Kings Dock Yards - 13 So printed. The draft and pamphlet edition read "than." 14 So printed. Corrected by Adams in the draft to read “that.” 15 Prepared by a committee consisting of Adams, Joseph Warren and Benjamin Church. The text is in Boston Record Commissioners' Report, vol. xviii., p. 89. 16 The text is in ibid., p. 90. 17 Prepared by a committee consisting of Adams, James Otis and Thomas Cushing. The text is in ibid., p. 91. 18 The text is in ibid., p. 92. 19 The four papers mentioned in the “Letter of Correspondence" are included in the pamphlet edition of the three principal documents printed by order of the town for distribution among the other towns of the province. (Cf. Boston Record Commissioners' Report, vol. xviii., p. 94.) The title page of the pamphlet edition was as follows: The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, In Town Meeting Assembled, According to Law. [Published by Order of the Town.] To which is prefixed, as Introductory, An attested Copy of a Vote of the Town at a preceeding Meeting. Boston: Printed by Edes and Gill, in Queen Street, and T. and J. Fleet, in Cornhill. For a claim that the "Letter of Correspondence" was written by Benjamin Church, see R. Frothingham, Life of Joseph Warren, p. 206. As to the "Rights of the Colonists," see also W. V. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, vol. i., p. 501. In addition to the complete draft, a preliminary draft, or outline of topics, of the " Rights" is in the Samuel Adams Papers.
ARTICLE SIGNED "VINDEX."
[Boston Gazette, November 30, I772.1]
MR. A—N D——-s.
SIR,
The weakness of an adversary with a man of understanding will frequently disarm him of his resentment: Who would chuse to enter the lists, when even victory is attended with disgrace? A—n D—s as a Hockster of small Wares, within the Bar-room; or laudably vending Milk and Water, might have grubbed on unnoticed, and not superlatively contemptible; but when he so far mistakes his proper department, as to blunder into the field of politicks, and assume a dictatorial and offensive part, we are compelled with reluctance to scourge the insect, tho' convinced 'tis but an insect still. We are informed by your fellow townsman, whom we presume must know you well, that you are destitute of feeling; your unexampled effrontery in the publick transaction which has unhappily brought you into notice, added to the consummate assurance evidenced in the stupid composition to which you have tacked your name, are strong circumstances in favour of this position But is your modesty truly impregnable? cannot the weapon of stern rebuke arouse your sensibility? must honest indignation mourn a defeat? I intend to try the doubtful experiment, tho' you should analize a satyr to be a proof of your general consequence, and extract incense to your vanity from the blackest records of your shame.
In your courageous zeal for the cause of christianity, and the Virgin Mary, permit me to question your sincerity: It is evident from your notable performance, that you have been acquainted with the religious principles and immoral practices of the gentleman so very exceptionable to you; for some years past: That he was then as thorough-paced an infidel as virulent an opposer of our holy religion, as he is now: That he was doing discredit to the Bible then, or to adopt your own phrase, was undeceiving mankind as actively as at any time since: That you was acquainted with the open profanity of his conversation, and if we may take your word for it, was an earwitness of his oaths and execrations: Why did you not commence a champion in the cause of christianity some months earlier? it would have had a better appearance, if in your ebullient zeal you had endeavoured to prevent his disseminating such mischievous principles, and seasonably entered your caveat against the pernicious effects of his example. But the cause of christianity abstracted from political concerns, was not sufficient to awaken your resentment: Will not this my dear sir! occasion suspicions, that all your flaming professions of patriotism will neither discredit nor remove?
Doctor Young (I dare you to contradict me) has ever been an unwearied assertor of the rights of his countrymen: has taken the post of hazard, and acted vigorously in the cause of American freedom: Such endeavours and exertions, have justly entitled him to the notice, to the confidence of the people; they, from a thorough conviction of his political integrity have united him with several gentlemen, against whom we presume you can have no just exception, to explain their rights and state their grievances; was not your conscience so delicately offensible, I would ask such an immaculate christian, whether your ideas of reprobation extended not only to the whole committee, but to every transaction in which they could possibly be employed? If not, are you not ashamed of your capricious folly, in rejecting a cause which you profess to have at heart, for the sake of an individual, against whom, your spotless purity has matter of objection.
Shall I be arraigned for want of charity, if I here express my doubt of your veracity in this matter? The cloak of christianity is the threadbare garb of hypocrisy; and novel cover for political apostates: I suspect 't is the cause that renders the man obnoxious; the infidel might have perverted the world, and your zeal been smothered in its native bosom of sanctity: in short, had not the cause of liberty found a busy advocate in the man you brand with irreligion, your abhorrence would probably never have found a tongue.
You do not chuse to have any thing to do with measures wherein you must follow the lead of such men as Dr. Young: I apprehend you confine yourself here to political matters; if so, what must those rejected measures be? if just, right and reasonable, the man must be an incorrigible blockhead to reject them, let them originate where they will: if on the contrary, they are improper and exceptionable; you might have discountenanced the measure, without villifying the man.
Inconsiderable and weak as I esteem you, you have still an interest in the constitutional claims of an English subject, equal to a nobleman, equal to an intelligent being: these you have no right to sacrifice even to your own predominant folly. You assert that you are, and ever have been as steady a friend to the rights and privileges of your country, as any man whatsoever, &c. what then is that exact point of difference, that chaste line of decorum, to which your love of your country will carry you, and no further? all those concerned in consulting and labouring for the redemption of their country, must be very exemplary christians, or your patriotism hangs so loosely about you, that your country may perish rather than you will unite for its salvation, with a man not compleatly orthodox: For no political measures can possibly be reasonable or just, which are not dictated by men of piety and real christianity: The truth of this observation will appear with peculiar lustre, when we consider what a paultry figure, those antient heathenish states of Greece and Rome made in the primitive ages. You elsewhere shrewdly remark, that it has always been astonishing to the world, how any important trusts came to be committed to Doctor Young; the best account that can be given for it, YOU BELIEVE is, that he has appeared ready to lead in such bold and exceptional measures, as rather savoured of faction, than boded any good to the public: which is in plain English, that because the measures he proposed, were dangerous and exceptionable, Therefore the town approved and confided in him. To wave the illiberal slander upon the town; I question, most christian sir! whether any article of Doctor Young's CREED will shock decency and common sense more than this.
The present crisis is truly an alarming one to your country; the few friends of the people have abundant necessity to have their hands strengthened: the man who deserts now, is the worst enemy of his country: You sir! have done this, with the aggravated guilt of endeavouring to load with obloquy the cause you abandon - I scorn to keep terms with a man I esteem so base - You have provided yourself a Retreat, being assured of the smiles of power; nay more, you are entitled to their favour, for the rank injury you meant to the oppressed people; and we shall probably see such baseness distinguished in the commissioned scroll of SCOUNDRELLS and RESCINDERS.
VINDEX.
1 The following note by the publishers is printed with this article: “Dr. Young's Letter to Mr. Aaron Davis, Jun. should have had a Place in this Day's Paper had we not been pre engaged with the following."
TO ARTHUR LEE.
[R. H. Lee, Life of Arthur Lee, vol. ii., pp. 196, 197.]
BOSTON, Nov. 31st, 1772.
