Chapter 2

been of Opinion that America herself under God must finally work out her own Salvation.

I have been told by a friend that a Manuscript has been sent from hence upon the Subject of the Tryals of Preston & the Soldiers, for your perusal entitled a Hue & Cry &c. Had I seen & thought it answerable to what I have heard of it, I should have endeavord to have had it publishd here. I wish it had been or still might be publishd in London if you have seen it & think it worth while, subject entirely to your Correction and Amendment. But after all what will the best & most animating publications signify, if the many are willing to submit & be enslavd by the few.

I wrote you about a fortnight past by Capt. Hood1 & can add nothing more at present but that I am sincerely your friend & hbl servt

1 See above, page 230.

TO JOSEPH ALLEN.

[MS., Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library; a text is in W. V. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, vol. i., pp. 342, 343.]

Nov 7 1771

DEAR KINSMAN

As you are just now setting out on the Journey of Life, give me leave to express to you my ardent Wish that you may meet with all that prosperity which shall be consistent with your real happiness. I cannot but think you have a good prospect; yet your path will in all probability be uneven: Sometimes you must expect like all other Travellers, to meet with Difficulties on the Road; let me therefore recommend to you the Advice of one of the Ancients, a Man of sterling Sense, tho a Heathen. "OEquam memento Rebus in arduis, servare mentem." In the busy Scenes of Life, you may now and then be disposd to drive on hard, & make rather too much haste to be rich; you will then be upon your Guard against Temptations which if yielded to, will poison the Streams of all future Comfort: You will then in a more particular manner, impress upon your mind the advice of an inspired writer, to "maintain a Conscience void of offence." I do not flatter you when I say, you have hitherto supported a good reputation: You will still preserve it unsullied; remembering that a good name is your Life.

ARTICLE SIGNED "CANDIDUS."

[Boston Gazette, November 11, 1771.]

Messieurs EDES & GILL,

WE read that "Jeroboam the Son of Nebat made Israel to sin": For this he "stands recorded" and repeatedly stigmatiz'd, in the sacred volumn, as a "perjur'd Traitor," and a Rebel against GOD and his Country. However mysterious fawning priests and flatterers may affect to think it, Kings and Governors may be guilty of treason and rebellion: And they have in general in all ages and countries been more frequently guilty of it, than their subjects. Nay, what has been commonly called rebellion in the people, has often been nothing else but a manly & glorious struggle in opposition to the lawless power of rebellious Kings and Princes; who being elevated above the rest of mankind, and paid by them only to be their protectors, have been taught by enthusiasts to believe they were authoriz'd by GOD to enslave and butcher them! It is not uncommon for men, by their own inattention and folly, to suffer those things which an all-gracious providence design'd for their good, to become the greatest evils. If we look into the present state of the world, I believe this will hold good with regard to civil government in general: And the history of past ages will inform us, that even those civil institutions which have been best calculated for the safety and happiness of the people, have sooner or later degenerated into settled tyranny; which can no more be called civil government, and is in fact upon some accounts a state much more to be deprecated than anarchy itself. It may be said of each, that it is a state of war: And it is beyond measure astonishing that free people can see the miseries of such a state approaching to them with large and hasty strides, and suffer themselves to be deluded by the artful insinuations of a man in tower, and his indefatigable sychophants, into a full perswasion that their liberties are in no danger. May we not be allow'd to adopt the language of scripture, and apply it upon so important a consideration; that seeing, men will see and not perceive, and hearing, they will hear and not understand?

Jeroboam must needs have been a very wicked Governor: And he discover'd so much of the malignancy of treason against his people, in making them to sin against the supreme Being upon whose power and protection the welfare of nations as well as individuals so manifestly depends, and by whose goodness that people in particular were so greatly oblig'd, that one would have thought, they would upon a retrospect of their folly, in being thus seduc'd, have testified to future generations their just resentment and indignation, by at least dethroning so impious a traitor. Perhaps they relented when they consider'd that their Governor was "born and educated among them": But this heightened his wickedness; as it might have convinc'd them, that he was as destitute of the common feelings of love for one's native country, as he was of religion and piety. This, and many other instances of later date may serve to show, that the people have no solid reason to depend upon every man that he will be a good Governor, merely because of his having had his birth and education among them; as well as the folly and wickedness of priests and minions, who would from such a circumstance endeavor to dupe the people into a perswasion of their security under any man's administration. - The sin which the people of Israel were prevail'd upon by Jeroboam the son of Nebat to commit, respected their religious worship on a Thanksgiving day: He had ordained a solemn festival to be kept at Bethel; in which, it seems, he had a particular view to serve a political purpose: And the people knew it, although he had artfully endeavored to colour it with a plausible appearance. At this festival, through his influence, they sacrificed unto Calves! This was the dire effect of their foolish adulation of their Governor, while they professed to observe a day set apart in honor to the King of kings. - Their thanksgiving began with prophaness & ended in idolatry; or rather it began & ended with both. There is no question but the priests were the vicegerents of the Governor, or his heralds to publish his impious proclamations to the people. But is it not strange that the people were so king-ridden and priest-ridden, especially in matters which concern'd their Religion, as to look upon the joint authority of their Governor and Clergy, sufficient to justify them in sinning against the authority of God himself: and in acting in open violation of his law, revealed to them from Heaven with signs and miracles at Mount Sinai, and register'd in their book of the law, as well as engrav'd on the tables of their hearts! - It is no unusual thing for people to complement their Governors with the sacrifice of their consciences, after they have surrender'd to them their civil liberty, which had been the folly of that people long before; for they grew weary of their liberty in the days of Samuel the prophet, and exchanged that civil government which the wisdom of heaven had prescribed to them, for an absolute despotic monarchy; that they might in that regard be like the nations round about them. - Even in these enlightened times, the people in some parts of the world are so bewitched by the enchantments of priest-craft and king- craft, as to believe that tho' they sin against their own consciences, in compliance with the instruction of the one, or in obedience to the command of the other, they shall never suffer, but shall be rewarded in the world to come, for being so implicitly subject to the higher powers: And the experience of the world tells us that there are, and always have been various ways of rewarding them for it in this world. On the contrary, if they hesitate to declare a blind belief in the most palpable absurdities in government and religion, they are sure to fall into the immediate hands of spiritual inquisitors, to be whipped and tortured into an acknowledgment of the error, or threatened with the further pains of eternal damnation if they persist in their contumacy. Thanks be to GOD, there is not yet so formidable a junction of the secular and ecclesiastical powers in this country; and there is reason to hope there are but few of the clergy who would desire it. Yet such is the deplorable condition we are in, and so notorious is it to all, that should any man, be he who he may, tell me that our civil liberties were continued, or that our religious privileges were not in danger, I should detest him, if in his senses, as a perfidious man. And if any clergyman should in compliance with the humours or designs of a man in power, echo such a false declaration in the church of GOD, he would in my opinion do well seriously to consider, whether an excessive complaisance may not have betrayed him into the sin of Ananias and Saphira, in lying against the Holy Ghost! This is a most weighty consideration: But the times require plain dealing. We hope and believe, nay we know that there are more than seven thousand who will never bow the knee to Baal, or servilely submit to Tyranny, temporal or spiritual: But are we not fallen into an age when some even of the Clergy think it no shame to flatter the Idol; and thereby to lay the people, as in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, under a temptation to commit great wickedness, and sin against God? Let us beware of the poison of flattery - If the people are tainted with this folly, they will never have VIRTUE enough to demand a restoration of their liberties in the very face of a TYRANT, if the necessity of the times should call for so noble an exertion. And how soon there may be such NECESSITY, GOD only knows. May HE grant them FORTITUDE as well as SOUND PRUDENCE in the day of TRIAL! He who can flatter a despot, or be flattered by him, without feeling the remonstrances of his own mind against it, may be remarkable for the guise and appearance of sanctity, but he has very little if any true religion - If he habitually allows himself in it, without any remorse, he is a hardened impenitent sinner against GOD and his COUNTRY. Whatever his profession may be, he is not fit to be trusted; and when once discover'd, he will never be trusted by any but fools and children. To complement a great man to the injury of truth and liberty, may be in the opinion of a very degenerate age, the part of a polite and well-bred gentleman - Wise men however will denominate him a Traitor or a Fool. But how much more aggravated must be the folly and madness of those, who instead of worshipping GOD in the solemn assembly, "in spirit and in truth," can utter a lie TO HIM!! -in order to render themselves acceptable to a man who is a worm or to the son of a man who is a worm.