MY DEAR SIR, - My last letter to you was of the 3d inst. I now enclose the proceedings of this town at a meeting appointed to receive the report of the committee, which is attested by the town-clerk, and published by order of the town.
Our enemies are taking all imaginable pains to disparage the proceedings, and prevent their having any effect in the country. They are particularly endeavouring to have it believed, that the vote was carried at a very thin meeting; and in the Court Gazette of last week have had the assurance to say, that there were not more than twenty persons present, and that not ten voted for it; whereas it was much such a meeting, or rather fuller than the last. The town of Roxbury, adjacent to this, have met, and against the efforts of the whole cabal have raised a committee of nine persons to take our proceedings into consideration, and report at an adjournment; having before voted the independency of the judges, "a most dangerous innovation." Plymouth, another large town, forty miles distant, has also met, but we have not yet heard what has been done there;1 from the spirit of the petitions to their selectmen for a meeting, among the enclosed papers, I hope to send you an agreeable account. Other towns are in motion of their accord, for our pamphlet is not yet sent into the country towns, Roxbury excepted. The conspirators are very sensible that if our design succeeds, there will be an apparent union of sentiments among the people of this province, which may spread through the continent. You cannot then wonder that their utmost skill is employed to oppose it.
I intended to have sent my last by Capt. Scott, but having failed in that design, I herewith enclose it. I am disappointed if I do not receive a letter from you by every vessel that arrives here. Be assured that I am with great esteem sir, your humble servant,
1 See below, page 394.
TO ELBRIDGE GERRY.
[J. T. Austin, Life of Elbridge Gerry, vol. 1., pp. 22, 23.]
BOSTON, Dec. 7, 1772.
MY DEAR SIR,
I have just received your's of the 26th November,1 and take the earliest opportunity to acknowledge it. I shall lay it before our committee as soon as may be. Hope you have had a happy meeting this day, and rest with esteem,
Sir, your friend,
Monday, 10 o'clock evening.
1 J. T. Austin, Life of Elbridge Gerry, vol. i., pp. 21, 22.
TO WILLIAM CHECKLEY.1
[MS., Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library.]
BOSTON Decr 14 1772
MY DEAR SR
I am at a Loss to determine in my own Mind whether a Letter from me will be agreable to you, as I have not receivd a Line from you since I wrote my last several Months ago. If any Consideration has brot you to a Resolution no longer to keep up an Epistolary Conversation with me, I must on my part cease; but while I remember former Connections, I shall never forget the only surviving Branch of a Family I loved, and shall make my self as happy as possible, in silently wishing the best Welfare of him whose Regards I think I have not forfeited.
It is not an easy thing at this time of my Life, to put me out of the possession of my self. I have been used to the alternate Frowns & Smiles of many who call themselves, & some of them in truth are my Friends. I bear it all with OEquanimity, infinitely better pleasd with the Approbation of my own mind, than I should be with the flatteries of the Great, & in the Sunshine of power. Those who love this Country, I have the Vanity to think are in Reality, my friends; for they must be convincd that the small Share of Ability which Gracious Heaven has been pleasd to bestow on me, has ever been employd for its Happiness. If I have mistaken its true Happiness (which by the Way I think I have not) it belongs to the Candid to overlook it; the Opinion of others I very little regard, & have a thorough Contempt for all men, be their Names Characters & Stations what they may, who appear to be the irreclaimable Enemies of Religion & Liberty. Had I not thought it would have been rather an Inconvenience to you, I should have sent you the last Week the Votes & proceedings of your native town; If I can be informd by you that it will not be disagreable, I will send you a printed Copy by the next post.
Altho I have already transgressd the Bounds of a Letter to so great a Stranger, yet having a warm friendship for Mrs Checkley, I cannot help desiring you to make mention of my own & my family regards to her. Having said this I must beg you to believe, whatever others may have whisperd to the Contrary, that I am Yours affectionately,
1 Addressed, "in the Customs, Providence." Cf. Literary Diary of Ezra Stiles, vol. i., p. 58.
ARTICLE SIGNED "CANDIDUS."
[Boston Gazette, December 14, 1772.]
To the PRINTERS,
NOTWITHSTANDING the ministerial Tools have so often puff'd upon the Impartiality of the Court Gazette, we have had a second Instance of the Necessity the Selectmen of this Town have thought themselves under to vindicate the Cause of Liberty & Truth, from the gross Misrepresentation of well known Facts that have been made in that immaculate Paper. If Mr. Draper had had the least Inclination to have ascertained the Falsehood of the Paragraph inserted in his Paper of the 26th of November, it was so notorious, that without giving the Selectmen the Trouble of it, he might have done it himself, by enquiring of perhaps the first honest Man he had met in the Street: But it was calculated to mislead the Reader into a Belief, that "not ten Persons voted for sending the Letter of Correspondence" into the Country, and therefore it must, to answer so good a Purpose, be inserted in that "circulating" Gazette, whether true or false; and the Publisher, very demurely, by Way of Atonement, after the Falsehood is detected, promises the injur'd Publick " to enquire into the Foundation of it."-!!!
In his last Gazette he informs his Readers that he had accordingly apply'd to his Author; who, he says, "does not deny the Number present" at the Meeting "as declared by the Selectmen when the first Vote pass'd." Now the Selectmen declare, "that a respectable Number of the Inhabitants attended the Meeting through the Day, and when the Letter, after being twice read and amended in the Meeting was voted, and accepted to be sent, it appeared to them, and they are well satisfied, that there was not less than three Hundred Inhabitants present, and in the Opinion of others the Number was much larger"; which is undoubtedly the Fact. But Mr. Draper's Author of the Note (if he had any) had said that "when the Votes pass'd for sending the letter, there was not twenty Men present besides the Gentlemen Selectmen & some of the Committee". The Contradiction appear'd so glaring even in Mr. Draper's eyes, as well as others, that after he had publish'd it to the World, he thought his own Reputation concern'd, as indeed it was, to enquire into the Foundation of the Report, which he ought to have done before. The Man of Verity his Author, makes a shift to tell him, that truly "it was a Vote that pass'd half an Hour after Nine o'Clock that he meant in his Note, when most of the Inhabitants had withdrawn"; but he does not now say what Vote he meant in his Note, though when he reported it "with some Confidence" he plumply said it was the Vote for sending the Letter. The Man who is resolv'd to serve a Party at the expence of Truth, should have the best of Memories; the want of which has render'd the Court Writers oftentimes inconsistent with themselves and with each other. But what else are we to expect from Champions of a Cause which has only the feeble Props of Misrepresentation and low Artifice to support it! As this Author reported according to Draper with some Confidence, he ought to have inform'd himself of a known Fact, that the question debated at half an Hour after Nine o'Clock, as he now says, or at about Ten as he had asserted in his Note, was not whether the Letter should be sent to the Selectmen of the Towns in the Country; - That had been determin'd by a full Vote Nem. Con. before "most of the Inhabitants had withdrawn ". It was after this Vote had pass'd, and when it is allow'd the Meeting was thin, a Question of much less Importance than the other was debated, viz. In what Manner the Letter should be sent; upon which it was agreed that the Town-Clerk should sign and forward it by the Direction of the Committee.1 Accordingly, I am well assured, it has been forwarded to four fifths of the Gentlemen Selectmen in the Country, the representatives of the several Towns, the Members of his Majesty's Council and others of Note, by the Direction of the Committee, in Pursuance of the Vote of the Town, with less Expence for Carriage than two Dollars. I have a better Opinion of the good Sense of the People of this Country, than to believe they will be diverted from an Attention to Matters which essentially concern their own and their Childrens best Birthrights, and which every Day become more serious and alarming, by the Trifles that are every Week thrown out perhaps with that very Design in the Court Gazette more especially. The Ax is laid at the Root of our happy civil Constitution: Our religious Rights are threatned: These important Matters are the Subjects of the Letter of this Town to our Friends and Fellow Sufferers in the Country. Whether there were present at the Meeting three Hundred or three Thousand, it was a legal Meeting: As legal as a Meeting of the General Assembly convened by the King's Writ or a Meeting of his Majesty's Council summoned by his Excellency the Governor: This I say with due respect to those great Assemblies. The Selectmen, among whom is the honorable Gentleman who was Moderator2 of the Meeting, have condescended to publish it under their Hands, that "a very respectable Number attended the Meeting through the Day":-If it had been as thin a Meeting as Mr. Draper's Writers would fain have the Country think it was, still, being a legal Meeting, their proceedings according to the Warrant for calling it, would have been as legal as those of his Majesty's Council when seven Gentlemen only (which Number by the Charter constitutes a Quorum) out of their whole Number, Twenty-Eight, happen to be present. If the Generality of my Countrymen shall think those Proceedings to be of any Importance to them, and shall act upon them with their own good Sense and Understanding, I care not who concern themselves in adjusting the private, moral or religious Characters of Dr. Young and the Lieutenant Governor. The part which each of these Gentlemen has acted upon the political Stage is well known.
I would just observe to Mr. Draper, that the Name of the Gentleman who furnish'd him with the Note before refer'd to, is perhaps not so deep a Secret as he may imagine it to be. It may be, he had then no thought that a Story inadvertently told, would have been immediately work'd up by the Press: This however has been done, and the Publick has been thereby abused: It should make one cautious not too suddenly to communicate any Piece of Intelligence, especially of Importance, and still more especially of political Importance, to one whose Business it is to publish what he hears. Mr. Draper may flatter himself that "the Credit of his Paper has not yet suffered": It is sometimes not an easy thing, to perswade a Man to believe that to be true, which he wishes may not be true: It must needs be difficult to establish in the minds of impartial Men, the Reputation of a Paper, the Publisher of which (to use the mild, very mild Expressions of the Selectmen) "has suffered ", it may be said repeatedly, "what was so different from the fact to be inserted," before he "had Opportunity to be very particular in his Inquiries about it; especially as it was a Matter, by his own Concession, so interesting to the People in the Country, as that "they ought to be satisfied whether the Report be true or false". This, we hope, by the Interposition of the Selectmen is now done; and it was the more necessary, because the same Gentleman who furnished Mr. Draper with the Note, as he calls it, had related the story which is now detected, to a Person going, and since gone into a distant Country in this Province.
Whether Mr. Draper in the Conclusion of what he inserted in his last, sign'd the Printer, had an Intention obliquely to reflect on the Honor of the Selectmen, those Gentlemen, if they please will consider.
CANDIDUS.
1 Record commissioners' Report, vol. xviii., p. 94. 2 John Hancock, Esq;
TO ELBRIDGE GERRY.
[J. T. Austin, Life of Elbridge Gerry, vol. i., pp. 23-25.]
BOSTON, Dec. 23, 1772.
MY DEAR SIR,
The further proceedings of the truly patriotic town of Marblehead, together with your own esteemed favours of the 16th and 21st instant, came to my hand in due season, The proceedings I immediately communicated to our chairman; and from your hint that it was thought proper to suspend the publication, together with assurances of letters from some other towns speedily, we agreed also to suspend the calling a meeting of our committee, which however will be done soon. Agreeably to the intimations in your last I find in the Essex Gazette1 a, - what shall I call it? a disapprobation, to use their own term, signed by a few men, of the proceedings of a whole town. If "in fact there was but about twenty persons who voted at the meeting" and all the rest were against the measure, I wonder much that they did not follow the example of so eminent a person as the single dissentient and outvote you when they had it in their power. Or why could not the twenty-nine disapprobators have attended the meeting the second time and prevented your taking such measures from which they "are apprehensive the town will incur a great deal of public censure"? This would indeed have been meritorious. I am a stranger to most of the gentlemen who have thus signalized themselves; Mr. Mansfield I once thought a zealous whig, perhaps I was mistaken. After all, the whole seems to be but a weak effort; their third reason appears to me so excessively puerile, that I am surprised that gentlemen of character could deliberately set their hands to it.
Your last proceedings sent to us in manuscript are attested by the town clerk. I am sorry to observe that the printed copy in the Essex Gazelle is without his attestation, because an advantage may be made of it in our Court Gazette to lessen its credit and authority; to prevent which I intend the next Monday's papers shall have it from the manuscript unless (which I cannot much expect) I shall be otherwise advised by you.
I was thinking that you might turn the tables upon your disapprobating friends, by getting a much larger subscription from persons who were not at the meeting and approve of the proceedings. Whether it be prudent or worth while to try this method you must certainly be a better judge than I am.
The tools of power, little and great, are taking unwearied pains to prevent the meeting of the towns, but they do not succeed altogether to their wishes. I cannot help entertaining some sanguine hopes that the measures we have pursued will have a happy event.
1 Published at Salem, by S. and E. Hall.
TO DARIUS SESSIONS.1
[Ms., Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library.]