CANDIDUS.

TO ARTHUR LEE.

[MS., Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library; a text with variations is in R. H. Lee, Life of Arthur Lee, vol. ii., pp. 187-189.]

BOSTON Novr 13 1771.

MY DEAR SIR, - Several Vessells have lately arrivd from London, but I have not had the pleasure of a Line from you by either of them. Since the Resolve of Council, by which Junius Americanus was so severely censurd, there has been a proclamation issued by the Governor with their Advice, for a general Thanksgiving which has been the practice of the Country at this time of the year from its first Settlement. The pious proclamation has given the greatest offence to the people in general, as it appears evidently to be calculated to serve the purpose of the British Administration, rather than that of Religion. We were the last year called upon to thank the Almighty for the Blessings of the Administration of Government, in this Province, which many lookd upon as an impious Farce. Now we are demurely exhorted to render our hearty & humble Thanks to the same omniscient Being for the Continuance of our civil & religious Privileges & the Enlargement of our Trade. This I imagine was contrivd to try the feelings of the people; and if the Governor could dupe the Clergy as he had the Council, & they the people, so that the proclamation should be read as usual in our Churches, he would have nothing to do but acquaint Lord Hillsborough that most certainly the people in General acquiescd in the measures of Government, since they had appealed even to God himself that notwithstanding the faction & turbulence of a party, their Liberties were continued & their Trade enlargd. I am at a loss to say whether this measure was more insolent to the people or affrontive to the Majesty of Heaven, neither of whom however a modern Politician regards, if at all, so much as the Smiles of his noble Patron. But the people saw thro it in general, & openly declared that they would not hear the proclamation read. The Consequence was, that it was read in but two of all our Churches in this Town consisting of twelve besides three Episcopalian Churches; there indeed it has not been customary ever to read them. Of those two Clergymen who read it, one of them being a Stranger in the province, & having been settled but about Six Weeks, performd the servile task a week before the usual Time when the people were not aware of it, they were however much disgusted at it. The Minister of the other is a known Flatterer of the Governor & is the very person who formd the fulsome Address of which I wrote you some time ago - he was deserted by a great number of his Auditory in the midst of his reading. Thus every Art is practisd & every Tool employd to make it appear as if this people were easy in their Chains, & that this great revolution is brought about by the inimitable Address of Mr Hutchinson. There is one part of the proclamation which I think deserves Notice on your side the Water, & that relates to the Accommodation with the Spaniards in the Affair of Faulkland Island. This must have been referrd to under the Terms of the preservation of the peace of Europe. From what I wrote you last you cannot wonder if the Governor carrys any thing he pleases in his Divan here. His last Manoevre has exposd him more than any thing. Ne lude cum sacris is a proverb. Should he once lose the Reputation which his friends have with the utmost pains been building for him among the Clergy for these thirty years past, as a consummate Saint, he must fall like Samson when his Locks were cut off. The people are determind to keep their Day of Festivity but not for all the purposes of the infamous proclamation. I beg you would omit no Opportunity of writing to me & be assured that I am in a Stile too much out of fashion

Your Friend

ARTICLE SIGNED "COTTON MATHER."1

[Boston Gazette, November 25, 1771.]

MESSIEURS EDES & GILL,

Mucius SCAEVOLA, a writer whom I very much admire, tells us, "A Massachusetts Governor the King by Compact may nominate and appoint, but not pay: For his support he must stipulate with the people, & until he does, he is no legal Governor; without this, if he undertakes to rule he is a USURPER." - These sentiments have given great disgust to the Governor & Council, and the publisher, it is said, is to be prosecuted: But if he has spoken the words of truth and soberness, why should he be punished? Is there any man in the community that can procure harm in a process of law, to him who speaks necessary and important truths? If there be such a man, mark him for a Tyrant. Is there any man whose publick conduct will not bear the scrutiny of truth? he is a Traitor, and it is high time he was pointed out.