BOSTON Decr 28 1772
SIR
This day I had the Honor of receiving a Letter signd by yourself and other Gentlemen of Note in Providence. The Subject is weighty, & requires more of my Attention than a few Hours, to give you my digested Sentiments of it; neither have I yet had an Opportunity of advising with the few among my Acquaintances, whom I would chuse to consult upon a Matter, which in my Opinion may involve the Fate of America. This, I intend soon to do; and shall then, I hope, be able to communicate to you (before the Time you have set shall expire) such Thoughts, as in your Judgment, may perhaps be wise and salutary on so pressing an Occasion. Thus much however seems to me to be obvious at first View; that the whole Act of Parliament so far as it relates to the Colonies, & consequently the Commission which is founded upon it, is against the first Principles of Government and the English Constitution, Magna Charta & many other Acts of Parliament, declaratory of the Rights of the Subject; & therefore the Guardians of the Rights of the Subject will consider whether it be not their Duty, so far from giving the least Countenance to the Execution of it, to declare it, ipso Facto null & Void. This Commission seems to be substituted in the Room of a Grand Jury, which is one of the greatest Bulwarks of the Liberty of the Subject; instituted for the very Purpose of preventing Mischeife being done by false Accusers. By the Act of Parliament of the 25th of Ed. 3d (in the true Sense of the Words the best of Kings) it is establishd, that none shall be taken by Suggestion made to the King or his Council (which seems to me to be the present Point) unless it be by Indictment or Presentment of good & lawful People of the same Neighbourhood, where such Deeds be done - And, "if any thing be done against the same it shall be redressd & holden for none." But certain Persons proscribd in the Colony of Rhode Island, are to be taken without such Indictment or Presentment, & carried away from the Neighborhood where Deeds unlawful are suggested to the King to have been committed, & there put to answer contrary to that Law, which even so long ago was held to be the old Law of the Land. - One Reason given in the Act for taking away that accursed Court called the Star Chamber was, because all Matters examinable & determinable before that Court might have their due Punishment and Correction by the Common Law of the Land and in the ordinary Course of Justice elsewhere. But here seems to be a stopping of the ordinary Course of Justice; & by setting up a Court of Enquiry founded upon a Suggestion of evil Deeds made to the King & of certain Persons supposd to be concernd therein, Jurisdiction is given to others than the constituted ordinary Courts of Justice, & in a Way other than the ordinary Course of the Law, that is, an arbitrary Way to examine & draw into Question Matters & things which, by the Act for regulating the privy Council it is declared, that neither his Majesty nor his privy Council have or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power or Authority to do. In short, this Measure appears to me to be repugnant to the first Principles of natural Justice. The interrested Servants of the Crown, and some of them pensiond, perhaps byassd & corrupted being the constituted Judges, whether this or that Subject shall be put to answer for a supposd Offence against the Crown, & that in a distant Country, to their great Detriment & Danger of Life & Fortune, even if their Innocence shd be made to appear. What Man is safe from the malicious Prosecution of such Persons, unless it be the cringing Sycophant, and even he holds his Life and Property at their Mercy. It should awaken the American Colonies, which have been too long dozing upon the Brink of Ruin. It should again unite them in one Band. Had that Union which once happily subsisted been preservd, the Conspirators against our Common Rights would never have venturd such bold Attempts. It has ever been my Opinion, that an Attack upon the Liberties of one Colony is an Attack upon the Liberties of all; and therefore in this Instance all should be ready to yield Assistance to Rhode Island. But an Answer to the most material Part of your Letter must be referd, for the Reasons I have given, to another Opportunity. In the mean time I am with due Regards to the Gentlemen who have honord me with their Letter
Your assured Friend & very hbl Servt
1 Of Providence, R. I. Under date of December 25, 1772, Deputy Governor Sessions, Chief Justice Stephen Hopkins, John Cole, and Moses Brown had written to Adams with reference to the Gaspee affair and to Lord Dartmouth's letter to the Governor of Rhode Island of September 4, 1772. A copy is in S. A. Wells, Samuel Adams and the American Revolution, vol. i., pp. 363-365. A copy of a letter, under date of February 15, 1773, from Sessions, Hopkins, Cole, and Brown to Adams, acknowledging the receipt of three letters from Adams in response to their letter of December 25, 1772, is in ibid., pp. 370, 371. In this letter to Adams his correspondents comment as follows: "At or about the time we wrote you, we transmitted copies of the same to several gentlemen in North America, from the most of whom we have received answers, agreeing nearly in sentiments, with those you were pleased to communicate to us though no one has entered into a disquisition of the subject so fully and satisfactorily as you have." The original letter is also in the Lenox Library.
THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE OF BOSTON TO THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE OF CAMBRIDGE.1
[MS., Committee of Correspondence Papers, Lenox Library.]
BOSTON Decr 29 1772
GENTLEMEN
Your cordial Approbation2 of our sincere Endeavors for the Common Safety, affords us great Encouragement to persevere with Alacrity in the Execution of our Trust. Our hands have been abundantly strengthend by the generous and manly Resolves of our worthy Brethren in the several Towns who have hitherto acted.
Should such Sentiments, which we are convincd generally prevail through the province, be as generally expressd, it must refute the insidious misrepresentation so industriously propagated on both sides of the Atlantick, that the people have not Virtue enough to resist the Efforts made to enslave them! It affords us the greatest Satisfaction to find the Opportunity offerd to our Fellow Countrymen to wipe off so ignominious a Reproach so readily embraced. We trust in God, & in the Smiles of Heaven on the Justice of our Cause, that a Day is hastening, when the Efforts of the Colonists will be crownd with Success; and the present Generation furnish an Example of publick Virtue, worthy the Imitation of all Posterity. In this we are greatly encouraged, from the thorough Understanding of our civil & Religious Rights Liberties & Privileges, throughout this province: The Importance of which is so obvious, that we are satisfied, nothing we can offer, would strengthen your Sense of it.
It gives us Pleasure to be assured from you, that the meetings of the
Town of Cambridge on the Occasion have been so respectable; as, in our
Opinion, it is an Evidence of their virtuous Attachment to the Cause
of Liberty.
It shall be our constant Endeavor to collect and communicate to our esteemed fellow Countrymen every Interresting Information we can procure; in pursuance thereof we take the Liberty to inclose, a material Extract of a Letter from the Right Honorable the Earl of Dartmouth to his Honor the Governor of Rhode Island, Dated White Hall, Sept. 7 1772; which we have good reason to assure you is genuine.3
1 Addressed to "Capt Ebenezer Stedman & others, a Committee of Correspondence in Cambridge." 2 Boston Gazette, December 28, 1772. 3 The form of signature is "Signd by order of the Committee for Correspondence in Boston William Cooper, Clerk."
THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE OF BOSTON TO THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE OF PLYMOUTH.1
[MS., Committee of Correspondence Papers, Lenox Library.]
BOSTON Decr 29 1772
MUCH RESPECTE'D GENTLEMEN
We the Committee of Correspondence for the Town of Boston, have receivd your kind Letters inclosing the noble & patriotick Resolves of the Metropolis of the ancient Colony of Plymouth.
It must give singular Pleasure to the friends of this Country to find in all times of Difficulty & Danger, the worthy Inhabitants of Plymouth, [are] ready to assert the natural religious & civil Rights of the Colonists in general & of this by a new Charter united province in particular.
Your thorough knowledge of those Rights the Sense you have of the many late Infractions thereof, the manly & becoming Spirit with which you have always expressd your selves on such Occasions, must best appear without any Comment, from your Resolves for a number of years past; more especially your last which are before the publick Eye.
We heartily congratulate you on the return of that great Anniversary, the landing of the first Settlers at Plymouth, & on the religious & respectful Manner, in which it has been celebrated.
You may say without Vanity, and surely we may affirm without any such Imputation, that a handful of persecuted brave people, then made way for the extensive Settlement of New England: That had it not been for their Efforts, Virginia would have soon been abandoned: That the French who were then settled at Quebec; & the Dutch interloping in Hudsons River with the Assistance they might have derived from the Natives, and the Aid at all times ready to be afforded, by the Crown of Spain, then in possession of South America, against the Crown of England, would have availd themselves of all the Continent of North America. And that at this very period Great Britain might have thought herself well off, with such trifling Islands as are now in the possession of the Dane. In pursuance of our Instruction from this Town to communicate any new Infractions of our Rights & Liberties we inclose an Extract of a Letter from Lord Dartmouth to the Governor of Rhode Island & shall take the earliest Opportunity to advise you of every thing Important that may occur to us.
1 Addressed to "Joseph Warren Esq & others a Committee of Correspondence for the Town of Plymouth."
TO DARIUS SESSIONS.
[MS., Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library.]
BOSTON Jan 2 1773.