I have upon this occasion looked into the Charter of the province in which the COMPACT between the King and the people is contain'd, and I find not a single word about the King's paying his Governor. If therefore the Charter is altogether silent about it, Mucius is certainly to be justified in saying that by the compact the King may not pay him; that is, there is nothing in the Charter to warrant it. But it is asked, whether the King may not pay his Governor notwithstanding? And ought it not to be looked upon as a mark of royal bounty and goodness, thus to save the people from being "burdened by a tax upon their polls and estates for a Governor's support?" This is the Court language; and great pains have been taken by some gentlemen, whose particular business it is to ride through the several counties, to spread it in every part of the province. But it has a tendency to mislead and ensnare. It no doubt sounds very agreeably in the ears of an unwary man, that by this ministerial manoeuvre, the province have a saving of a thousand pounds sterling every year, for the support of a Governor. Let us consider the matter a little. Did not our ancestors, when they accepted this Charter, understand that they had contracted for a free government? And did not the King on his part intend that it should be so? Was it not understood, that by this contract every power of government was to be under a check adequate to the importance of it, without which, according to the best reasoners on government, and the experience of mankind in all ages of the world, that power must be a tyranny? Undoubtedly it was the sense of both parties in the contract, that the government to be erected by the Charter, should be a free government, and that every power of it should be properly controuled in order to constitute it so. I would then ask, what weight remains in the scale of the democratick part of the constitution to check the monarchick in the hands of the governor, if the king has not only an uncontroulable power to nominate and appoint a governor, but may pay him too? If any one will point out to me a sufficient weight to balance the scale, I will differ from Mucius: But until that is done, I must be of his mind, that the king has no right to pay his governor: "For that, he must stipulate with the people;" otherwise our civil constitution is rendered materially different from what the contracting parties intended it should be, viz, a free constitution. It places the governor in such a state of independency as must make any man formidable. - It puts it in his power in many instances to act the tyrant, even under the appearance of all the forms of the constitution. The man who is possessed of a power to act the tyrant when he thinks proper, let him become possessed of it as he may, is at least an USURPER of power that cannot belong to him in any free state - Power is intoxicating: There have been few men, if any, who when possessed of an unrestrained power, have not made a very bad use of it - They have generally exercised such a power to the terror both of the good and the evil, and of the good more than the evil - While a governor is possessed of a power without any other check than that which the constitution has provided, upon a supposition that the king by charter may pay him as well as appoint him, for aught I can see, under such an administration as the present, I mean in England, he may make the people slaves as soon as he pleases and keep them so as long as he pleases. I have heard it asked, What! may not the king make a present to his governor of fifteen hundred sterling every year, if he sees fit? Is not his MAJESTY allowed to be upon a footing with even a private subject? This reasoning is very plausible, but I think not just. In some respects the king is more restrained than the lowest of his subjects. He may not for instance, turn a Roman Catholic, or marry one of that religion and hold his crown: He forfeits it by law if he does. And why? Because it has been found that the Roman Catholic principles are inconsistent with the principles of the British constitution, which is the rule of his government. And there is the same reason why the governor who is appointed by the crown, should stipulate with the people for his support, if that mutual check among the several powers of government, which is essential to every free constitution, is otherwise destroyed. - If the king's paying or making yearly presents to his governor, renders him a different being in the state from that which the Charter intends he shall be, and that to the prejudice of the people, the king by the compact may not pay him, for in such a case, it would be inconsistent with the principles of our constitution - No king can have a right to put it in the power of his governor to become a tyrant, or govern arbitrarily; for he cannot be a tyrant or govern arbitrarily himself.

I beg leave to make a supposition; If his Holiness the Pope, for the sake of once more having a Catholic King seated on the British throne, should make him a present yearly of eight hundred thousand pounds sterling, for the support of himself and his household, it would be a great saving indeed to the nation; but would the people, think you, consent to it because of that saving? Should we not hear the faithful Commons objecting to it as an innovation big with danger to the rights and liberties of the nation? I believe it would be in vain to flatter them that their constituents would be eas'd of a burden of a tax upon their polls and estates, by means which would render their king thus independent of them, and place him in a state of absolute dependance, for his support, upon another, who had especially for a long course of years, tried every art and machination to overthrow their constitution in church and state - Would not the people justly think there would be danger that such a king thus dependent on the pope, and oblig'd by him, would be as subservient to the admonitions of his Holiness, or his Legate in his name, as a certain provincial governor, we know, has been to the instructions of a minister of state, upon the bare prospect of his being made independent of the people for his support.

COTTON MATHER.

1 Attributed to Adams in the Dorr file of the Gazette.

ARTICLE SIGNED "CANDIDUS."

[Boston Gazette, December 2, 1771.]

Messieurs EDES & GILL,

No methods are yet left untried by the writers on the side of the ministry, to perswade this People that the best way to get rid of our Grievances is to submit to them. This was the artifice of Governor Bernard, and it is urg'd with as much zeal as ever, under the administration of Governor Hutchinson. They would fain have us endure the loss of as many of our Rights and Liberties as an abandon'd ministry shall see fit to wrest from us, without the least murmur: But when they find, that they cannot silence our complaints, & sooth us into security they then tell us, that "much may be done for the publick interest by way of humble & dutiful representation, pointing out the hardships of certain measures" - This is the language of Chronus in the last Massachusetts Gazette. But have we not already petition'd the King for the Redress of our Grievances and the Restoration of our Liberties? - have not the House of Representatives done it in the most dutiful terms imaginable? - Was it not many months before that Petition was suffer'd to reach the royal hand? - And after it was laid before his Majesty, was he not advis'd by his ministers to measures still more grevious and severe? Have any lenient measures been the consequence of our humble representations of "the hardship of certain measures," which were set forth by the house of assembly in the most decent and respectful letters to persons of high rank in the administration of government at home? Did not the deputies of most of the towns and districts in this province met in Convention in the year 1768, when Bernard had in a very extraordinary manner dissolv'd the General Assembly? - Did they not, I say, in the most humble terms, petition the Throne for the Redress of the intolerable grievances we then labor'd under? - Has not the Town of Boston most submissively represented "the hardship of certain measures" to their most gracious Sovereign, and petition'd for Right and Relief? - Was not petitioning and humbly supplicating, the method constantly propos'd by those very persons whom Chronus after the manner of his brethren, stiles "pretended patriots ", and constantly adopted till it was apparent that our petitions and representations were treated with neglect and contempt? - Till we found that even our petitioning was looked upon as factious, and the effects of it were the heaping Grievance upon Grievance? - Have not the people of this province, after all their humble supplications, been falsly charg'd with being "in a state of disobedience to all law and government?" And in consequence of petitioning, has not the capital been filled with soldiers to quiet their murmurs with the bayonet; & to murder, assassinate & plunder with impunity? -Have we not borne for these seven years past such indignity as no free people ever suffer'd before, and with no other tokens of resentment on our part, than pointing out our hardships, and appealing to the common sense of mankind, after we had in vain petition'd our most gracious Sovereign? - And now we are even insulted by those who have bro't on us all these difficulties, for uttering our just complaints in a publick Newspaper! Pointing out the hardships of our sufferings, and calling upon the impartial world to judge between us and our oppressors, and protesting before God and man against innovations big with ruin to the public Liberty, is call'd by this writer, "a stubborn opposition to public authority," and "a high hand opposition and repugnancy to government" For God's sake, what are we to expect from petitioning? Have we any prospect in the way of humble and dutiful representation? Let us advert to the nation of which this writer says we are a part. Are not they suffering the same grievances, under the same administration? Have not they repeatedly petitioned and remonstrated to the throne, and "pointed out the hardships of certain measures," to the King himself? And has not his Majesty been advised by his ministers, to treat them as imaginary grievances only? And yet after all, against repeated facts, and common experience to the contrary, we are told, that "much might be done for the public interest, by way of hunible and dutiful representation!" If there were even now, any hopes that the King would hear us, while his present counsellors are near him, I should be by all means for petitioning again; but every man of common observation will judge for himself of the prospect.