SIR,
I wrote you on Monday last acknowledging the Receipt of a Letter directed to me from your self & other worthy Gentlemen in Providence. The Question proposed was in what manner your Colony had best behave in this critical Situation & how the Shock that is coming upon it may be best evaded or sustaind. It appears to me probable that the Administration has a design to get your Charter vacated. The Execution of so extraordinary a Commission, unknown in your Charter & abhorrent to the principles of every free Government, wherein Persons are appointed to enquire into Offences committed against a Law of another Legislature, with the Power of transporting the persons they shall suspect beyond the Seas to be tryed, would essentially change your Constitution; and a Silence under such a Change would be construed a Submission to it. At the same time it must be considerd that an open declaration of the Assembly against the Appointment & order of the King, in which he is supported by an Act of the British Parliament, would be construed by the Law Servants of the Crown & other ministers such a Defiance of the Royal Authority, as they would advise proper to be recommended to the Consideration & Decision of Parliament. Should your Governor refuse to call the Commissioners together, or when called together, the civil magistrates refuse to take measures for arresting & committing to Custody such persons as upon Information made shall be chargd with being concernd in burning the Gaspee, or if they should issue their precepts for that purpose the Officers should refuse to execute them, the Event would be perhaps the same as in the Case of an open Declaration before mentiond, for in all these Cases it would be represented to the King & the parliament that it was to be attributed to what they will call the overbearing popularity of your Government, & the same pretence would be urgd for the Necessity of an Alteration in order to support the Kings Authority in the Colony. As the chiefe Object in the View of Administration seems to be the vacating your Charter, I cannot think the Commissioners in case they should meet together, would upon any of the aforementiond Occasions, chuse to call upon General Gage for the Aid of the Troops or make any more than the Shew of a Readiness to execute their Commission; for they might think the grand purpose would be sufficiently answerd without their Discussing such danger to their Reputation, if not their persons. If the foregoing Hypotheses are well grounded, I think it may be justly concluded that since the Constitution is already destined to suffer unavoidable Dissolution, an open & manly Determination of the Assembly not to consent to its ruin would show to the World & posterity that the people were virtuous though unfortunate, & sustaind the Shock with Dignity.
You will allow me to observe, that this is a Matter in which the whole American Continent is deeply concernd and a Submission of the Colony of Rhode Island to this enormous Claim of power would be made a Precedent for all the rest; they ought indeed to consider deeply their Interest in the Struggle of a single Colony & their Duty to afford her all practicable Aid. This last is a Consideration which I shall not fail to mention to my particular friends when our Assembly shall sit the next Week.
Should it be the determination of a weak Administration to push this
Measure to the utmost at all Events, and the Commissioners call in the
Aid of troops for that purpose it would be impossible for me to say
what might be the Consequence, Perhaps a most violent political
Earthquake through the whole British Empire if not its total
Destruction.
I have long feard that this unhappy Contest between Britain & America will end in Rivers of Blood; Should that be the Case, America I think may wash her hands in Innocence; yet it is the highest prudence to prevent if possible so dreadful a Calamity. Some such provocation as is now offerd to Rhode Island will in all probability be the immediate Occasion of it. Let us therefore consider whether in the present Case the Shock that is coming upon you may not be evaded which is a distinct part of the Question proposed. For this purpose, if your Governor should omit to call the Commissioners together, in Consequence of a representation made to him by the Assembly, that the Innovation appears to them of a most dangerous Tendency; and altogether needless, inasmuch as the same Enquiry might be made as effectually (and doubtless would be) by a Grand Jury, as is proposed to be made by the Commissioners; which would be agreable to the Constitution & in the ordinary Course of Justice. A representation of this kind made by the Assembly to the Governor, would afford him a reasonable plea for suspending the Matter till he could fully state the Matter to Lord Dartmouth & the odious light in which the Commission is viewd by that & the other Colonies as a measure incompatible with the English Constitution & the Rights of the Colonists together with the fatal Consequences of which it might probably be productive. This perhaps could not be done till the rising of Parliament, & before the next Session a war or some other important Event might take place which would bury this Affair in Oblivion. Or if it should ever come before Parliament in this Manner, the Delay on the part of the Governor would appear to be made upon motives of sound prudence & the best Advice which would tend to soften their Spirits. And besides, its appearing to be founded not directly on the principles of Opposition to the Authority of Parliament, the sacred Importance of Charters upon which many of the Members hold their Seats, might be considerd without prejudice, & the Matter might subside even in Parliament. Should that be the Case it would disappoint the designs & naturally abate the Rigour of Administration & so the Shock might be evaded.
If, without being called together by Governor Wanton who is first named, the rest of the Commissioners should meet upon the Business of their Commission, which I cannot suppose they will do, especially if the Governor should acquaint them with the Reason of his not calling them, it would show a forward Zeal to execute an order new arbitrary & universally odious, & how far that might justly insence the people against them personally, & lessen them in the Esteem of all judicious Men, they would do well calmly to consider; and how far also they would be answerable for the fatal Effects that might follow such a forwardnesss all the world and Posterity will judge: For such an Event as this will assuredly go down to future Ages in the page of History, & the Colony & all concernd in it will be characterizd by the part they shall act in the Tragedy. Upon the whole it is my humble Opinion, that the grand Purpose of Administration is either to intimidate the Colony into a Compliance with a Measure destructive of the freedom of their Constitution, or to provoke them to such a Step as shall give a pretext for the Vacation of their Charter which I should think must sound like Thunder in the Ears of Connecticutt especially. Whatever Measures the Wisdom of your Assembly may fix upon to evade the impending Stroke, I hope nothing will be done which may by the Invention of our Adversarys, be construed as even the Appearance of an Acquiescence in so grasping an Act of Tyranny.
Thus I have freely given my Sentiments upon the Question proposed; which I should not have venturd to do had it not been requested. I have done it with the greatest Diffidence because I think I am fully sensible of my Inability to enter into a Question of so delicate a Nature & great Importance especially as I have not had that opportunity to consult my friends which I promisd my self. I hope the Assembly of Rhode Island will in their Conduct exhibit an Example of true Wisdom Fortitude & Perseverance. And with the greatest Respect to the Gentlemen to whose superior Understanding this and my former Letter to you is submitted, I
remain Sir Your assured friend & humble servant
P.S. I beg just to propose for Consideration whether a circular Letr from your Assembly on this Occasion, to those of the other Colonies might not tend to the Advantage of the General Cause & of R Island in particular; I should think it would induce each of them, at least to injoyn their Agents in Great Britain to represent the Severity of your Case in the strongest terms.
To the Hon Darius Sessions Esqr to be communicated
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MASSACHUSETTS TO THE GOVERNOR. JANUARY 26, I773.1
[Massachusetts State Papers, pp. 351-364; also printed in the Boston
Gazette, February 1, 1773, and in The Speeches of His Excellency
Governor Hutchinson (Boston, 1773), pp. 33-58.]
May it please your Excellency,
Your Excellency's speech to the General Assembly, at the opening of this session,2 has been read with great attention in this House.
We fully agree with your Excellency, that our own happiness, as well as his Majesty's service, very much depends upon peace and order; and we shall at all times take such measures as are consistent with our constitution, and the rights of the people, to promote and maintain them. That the government at present is in a very disturbed state, is apparent. But we cannot ascribe it to the people's having adopted unconstitutional principles, which seems to be the cause assigned for it by your Excellency. It appears to us, to have been occasioned rather by the British House of Commons assuming and exercising a power inconsistent with the freedom of the constitution, to give and grant the property of the colonists, and appropriate the same without their consent.