I am not of this writers opinion that the claims of our sister colonies, New-Hampshire and Rhode-Island, were so very reasonable, when disputes arose about the dividing lines; nor do I believe any of his disinterested readers will think his bare ipse dixit, however peremptory, a sufficient evidence of it. - It seems in the estimation of Chronus and his few confederates, all are "intemperate patriots ", who will not yield the public rights to every demand, however unjust it may appear. - Thus a whole General Assembly is branded by this writer, with the character of "wrong-headed politicians ", for not surrendering a part of the territory of this province to New-Hampshire and Rhode-Island, because they demanded it. It is no uncommon thing for those who are resolved to carry a favorite point, when they cannot reason with their opponents, to rail at them. -I shall not take upon me at present to say, whether the claims of those governments were right or wrong; but if the governor of the province, & a majority of the two houses, whom Chronus does not scruple to call "pretended patriots ", then judged them to be wrong, their conduct in contending for the interest of the province, affords sufficient evidence, that they were real patriots. These instances are bro't by Chronus to show the wisdom "of scorning the influence, and rejecting the rash and injudicious clamour of pretended patriots, and wrong-headed politicians," in the present assembly; who by their "indecent treatment of his Majesty's governor, are pressing him to comply with measures contrary to his instructions": But if his Majesty's governor's instructions are repugnant to the Rights and Liberties of his Majesty's subjects of this province, and those who are elected by the people to be the guardians of their rights and liberties, are really of that mind; especially if they also think that such instructions are design'd to have the force of laws; is it reasonable or decent for Chronus, tho' he may think differently, to call them mere pretended patriots, which conveys the idea of false-hearted men, for protesting against such instructions, as dangerous innovations, threatning the "very being of government", as constituted by the Charter? Chronus and his brethren would do well to consider, that "a high handed opposition and repugnance, ('tis a wonder he did not in the style of his friend Bernard, call it 'oppugnation') to government ", is as dangerous when level'd at the representative body of the people, as at "his Majesty's Governor": An attack upon the constitution especially in that silent manner in which it has of late been attacked, is more dangerous than either. - He says that those "wretched politicians ", "have made the Governor's subsistence to depend upon his compliance with measures contrary to his instructions." If this had been true, it would have been treating the Governor in a manner in which the British parliaments, when free, have treated their sovereign: No supplies till grievances are redressed, has been the language of those "wrong headed politicians ", the British house of commons in former, and better times, than these - If the commons of this province have at any time withheld their grant for the support of a governor, till he should comply with measures contrary to his instructions, they looking upon those instructions, as they have been, in fact, repugnant to the very spirit of the charter, and subversive of the liberty of their constituents, who can blame them? They are in my opinion highly to be commended, for making use of a power vested in them, or rather reserv'd by the constitution, & originally intended to check the wanton career of imperious governors - A power, in the due exercise of which, even KINGS, their masters, have sometimes been brought to their senses, when they had any. But Chronus cannot show an instance of this conduct in the house of representatives for many years past, I dare say. It must therefore be a mistake in him to suppose that this conduct of "our intemperate patriots", has "occasion'd his Majesty to render him more independent, by taking the payment of his governor upon himself." I make no doubt but some other motive occasion'd the minister to advise an independent governor in this province, which will in all probability take place in every colony throughout America. - The motive is too obvious to need mentioning - If Chronus will make it appear that a governor's being made independent of the people, is not repugnant to the principles of the charter of this province, or any free government, he will do more than I at present think he or any other can - Till this is done, it is in vain to flatter a sensible people with the prospect of enjoying "peace, happiness or any other blessing they have reason to desire," and right to expect from good government, while the measure is persisted in.

CANDIDUS.

ARTICLE SIGNED "CANDIDUS."

[Boston Gazette, December 9, 1771.]

MESSIEURS EDES & GILL,

"Whene'er from putrid Courts foul Vapours rose, with vigorous wholesome Gales The Winds of OPPOSITION fiercely blew, Which purg'd and clear'd the agitated State"

If the liberties of America are ever compleatly ruined, of which in my opinion there is now the utmost danger, it will in all probability be the consequence of a mistaken notion of prudence, which leads men to acquiesce in measures of the most destructive tendency for the sake of present ease. When designs are form'd to rase the very foundation of a free government, those few who are to erect their grandeur and fortunes upon the general ruin, will employ every art to sooth the devoted people into a state of indolence, inattention and security, which is forever the fore-runner of slavery - They are alarmed at nothing so much, as attempts to awaken the people to jealousy and watchfulness; and it has been an old game played over and over again, to hold up the men who would rouse their fellow citizens and countrymen to a sense of their real danger, and spirit them to the most zealous activity in the use of all proper means for the preservation of the public liberty, as "pretended patriots," "intemperate politicians," rash, hot-headed men, Incendiaries, wretched desperadoes, who, as was said of the best of men, would turn the world upside down, or have done it already. - But he must have a small share of fortitude indeed, who is put out of countenance by hard speeches without sense and meaning, or affrighted from the path of duty by the rude language of Billingsgate - For my own part, I smile contemptuously at such unmanly efforts: I would be glad to hear the reasoning of Chronus, if he has a capacity for it; but I disregard his railing as I would the barking of a "Cur dog".

The dispassionate and rational Pennsylvania Farmer has told us, that "a perpetual jealousy respecting liberty, is absolutely requisite in all free states." The unhappy experience of the world has frequently manifested the truth of his observation. For want of this jealousy, the liberties of Stain were destroyed by what is called a vote of credit; that is, a confidence placed in the King to raise money upon extraordinary emergencies, in the intervals of parliament. France afterwards fell into the same snare; and England itself was in great danger of it, in the reign of Charles the second; when a bill was brought into the house of commons to enable the King to raise what money he pleased upon extraordinary occasions, as the dutch war was pretended to be - And the scheme would doubtless have succeeded to the ruin of the national liberty, had it not been for the watchfulness of the "intemperate patriots ", and "wrong-headed politicians" even of that day.

How much better is the state of the American colonies soon likely to be, than that of France and Spain or than Britain would have been in, if the Bill before mention'd had pass'd into an act? Does it make any real difference whether one man has the sovereign disposal of the peoples purses, or five hundred? Is it not as certain that the British parliament have assumed to themselves the power of raising what money they please in the colonies upon all occasions, as it is, that the Kings of France and Spain exercise the same power over their subjects upon emergencies? Those Kings by the way, being the sole judges when emergencies happen, they generally create them as often as they want money. And what security have the colonies that the British parliament will not do the same? It is dangerous to be silent, as the ministerial writers would have us to be, while such a claim is held up; but much more to submit to it. Your very silence, my countrymen, may be construed a submission, and those who would perswade you to be quiet, intend to give it that turn. Will it be likely then that your enemies, who have exerted every nerve to establish a revenue, rais'd by virtue of a suppos'd inherent right in the British parliament without your consent, will recede from the favorite plan, when they imagine it to be compleated by your submission? Or if they should repeal the obnoxious act, upon the terms of your submitting to the right, is it not to be apprehended that your own submission will be brought forth as a precedent in a future time, when your watchful adversary shall have succeeded, and laid the most of you fast asleep in the bed of security and insensibility. Believe me, should the British parliament, which claims a right to tax you at discretion, ever be guided by a wicked and corrupt administration, and how near they are approaching to it, I will leave you to judge, you will then find one revenue act succeeding another, till the fatal influence shall extend to your own parliaments. Bribes and tensions will be as frequent here, as they are in the unhappy kingdom of Ireland, and you and your posterity will be made, by means of your own money, as subservient to the will of a British ministry, or an obsequious Governor, as the vassals of France are to that of their grand monarch. What will prevent this misery and infamy, but your being finally oblig'd to have recourse to the ultima ratio! But is it probable that you will ever make any manly efforts to recover your liberty, after you have been inur'd, without any remorse, to contemplate yourselves as slaves? Custom, says the Farmer, gradually reconciles us to objects even of dread and detestation. It reigns in nothing more arbitrarily than in publick Affairs. When an act injurious to freedom has once been done, and the people bear it, the repetition of it is more likely to meet with submission. For as the mischief of the one was found to be tolerable, they will hope that the second will prove so too; and they will not regard the infamy of the last, because they are stain'd with that of the first.

The beloved Patriot further observes, "In mixed governments, the very texture of their constitution demands a perpetual jealousy; for the cautions with which power is distributed among the several orders, imply, that each has that share which is proper for the general welfare, and therefore that any further imposition must be pernicious". The government of this province, like that of Great Britain, of which it is said to be an epitome, is a mixed government. It's constitution is delicately framed; and I believe all must acknowledge, that the power vested in the crown is full as great as is consistent with the general welfare. The King, by the charter, has the nomination and appointment of the governor: But no mention being therein made of his right to take the payment of his governor upon himself, it is fairly concluded that the people have reserv'd that right to themselves, and the governor must stipulate with them for his support. That this was the sense of the contracting parties, appears from practice contemporary with the date of the charter itself, which is the best exposition of it; and the same practice has been continued uninterruptedly to the present time - But the King now orders his support out of the American revenue: Chronus himself, acknowledges that he is thereby "render'd more independent of the people." - Consequently the balance of power if it was before even is by this means disadjusted. Here then is another great occasion of jealousy in the people. No reasonable man will deny that an undue proportion of power added to the monarchical part of the constitution, is as dangerous, as the same undue proportion would be, if added to the democratical. Should the people refuse to allow the governor the due exercise of the powers that are vested in him by the Charter, I dare say they would soon be told, and very justly, of "the mischief that would be the consequence of it." And is there not the same reason why the people may and ought to speak freely & LOUDLY of the mischief which would be the consequence of his being rendered more independent of them; or which is in reality the same thing, his becoming possessed of more power than the charter vests him with? For the annihilating a constitutional check, in the people, which is necessary to prevent the Governor's exercise of exorbitant power, is in effect to enable him to exercise that exorbitant power, when he pleases, without controul. A Governor legally appointed may usurp powers which do not belong to him: And it is ten to one but he will, if the people are not jealous and vigilant. Charles the first was legally appointed king: The doctrines advanced by the clergy in his father's infamous reign, led them both to believe that they were the LORD'S anointed and were not accountable for their conduct to the people. - It is strange that kings seated on the English throne, should imbibe such opinions: But it is possible they were totally unacquainted with the history of their English predecessors. - Charles, by hearkening to the council of his evil ministers, which coincided with the principles of his education, and his natural temper, and confiding in his corrupt judges, became an usurper of powers which he had no right to; and exercising those powers, he became a Tyrant: But the end proved fatal to him, and afforded a solemn lesson for all succeeding usurpers and tyrants: His subjects who made him king, called him to account, dismiss'd and PUNISH'D him in a most exemplary manner! Charles was obstinate in his temper, and thought of nothing so little as concessions of any kind: If he had been well advis'd, he would have renounced his usurped powers: Every wise governor will relinquish a power which is not clearly constitutional, however inconsiderable those about him may perswade him to think it; especially, if the people regard it as a PART OF A SYSTEM OF OPPRESSION, and AN EVIDENCE OF TYRANNICAL DESIGNS. And the more tenacious he is of it, the stronger is the reason why "the SPIRIT OF APPREHENSION" should be kept up among them in its utmost VIGILANCE.

CANDIDUS.

ARTICLE SIGNED "CANDIDUS."

[Boston Gazette, December 16, 1771.]

Messieurs EDES & GILL,

I Profess to be more generous than to make severe remarks upon the apparent absurdities that run through the whole of Chronus's performance in the last Massachusetts-Gazette. He tells us that "he seldom examines political struggles that make their weekly appearance in the papers ". If by this mode of expression he means to inform us, that he seldom reads the papers with impartiality and attention, as every one ought, who designs to make his own observations on them, I can easily believe him; for it is evident in the piece now before me, that thro' a want of such impartiality or due attention, to the political struggles which he examines, he mistakes one writer for another, and finds fault with Candidus for not vindicating what had been advanc'd by Mutius Scaevola. I am no party man, unless a firm attachment to the cause of Liberty and Truth will denominate one such: And if this be the judgment of those who have taken upon themselves the character of Friends to the Government, I am content to be in their sense of the word a party man, and will glory in it as long as I shall retain that small portion of understanding which GOD has been pleas'd to bless me with. If at any time I venture to lay my own opinions before the public, which is the undoubted right of every one, I expect they will be treated, if worth any notice, with freedom and candor: But I do not think myself liable to be called to account by Chronus, or any one else, for not answering the objections they are pleased to make to what is offered by another man, and not by me. Whatever may be the opinion of Mr. Hutchinson, as a Usurper or a Tyrant or not, or as Governor or no Governor, if Chronus had fairly "examined the political struggles" which have appeared in the papers, he must have known that I had not published my sentiments about the matter; I shall do it however, as soon as I think proper. - I would not willingly suppose that Chronus artfully intended to amuse his readers, and "mislead them to believe ", that his address to the publick of the 28th of November, was particularly applicable to me, as having advanced the doctrine which has given so much disgust to some gentlemen, and from whence he draws such a long string of terrible consequences. Whether the denying the governor's authority be right or wrong, or whether upon Mutius's hypothesis it be vindicable or not, it is a "maxim," (to use his own word) upon which it no more concerned me to pass my judgment than it did any other man in the community. Had Chronus then a right to press me into this "political struggle," or to demand my opinion of what he had so sagely observed upon a subject which I had never engag'd in? Yes, by all means; says he, "I pointed out some of the mischiefs that would inevitably follow upon denying the Governor's authority, if that maxim should be generally received"; and adds, "what now has Candidus reply'd to all this? Why truly nothing, but - altum silentium" in English, a profound silence; that is in the words of an honest Teague on another occasion "he answered and said nothing" - But notwithstanding the deep silence that I preserv'd when I made my answer, it seems that "I assured him that the way of peaceable, dutiful and legal representations of our grievances had already been tried to no purpose": With the most profound Taciturnity I "was pleas'd most largely to expatiate upon this point", & with all my "altum silentium" my "interrogations follow'd one another with such amazing rapidity, that he (poor man) was almost out of breath in repeating them." - Here, gentle reader, is presented to you a group of ideas in the chaste, the elegant style of CURONUS, which required much more skill in the English language than I am a master of, to reduce to the level of common sense. Thus I have given you a short specimen of the taste of Chronus, who is said to be the top hand on the side of the ministry: For want of leisure I must omit taking notice of his "method of reasoning" till another time.