It is needless for us to inquire what were the principles that induced the councils of the nation to so new and unprecedented a measure. But, when the Parliament, by an act of their own, expressly declared, that the King, Lords, and Commons, of the nation "have, and of right ought to have full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity, to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatever," and in consequence hereof, another revenue act was made, the minds of the people were filled with anxiety, and they were justly alarmed with apprehensions of the total extinction of their liberties.
The result of the free inquiries of many persons, into the right of the Parliament, to exercise such a power over the colonies, seems, in your Excellency's opinion, to be the cause, of what you are pleased to call the present "disturbed state of the government;" upon which, you "may not any longer, consistent with your duty to the King, and your regard to the interest of the province, delay communicating your sentiments." But that the principles adopted in consequence hereof, are unconstitutional, is a subject of inquiry. We know of no such disorders arising therefrom, as are mentioned by your Excellency. If Grand Jurors have not, on their oaths, found such offences, as your Excellency, with the advice of his Majesty's Council, have ordered to be prosecuted, it is to be presumed, they have followed the dictates of good conscience. They are the constitutional judges of these matters, and it is not to be supposed, that moved from corrupt principles, they have suffered offenders to escape a prosecution, and thus supported and encouraged them to go on offending. If any part of authority shall, in an unconstitutional manner, interpose in any matter, it will be no wonder if it be brought into contempt; to the lessening or confounding of that subordination, which is necessary to a well regulated state. Your Excellency's representation that the bands of government are weakened, we humbly conceive to be without good grounds; though we must own, the heavy burdens unconstitutionally brought upon the people, have been, and still are universally, and very justly complained of, as a grievance.
You are pleased to say, that, "when our predecessors first took possession of this plantation, or colony, under a grant and charter from the Crown of England, it was their sense, and it was the sense of the kingdom, that they were to remain subject to the supreme authority of Parliament;" whereby we understand your Excellency to mean, in the sense of the declaratory act of Parliament afore mentioned, in all cases whatever. And, indeed, it is difficult, if possible, to draw a line of distinction between the universal authority of Parliament over the colonies, and no authority at all. It is, therefore, necessary for us to inquire how it appears, for your Excellency has not shown it to us, that when, or at the time that our predecessors took possession of this plantation, or colony, under a grant and charter from the Crown of England, it was their sense, and the sense of the kingdom, that they were to remain subject to the authority of Parliament. In making this inquiry, we shall, according to your Excellency's recommendation, treat the subject with calmness and candor, and also with a due regard to truth.
Previous to a direct consideration of the charter granted to the province or colony, and the better to elucidate the true sense and meaning of it, we would take a view of the state of the English North American continent at the time, when, and after possession was first taken of any part of it, by the Europeans. It was then possessed by heathen and barbarous people, who had, nevertheless, all that right to the soil, and sovereignty in and over the lands they possessed, which God had originally given to man. Whether their being heathen, inferred any right or authority to christian princes, a right which had long been assumed by the Pope, to dispose of their lands to others, we will leave your Excellency, or any one of understanding and impartial judgment, to consider. It is certain, they had in no other sense, forfeited them to any power in Europe. Should the doctrine be admitted, that the discovery of lands owned and possessed by pagan people, gives to any christian prince a right and title to the dominion and property, still it is vested in the Crown alone. It was an acquisition of foreign territory, not annexed to the realm of England, and, therefore, at the absolute disposal of the Crown. For we take it to be a settled point, that the King has a constitutional prerogative, to dispose of and alienate, any part of his territories not annexed to the realm. In exercise of this prerogative, Queen Elizabeth granted the first American charter; and, claiming a right by virtue of discovery, then supposed to be valid, to the lands which are now possessed by the colony of Virginia, she conveyed to Sir Walter Rawleigh, the property, dominion, and sovereignty thereof, to be held of the Crown, by homage, and a certain render, without any reservation to herself, of any share in the Legislative and Executive authority. After the attainder of Sir Walter, King James the I. created two Virginian companies, to be governed each by laws, transmitted to them by his Majesty, and not by the Parliament, with power to establish, and cause to be made, a coin to pass current among them; and vested with all liberties, franchises and immunities, within any of his other dominions, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the realm. A declaration similar to this, is contained in the first charter of this colony, and in those of other American colonies, which shows that the colonies were not intended, or considered to be within the realm of England, though within the allegiance of the English Crown. After this, another charter was granted by the same King James, to the Treasurer and Company of Virginia, vesting them with full power and authority, to make, ordain, and establish, all manner of orders, laws, directions, instructions, forms and ceremonies of governments, and magistracy, fit and necessary, and the same to abrogate, &c. without any reservation for securing their subjection to Parliament, and future laws of England. A third charter was afterwards granted by the same King, to the Treasurer and Company of Virginia, vesting them with full power and authority to make laws, with an addition of this clause, "so, always, that the same be not contrary to the laws and statutes of this our realm of England." The same clause was afterwards copied into the charter of this and other colonies, with certain variations, such as, that these laws should be "consonant to reason," "not repugnant to the laws of England," "as nearly as conveniently may be to the laws, statutes and rights of England," &c. These modes of expression, convey the same meaning, and serve to show an intention, that the laws of the colonies should be as much as possible, conformable in the spirit of them, to the principles and fundamental laws of the English constitution, its rights and statutes then in being, and by no means to bind the colonies to a subjection to the supreme authority of the English Parliament. And that this is the true intention, we think it further evident from this consideration, that no acts of any colony Legislative, are ever brought into Parliament for inspection there, though the laws made in some of them, like the acts of the British Parliament, are laid before the King for his dissent or allowance.
We have brought the first American charters into view, and the state of the country when they were granted, to show, that the right of disposing of the lands was, in the opinion of those times, vested solely in the Crown; that the several charters conveyed to the grantees, who should settle upon the territories therein granted, all the powers necessary to constitute them free and distinct states; and that the fundamental laws of the English constitution should be the certain and established rule of legislation, to which, the laws to be made in the several colonies, were to be, as nearly as conveniently might be, conformable, or similar, which was the true intent and import of the words, "not repugnant to the laws of England," "consonant to reason," and other variant expressions in the different charters. And we would add, that the King, in some of the charters, reserves the right to judge of the consonance and similarity of their laws with the English constitution, to himself, and not to the Parliament; and, in consequence thereof, to affirm, or within a limited time, disallow them.
These charters, as well as that afterwards granted to Lord Baltimore, and other charters, are repugnant to the idea of Parliamentary authority; and, to suppose a Parliamentary authority over the colonies, under such charters, would necessarily induce that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio. And the King's repeatedly exercising the prerogative of disposing of the American territory by such charters, together with the silence of the nation thereupon, is an evidence that it was an acknowledged prerogative.
But, further to show the sense of the English Crown and nation, that the American colonists, and our predecessors in particular, when they first took possession of this country, by a grant and charter from the Crown, did not remain subject to the supreme authority of Parliament, we beg leave to observe, that when a bill was offered by the two Houses of Parliament to King Charles the I. granting to the subjects of England, the free liberty of fishing on the coast of America, he refused his royal assent, declaring as a reason, that "the colonies were without the realm and jurisdiction of Parliament."