CANDIDUS.

MEMORANDUM.

[MS., Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library.]

Decbr 18 I771.

This day I waited on Mr Harrison Gray junr to acquaint him that I had been informd that he had told John Hancock Esqr that he heard me say in a threatning manner that Mr Hancock might think as he pleasd, Mr Otis had friends & his (Mr Hancocks) treatment of Mr Otis would prejudice his (Mr Hancocks) Election. Mr Gray declard to me that he did not hear me mention a Word of Mr Hancocks Election - that a conversation happend between Mr John Cotton & my self (Mr Gray being present) relative to Mr Otis - that Mr Cotton said Mr Otis' Conduct must be the Effect of Distraction or Drunkeness - that I said I did not think so - but that it rather proceeded from Irritation - that he (Mr Gray) said if Mr Otis is distracted why should Mr Hancock pursue him - & that I answerd that Mr Hancock might be stirred up by others to do it, but I thought he had better not or it was a pity he should. This Mr Gray declared was all that I said relative to Mr Hancock, in answer to his Question as is before mentiond & that it did not appear to him that I discoverd the least Unfriendliness towards Mr Hancock. He further said he was willing to give his oath to the truth of this his declaration. Upon which I told Mr Gray that it was far from my Intention to make Mr Hancock displeasd with him, that I was satisfied that Mr Hancock understood him differently & I should let Mr Hancock know what he now said, & asked him to repeat it which he did precisely as before - & told me he was freely willing that I should repeat it to Mr Hancock that if Mr Hancock & myself desired it he would thus explain it in presense of us both.

ARTICLE SIGNED "CANDIDUS."

[Boston Gazette, December 23, 1771.]

Messieurs EDES & GILL,

The writer in the Massachusetts Gazette, who signs Chronus, in his address to the publick, recommended petitioning and humbly representing the hardship of certain measures; and yet before he finished his first paper, he pointed out to us the unhappy effects in former times of the very method he had prescribed. Those "intemperate patriots" it seems, the majority of both houses of the general assembly, not hearkning to the cool advice of the few wise men within and without doors, must needs make their humble representations to the King and Council upon the claims of New- Hampshire and Rhode-Island: And what was the consequence? Why, he says the province lost ten times the value of the land in dispute. Did Chronus mean by this and such like instances, to enforce the measure which he had recommended? They certainly afford a poor encouragement for us to persevere in the way of petitioning and humble representation. But perhaps he will say, the General Assembly had at that time no reason to complain of the incroachment of these sister colonies their claims were just; and the discerning few who were in that mind were in the right. Just so he says is the case now. For he tells us that "no one has attempted to infringe the peoples rights." Upon what principle then would he have us petition? It is possible, for I would fain understand him, that what Candidus and others call an invasion of our rights, he may choose to denominate a Grievance; for if we suffer no Grievance, he can certainly have no reason to advise us to represent the hardship of certain measures. And I am the rather inclin'd to think, that this is his particular humour, because I find that the stamp-act, which almost every one looked upon as a most violent infraction of our natural and constitutional rights, is called by this writer a Grievance. And he is so singular as to enquire, "What Liberties we are now deprived of," aitho' an act of parliament is still in being, and daily executed, very similar to the stamp-act, and form'd for the very same purpose, viz, the raising and establishing a revenue in the colonies by virtue of a suppos'd inherent right in the British parliament, where the colonies cannot be represented, and therefore without their consent. The exercise of such a power Chronus would have us consider as a Grievance indeed, but not by any means a deprivation of our rights and liberties, or even so much as the least infringement of them. Mr. Locke has often been quoted in the present dispute between Britain and her colonies, and very much to our purpose. His reasoning is so forcible, that no one has even attempted to confute it. He holds that "the preservation of property is the end of government, and that for which men enter into society. It therefore necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be suppos'd to lose that by entering into society, which was the end for which they enter'd into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. Men therefore in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that no body hath the right to take any part of their subsistence from them without their consent: Without this, they could have no property at all. For I truly can have no property in that which another can by right take from me when he pleases, against my consent. Hence, says he, it is a mistake to think that the supreme power of any commonwealth can dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure. The prince or senate can never have a power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the subjects property without their own consent; for this would be in effect to have no property at all." - This is the reasoning of that great and good man. And is not our own case exactly described by him? Hath not the British parliament made an act to take a part of our property against our consent? Against our repeated submissive petitions and humble representations of the hardship of it? Is not the act daily executed in every colony? If therefore the preservation of property is the very end of government, we are depriv'd of that for which government itself is instituted. - Tis true, says Mr. Locke, "Government cannot be supported without great charge; and tis fit that every one who enjoys a share in the protection should pay his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with their own consent, given by themselves or their representatives." Chronus will not say that the monies that are every day paid at the custom-houses in America for the express purpose of maintaining all or any of the Governors therein, were rais'd with the consent of those who pay them, given by themselves or their representatives - "If any one, adds Mr. Locke, shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority & without such consent of the people, he thereby subverts the end of government." - Will Chronus tell us that the British parliament doth not claim authority to lay and levy such taxes, and doth not actually lay and levy them on the colonies without their consent? This is the case particularly in this province. If therefore it is a subversion of the end of government, it must be a subversion of our civil liberty, which is supported by civil government only. And this I think a sufficient answer to a strange question which Chronus thinks it "not improper for our zealous Patriots to answer, viz. What those liberties and rights are of which we have been deprived. - If Chronus is really as ignorant as he pretends to be, of the present state of the colonies, their universal and just complaints of the most violent infractions of their liberties, and their repeated petitions to the throne upon that account, I hope I shall be excused in taking up any room in your valuable paper, with a view of answering a question, which to him must be of the utmost importance. - But if he is not, I think his question not only impertinent, but a gross affront to the understanding of the public. We have lost the constitutional right which the Commons of America in their several Assemblies have ever before possessed, of giving and granting their own money, as much of it as they please, and no more; and appropriating it for the support of their own government, for their own defence, and such other purposes as they please. The great Mr. Pitt, in his speech in parliament in favor of the repeal of the stamp-act, declared that "we should have been slaves if we had not enjoy'd this right." This is the sentiment of that patriotic member, and it is obvious to the comnmon sense of every man. -If the parliament have a right to take as much of our money as they please, they may take all. And what liberty can that man have, the produce of whose daily labour another has the right to take from him if he pleases, and which is similar to our case, takes a part of it to convince him that he has the power as well as the pretence of right? - That sage of the law Lord Camden declar'd, in his speech upon the declaratory bill, that "his searches had more and more convinced him that the British parliament have no right to tax the Americans. Nor, said he, "is the doctrine new: It is as old as the constitution: Indeed, it is its support." The taking away this right must then be in the opinion of that great lawyer, the removal of the very support of the constitution, upon which all our civil liberties depend. He speaks in still stronger terms-" Taxation and representation are inseparably united: This position is founded on the laws of nature: It is more: It is itself an eternal law of nature - Whatever is a man's own is absolutely his own; and no man has a right to take it from him without his consent, either express'd by himself or his representative - Whoever attempts to do it, attempts an injury: Whoever does it, commits a ROBBERY: He throws down the distinction between liberty and slavery" - Can Chronus say, that the Americans ever consented either by themselves or their representatives, that the British parliament should tax them? That they have taxed us we all know: We all feel it: I wish we felt it more sensibly: They have therefore, according to the sentiments of the last mention'd Nobleman, which are built on nature and common reason, thrown down the very distinction between liberty and slavery in America - And yet this writer. like one just awoke from a long dream, or, as I cannot help thinking there are good grounds to suspect, with a design to "mislead his unwary readers (and unwary they must needs be, if they are thus misled,) to believe that all our liberties are perfectly secure, he calls upon us to show "which of our liberties we are deprived of;" and in the face of a whole continent, as well as of the best men in Europe, he has the effrontery to assert, without the least shadow of argument, that "no one has attempted to infringe them." One cannot after all this, be at a loss to conceive, what judgment to form of his modesty, his understanding or sincerity.

It might be easy to show that there are other instances in which we are deprived of our liberties. - I should think, a people would hardly be perswaded to believe that they were in the full enjoyment of their liberties, while their capital fortress is garrison'd by troops over which they have no controul, and under the direction of an administration in whom, to say the least, they have no reason to place the smallest confidence that they shall be employ'd for their protection, and not as they have been for their destruction - While they have a governor absolutely independent of them for his support, which support as well as his political being - depends upon that same administration, tho' at the expence of their own money taken from them against their consent - While their governor acts not according to the dictates of his own judgment, assisted by the constitutional advice of his council, if he thinks it necessary to call for it, but according to the edicts of such an administration - Will it mend the matter that this governor, thus dependent upon the crown, is to be the judge of the legality of instructions and their consistency with the Charter, which is the constitution? Or if their present governor should be possess'd of as many angelic properties as we have heard of in the late addresses, can they enjoy that tranquility of mind arising from their sense of safety, which Montesquieu defines to be civil liberty, when they consider how precarious a person a provincial governor is, especially a good one? And how likely a thing it is, if he is a good one, that another may soon be placed in his stead, possessed of the principles of the Devil, who for the sake of holding his commission which is even now pleaded as a weighty motive, will execute to the full the orders of an abandon'd minister, to the ruin of those liberties which we are told are now so secure - Will a people be perswaded that their liberties are safe, while their representatives in general assembly, if they are ever to meet again, will be deprived of the most essential privilege of giving and granting what part of their own money they are yet allowed to give and grant, unless, in conformity to a ministerial instruction to the governor, solemnly read to them for their direction, they exempt the commissioners of the customs, or any other favorites or tools of the ministry, from their equitable share in the tax? All these and many others that might be mention'd, are the natural effects of that capital cause of complaint of all North-America, which, to use the language of those "intemperate patriots ", the majority of the present assembly, is " a subjugation to as arbitrary a TRIBUTE as ever the Romans laid upon the Jews, or their other colonies" - What now is the advice of Chronus? Why, "much may be done, says he, by humble petitions and representations of the hardships of certain measures" - Ask him whether the colonies have not already done it? Whether the assembly of this province, the convention, the town of Boston, have not petitioned and humbly represented the hardship of certain measures, and all to no purpose, and he tells you either that he is "a stranger to those petitions", or "that they were not duly timed, or properly urged," or "that the true reason why ALL our petitions and representations met with no better success was, because they were accompanied with a conduct quite the reverse of that submission and duty which they seem'd to express" - that "to present a petition with one hand, while the other is held up in a threatning posture to enforce it, is not the way to succeed" - Search for his meaning, and enquire when the threatning hand was held up, and you'll find him encountering the Resolves of the Town of Boston to maintain their Rights, (in which they copied after the patriotic Assemblies of the several Colonies) and their Instructions to their Representatives. Here is the sad source of all our difficulties. - Chronus would have us petition, and humbly represent the hardships of certain measures, but we must by no means assert our Liberties. We must acknowledge, at least tacitly, that the Parliament of Great Britain has a constitutional authority, "to throw down the distinction between Liberty and slavery" in America. We may indeed, humbly represent it as a hardship, but if they are resolved to execute the purpose, we must submit to it, without the least intimation to posterity, that we look'd upon it as unconstitutional or unjust. Such advice was sagely given to the Colonists a few years ago, at second hand, by one who had taken a trip to the great city, and grew wonderfully acquainted, as he said, with Lord Hillsborough; but his foibles are now "buried under the mantle of charity." Very different was his advice from that of another of infinitely greater abilities, as well as experience in the public affairs of the nation, and the colonies: I mean Doctor Benjamin Franklin, the present agent of the House of Representatives. His last letter to his constituents, as I am well informed, strongly recommends the holding up our constitutional Rights, by frequent Resolves, &c. This we know will be obnoxious to those who are in the plan to enslave us: But remember my countrymen, it will be better to have your liberties wrested from you by force, than to have it said that you even implicitly surrendered them.

I have something more to say to Chronus when leisure will admit of it.

CANDIDUS.

TO HENRY MARCHANT.1

[MS., Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library.]

BOSTON Jan 7 1772

SIR

I wrote you soon after your departure from hence but am lately informd by Mr F. Dana that you have not receivd my Letter; he has put me in the way of a more sure direction under an Inclosure to Mess Trecothick & Apthorp.