In like manner, his predecessor, James the I. had before declared, upon a similar occasion, that "America was not annexed to the realm, and it was not fitting that Parliament should make laws for those countries." This reason was, not secretly, but openly declared in Parliament. If, then, the colonies were not annexed to the realm, at the time when their charters were granted, they never could afterwards, without their own special consent, which has never since been had, or even asked. If they are not now annexed to the realm, they are not a part of the kingdom, and consequently not subject to the Legislative authority of the kingdom. For no country, by the common law, was subject to the laws or to the Parliament, but the realm of England.
We would, if your Excellency pleases, subjoin an instance of conduct in King Charles the II. singular indeed, but important to our purpose, who, in 1769, framed an act for a permanent revenue for the support of Virginia, and sent it there by Lord Culpepper, the Governor of that colony, which was afterwards passed into a law, and "enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by, and with the consent of the General Assembly of Virginia." If the King had judged the colony to be a part of the realm, he would not, nor could he, consistently with Magna Charta, have placed himself at the head of, and joined with any Legislative body in making a law to tax the people there, other than the Lords and Commons of England.
Having taken a view of the several charters of the first colony in America, if we look into the old charter of this colony, we shall find it to be grounded on the same principle; that the right of disposing the territory granted therein, was vested in the Crown, as being that Christian Sovereign who first discovered it, when in the possession of heathens; and that it was considered as being not within the realm, but being only within the Fee and Seignory of the King. As, therefore, it was without the realm of England, must not the King, if he had designed that the Parliament should have any authority over it, have made special reservation for that purpose, which was not done?
Your Excellency says, "it appears from the charter itself, to have been the sense of our predecessors, who first took possession of this plantation, or colony, that they were to remain subject to the authority of Parliament." You have not been pleased to point out to us, how this appears from the charter, unless it be in the observation you make on the above mentioned clause, viz.: "that a favorable construction has been put upon this clause, when it has been allowed to intend such laws of England only, as are expressly made to respect us," which you say, "is by charter, a reserve of power and authority to Parliament, to bind us by such laws, at least, as are made expressly to refer to us, and consequently is a limitation of the power given to the General Court." But, we would still recur to the charter itself, and ask your Excellency, how this appears, from thence, to have been the sense of our predecessors? Is any reservation of power and authority to Parliament thus to bind us, expressed or implied in the charter? It is evident, that King Charles the I. the very Prince who granted it, as well as his predecessor, had no such idea of the supreme authority of Parliament over the colony, from their declarations before recited. Your Excellency will then allow us, further to ask, by what authority, in reason or equity, the Parliament can enforce a construction so unfavorable to us. Quod ab initio injustum est, nullum potest habere juris efectum, said Grotius. Which, with submission to your Excellency, may be rendered thus: whatever is originally in its nature wrong, can never be sanctified, or made right by repetition and use.
In solemn agreements, subsequent restrictions ought never to be allowed. The celebrated author, whom your Excellency has quoted, tells us, that, "neither the one or the other of the interested, or contracting powers, hath a right to interpret at pleasure." This we mention, to show, even upon a supposition, that the Parliament had been a party to the contract, the invalidity of any of its subsequent acts, to explain any clause in the charter; more especially to restrict or make void any clause granted therein to the General Court. An agreement ought to be interpreted "in such a manner as that it may have its effect." But, if your Excellency's interpretation of this clause is just, "that it is a reserve of power and authority to Parliament to bind us by such laws as are made expressly to refer to us," it is not only "a limitation of the power given to the General Court" to legislate, but it may, whenever the Parliament shall think fit, render it of no effect; for it puts it in the power of Parliament, to bind us by as many laws as they please, and even to restrain us from making any laws at all. If your Excellency's assertions in this, and the next succeeding part of your speech, were well grounded, the conclusion would be undeniable, that the charter, even in this clause, "does not confer or reserve any liberties," worth enjoying, "but what would have been enjoyed without it;" saving that, within any of his Majesty's dominions, we are to be considered barely as not aliens. You are pleased to say, it cannot "be contended, that by the liberties of free and natural subjects," (which are expressly granted in the charter, to all intents, purposes and constructions, whatever,) "is to be understood, an exemption from acts of Parliament, because not represented there; seeing it is provided by the same charter, that such acts shall be in force." If, says an eminent lawyer, "the King grants to the town of D. the same liberties which London has, this shall be intended the like liberties." A grant of the liberties of free and natural subjects, is equivalent to a grant of the same liberties. And the King, in the first charter to this colony, expressly grants, that it "shall be construed, reputed and adjudged in all cases, most favorably on the behalf and for the benefit and behoof of the said Governor and Company, and their successors - any matter, cause or thing, whatsover, to the contrary notwithstanding." It is one of the liberties of free and natural subjects, born and abiding within the realm, to be governed, as your Excellency observes, "by laws made by persons, in whose elections they, from time to time, have a voice." This is an essential right. For nothing is more evident, than, that any people, who are subject to the unlimited power of another, must be in a state of abject slavery. It was easily and plainly foreseen, that the right of representation in the English Parliament, could not be exercised by the people of this colony. It would be impracticable, if consistent with the English constitution. And for this reason, that this colony might have and enjoy all the liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects within the realm, as stipulated in the charter, it was necessary, and a Legislative was accordingly constituted within the colony one branch of which, consists of Representatives chosen by the people, to make all laws, statutes, ordinances, &c. for the well ordering and governing the same, not repugnant to the laws of England, or, as nearly as conveniently might be, agreeable to the fundamental laws of the English constitution. We are, therefore, still at a loss to conceive, where your Excellency finds it " provided in the same charter, that such acts," viz, acts of Parliament, made expressly to refer to us, " shall be in force " in this province. There is nothing to this purpose, expressed in the charter, or in our opinion, even implied in it. And surely it would be very absurd, that a charter, which is evidently formed upon a supposition and intention, that a colony is and should be considered as not within the realm; and declared by the very Prince who granted it, to be not within the jurisdiction of Parliament, should yet provide, that the laws which the same Parliament should make, expressly to refer to that colony, should be in force therein. Your Excellency is pleased to ask, "does it follow, that the government, by their (our ancestors) removal from one part of the dominion to another, loses its authority over that part to which they removed; and that they are freed from the subjection they were under before?" We answer, if that part of the King's dominions, to which they removed, was not then a part of the realm, and was never annexed to it, the Parliament lost no authority over it, having never had such authority; and the emigrations were consequently freed from the subjection they were under before their removal. The power and authority of Parliament, being constitutionally confined within the limits of the realm, and the nation collectively, of which alone it is the representing and Legislative Assembly. Your Excellency further asks, "will it not rather be said, that by this, their voluntary removal, they have relinquished, for a time, at least, one of the rights of an English subject, which they might, if they pleased, have continued to enjoy, and may again enjoy, whenever they return to the place where it can be exercised?" To which we answer; they never did relinquish the right to be governed by laws, made by persons in whose election they had a voice. The King stipulated with them, that they should have and enjoy all the liberties of free and natural subjects, born within the realm, to all intents, purposes and constructions, whatsoever; that is, that they should be as free as those, who were to abide within the realm: consequently, he stipulated with them, that they should enjoy and exercise this most essential right, which discriminates freemen from vassals, uninterruptedly, in its full sense and meaning; and they did, and ought still to exercise it, without the necessity of returning, for the sake of exercising it, to the nation or state of England.
We cannot help observing, that your Excellency's manner of reasoning on this point, seems to us, to render the most valuable clauses in our charter unintelligible: as if persons going from the realm of England, to inhabit in America, should hold and exercise there a certain right of English subjects; but, in order to exercise it in such manner as to be of any benefit to them, they must not inhabit there, but return to the place where alone it can be exercised. By such construction, the words of the charter can have no sense or meaning. We forbear remarking upon the absurdity of a grant to persons born without the realm, of the same liberties which would have belonged to them, if they had been born within the realm.
Your Excellency is disposed to compare this government to the variety of corporations, formed within the kingdom, with power to make and execute bylaws, &c.; and, because they remain subject to the supreme authority of Parliament, to infer, that this colony is also subject to the same authority: this reasoning appears to us not just. The members of those corporations are resident within the kingdom; and residence subjects them to the authority of Parliament, in which they are also represented; whereas the people of this colony are not resident within the realm. The charter was granted, with the express purpose to induce them to reside without the realm; consequently, they are not represented in Parliament there. But, we would ask your Excellency, are any of the corporations, formed within the kingdom, vested with the power of erecting other subordinate corporations? of enacting and determining what crimes shall be capital? and constituting courts of common law, with all their officers, for the hearing, trying and punishing capital offenders with death? These and many other powers vested in this government, plainly show, that it is to be considered as a corporation, in no other light, than as every state is a corporation. Besides, appeals from the courts of law here, are not brought before the House of Lords; which shows, that the peers of the realm, are not the peers of America: but all such appeals are brought before the King in council, which is a further evidence, that we are not within the realm.
We conceive enough has been said, to convince your Excellency, that, "when our predecessors first took possession of this plantation, or colony, by a grant and charter from the Crown of England, it was not, and never had been the sense of the kingdom, that they were to remain subject to the supreme authority of Parliament. We will now, with your Excellency's leave, inquire what was the sense of our ancestors, of this very important matter.
And, as your Excellency has been pleased to tell us, you have not discovered, that the supreme authority of Parliament has been called in question, even by private and particular persons, until within seven or eight years past; except about the time of the anarchy and confusion in England, which preceded the restoration of King Charles the II. we beg leave to remind your Excellency of some parts of your own history of Massachusetts Bay. Therein we are informed of the sentiments of "persons of influence," after the restoration; from which, the historian tells us, some parts of their conduct, that is, of the General Assembly, "may be pretty well accounted for." By the history, it appears to have been the opinion of those persons of influence, "that the subjects of any prince or state, had a natural right to remove to any other state, or to another quarter of the world, unless the state was weakened or exposed by such remove; and, even in that case, if they were deprived of the right of all mankind, liberty of conscience, it would justify a separation, and upon their removal, their subjection determined and ceased." That "the country to which they had removed, was claimed and possessed by independent princes, whose right to the lordship and sovereignty thereof had been acknowledged by the Kings of England," an instance of which is quoted in the margin. "That they themselves had actually purchased, for valuable consideration, not only the soil, but the dominion, the lordship and sovereignty of those princes;" without which purchase, "in the sight of God and men, they had no right or title to what they possessed." They had received a charter of incorporation from the King, from whence arose a new kind of subjection, namely, "a voluntary, civil subjection;" and by this compact, "they were to be governed by laws made by themselves." Thus it appears to have been the sentiments of private persons, though persons by whose sentiments the public conduct was influenced, that their removal was a justifiable separation from the mother state, upon which, their subjection to that state, determined and ceased. The supreme authority of Parliament, if it had then ever been asserted, must surely have been called in question, by men who had advanced such principles as these.
The first act of Parliament, made expressly to refer to the colonies, was after the restoration. In the reign of King Charles the II. several such acts passed. And the same history informs us, there was a difficulty in conforming to them; and the reason of this difficulty is explained in a letter of the General Assembly to their Agent, quoted in the following words; "they apprehended them to be an invasion of the rights, liberties and properties of the subjects of his Majesty, in the colony, they not being represented in Parliament, and according to the usual sayings of the learned in the law, the laws of England were bounded within the four seas, and did not reach America: However, as his Majesty had signified his pleasure, that those acts should be observed in the Massachusetts, they had made provision, by a law of the colony, that they should be strictly attended."3 Which provision, by a law of their own, would have been superfluous, if they had admitted the supreme authority of Parliament. In short, by the same history it appears, that those acts of Parliament, as such, were disregarded; and the following reason is given for it: "It seems to have been a general opinion, that acts of Parliament have no other force, than what they derived from acts made by the General Court, to establish and confirm them."
But, still further to show the sense of our ancestors, respecting this matter, we beg leave to recite some parts of a narrative, presented to the Lords of Privy Council, by Edward Randolph, in the year 1676, which we find in your Excellency's collection of papers lately published.4 Therein5 it is declared to be the sense of the colony, "that no law is in force or esteem there, but such as are made by the General Court; and, therefore, it is accounted a breach of their privilegčs, and a betraying of the liberties of their commonwealth, to urge the observation of the laws of England." And, further, "that no oath shall be urged, or required to be taken by any person, but such oath as the General Court hath considered, allowed and required." And, further, "there is no notice taken of the act of navigation, plantation or any other laws, made in England for the regulation of trade." "That the government would make the world believe, They are a free state, and do act in all matters accordingly." Again, "these magistrates ever reserve to themselves, a power to alter, evade and disannul any law or command, not agreeing with their humor, or the absolute authority of their government, acknowledging no superior." And, further, "he (the Governor) freely declared to me, that the laws made by your Majesty and your Parliament, obligeth them in nothing, but what consists with the interests of that colony; that the Legislative power and authority is, and abides in them solely." And in the same Mr. Randolph's letter to the Bishop of London, July 14., 1682, he says, "this independency in government is claimed and daily practised."6 And your Excellency being then sensible, that this was the sense of our ancestors, in a marginal note, in the same collection of papers, observes, that, "this, viz, the provision made for observing the acts of trade, is very extraordinary, for this provision was an act of the colony, declaring the acts of trade shall be in force there." Although Mr. Randolph was very unfriendly to the colony, yet, as his declarations are concurrent with those recited from your Excellency's history, we think they may be admitted, for the purpose for which they are now brought.
Thus we see, from your Excellency's history and publications, the sense our ancestors had of the jurisdiction of Parliament, under the first charter. Very different from that, which your Excellency in your speech, apprehends it to have been.
It appears by Mr. Neal's History of New England, that the agents, who had been employed by the colony to transact its affairs in England, at the time when the present charter was granted, among other reasons, gave the following for their acceptance of it, viz. "The General Court has, with the King's approbation, as much power in New England, as the King and Parliament have in England; they have all English privileges, and can be touched by no law, and by no tax but of their own making."7 This is the earliest testimony that can be given of the sense our predecessors had of the supreme authority of Parliament, under the present charter. And it plainly shows, that they, who having been freely conversant with those who framed the charter, must have well understood the design and meaning of it, supposed that the terms in our charter, "full power and authority," intended and were considered as a sole and exclusive power, and that there was no "reserve in the charter, to the authority of Parliament, to bind the colony" by any acts whatever.