By our last Vessells from London we have an Account of the Choice of Mr Nash for the Lord Mayor, & that he was brot in by ministerial Influence. It gives great Concern to the Friends of Liberty here that any Administration much more such as the present appears to be, should have an Ascendency in the important Elections of that City, which has heretofore by her Independency & Incorruption been the great Security of the Freedom of the nation. It is questionable however

1 Attorney-General of Rhode Island. The letter was addressed to Marchant at London, where he was acting as the agent of Rhode Island. He left Rhode Island in July, 1771, and returned in the autumn of 1772. Cf., Records of the Colony of Rhode Island, vol. vii., pp. 27-31, 197.

whether the Ministry would have gaind their point, if they had not according to the Machiavellian plan accomplishd a Division among those who profess to be Patriots. The same Art is now practicd by their Tools & Dependents on this side the Water. They have been endeavoring to excite a Jealousy among the Colonies, each one of the others, & in a great measure brought it about by the unfortunate failure of the Nonimportation Agreement. Perhaps every Colony was faulty in that matter in some degree but neither chose to take any of the Blame of it to its self, & to shift it off each cast the whole upon the others. The Truth is there were so many of the Merchants under the Court Influence in all of them as that they were able to defeat the plan, & for that Reason I was doubtful from the beginning of the Success of it. The Agents of the Ministry have since been trying to perswade the people to believe that they are sick of their measures & would be glad to recede, but cannot consistent with their own honor while the Colonies are clamoring against them - they would therefore have us to be quite silent as tho we enjoyd our Rights & Liberties to the full, & trust that those who have discoverd the greatest perseverance in every Measure to enslave us, will of their own Accord & without the least Necessity give up their Design. This soothing & dangerous Doctrine I fear has had an effect in some of the Colonies, but I am in hopes that those who have been ready to trust to the false promises of Courtiers begin to see through the Delusion. It was impossible that many persons could be catchd in such a Snare in this province, where absolute Despotism appears to be continually making large Strides with barefaced Impudence. It will not be easy to convince this people that the Ministry have in their hearts any favor towards them, while they are taking their money out of their pockets, & appropriating it for the maintenance of a Governor who because of his absolute Dependence upon them will always yield obedience to their Instructions, and a standing Army in their Capital fortress, over which that Governor I presume to say dares not exercise any Authority, tho invested with it by the Charter, without express Leave from his Masters. Administration must be strangely blind indeed, or they must think us the most foolish and ductile people under Heaven (in which they are greatly mistaken) to imagine that in such a Condition we are to be flatterd with hopes of any kind Disposition of theirs towards us. The Governor & other Friends to the Ministry or rather friends to themselves would fain have it thought in England, that the People in general are easy & contented or to use the Words of his Speech at the opening of the last Session, that they are returnd to Good order & Government1 this may tend to establish him in his Seat as one who can carry the most favorite points but Nothing can afford greater Evidence to the Contrary than the general Contempt and Indignation with which his proclamation for an annual Thanksgiving was treated, because we were therein exhorted to return Thanks to Almighty God that "our religious & civil privileges were continued to us" & that "our Trade was enlargd" - It is said & I believe it to be a fact, that full two thirds of the congregational Clergy refusd to read the proclamation, & perhaps not more of them than appeard the last Spring in favor [of] the pompous congratulatory Address, that is not a Sixth part of them took any notice of those Clauses in the religious Services of the day. It is for the Interest of the Crown Officers here who are dependent upon the Ministers to make them believe that they have by their Art & policy reconciled the people to their Measures, & if the Nation is so far misled as to believe so, the Ministry may avail themselves of it, but if the Contrary should happen to be true, as it appears to me to be, such Events may sooner than we are aware of it take place, as may afford the Nation Grounds to repent of her Credulity. It may be thought arrogant for an American thus to express himself, but let Britain consider that her own & her Colonies dependence is at present mutual which may not & probably will not be the Case in some hereafter. Why should either side hasten on the alarming Crisis. I am a friend to both, but I confess my friendship to the latter is the most ardent - they have in time past and if by the severe treatment which the Colonies have receivd, Confidence in the Mother Country is not in too great a Degree lost, they may still for some time to come administer to each others Happiness & Grandeur. This in my humble Opinion greatly depends upon a Change of Ministers & Measures which it is not in my power & I presume not in yours however earnestly we both may desire it, to accomplish.

I wait in daily Expectation of a Letter from you.

1 May 30, 1771. Massachusetts State Papers, p. 300.

TO ARTHUR LEE.

[R. H. Lee, Life of Arthur Lee, vol. ii., pp., 189-192; a draft is in the Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library]

BOSTON, January 14th, 1772.

SIR, -

Your latest letter to me is of the 10th June,1 since which I have several times written to you and have been impatiently waiting for your farther favours. I suppose by this time the parliament is sitting for the despatch of business, and we shall soon discover whether administration have had it in their hearts, as we have been flattered, to recede from their oppressive measures, and repeal the obnoxious revenue acts. Is it not a strange mode of expression of late years made use of, that administration intends that this law shall be enacted, or that repealed? It is language adapted to the infamy of the present times, by a nation which boasts of the freedom and independency of her parliaments. I believe almost any of the American assemblies would highly resent such an imperious tone, even in the honourable board of commissioners of the customs, who I dare say think themselves equal in dignity, at least in proportion to the different countries, to his majesty's ministers of state. A Bostonian, I assure you, would blush with indignation to hear it said that his majesty's commissioners of the customs (though perhaps they are of his excellency's privy council) had held a consultation at Butcher's Hall, upon the affairs of the province, and that they had come to a conclusion that the house of representatives should rescind their late protest against any doctrines which tend to give royal instructions to the governor, the force of laws. This protest it is said, his majesty's wise ministers were so hugely affronted at, as to alter their determination upon a question, in which the fate of the British nation was involved, namely, whether our general assembly should sit at Cambridge or in Boston. I confess this was a question of such astonishing importance to the millions of Britons and their descendants, and decided no doubt with such refined discrimination of judgment, that is not so much to be wondered at, if all national wisdom is to be ascribed to such a bed of counsellors, who seem to have possessed themselves of all national power. But as the circumstances of things may alter, and his majesty may be obliged through necessity to have recourse to men of common understanding, when these are gone to receive their just rewards in another life, would it not be most proper that the parliament should be at least the ostensive legislature, for there is danger in precedents, and in time to come the supreme power of the nation may be the dupes of a ministry, who may have no more understanding than themselves. It has been said that the king's ministers have for years past received momentary hints respecting the fabrication of American revenue laws and other regulations, from some very wise heads on this side of the water, and particularly of this place; and perhaps Great Britain may be more indebted to some Bostonians or residents in Boston than she may imagine, however reproachfully she may have spoken of them. Bernard publicly declared that he did not obtrude his advice on his majesty's ministers unasked; and therefore we may naturally conclude that my lord of Hillsborough, (sublime as his understanding is) the minister in the department, stood in need of and asked his advice, when the baronet journalized the necessary measures of administration for the colonies, which he retailed in weekly and sometimes daily letters to his lordship. On his departure he recommended Mr Hutchinson, though a Bostonian, "born and educated" as one upon whom his lordship might depend as much as upon himself; and in this one thing I believe Bernard wrote the truth, for if they have not equal merit for their faithful services to administration, Mr. Hutchinson, I verily believe, has the greatest share. It is whispered here that the honourable board of commissioners have represented to administration that the present revenue is not sufficient to answer all demands, which are daily increasing, and therefore it will be necessary for their lordships to establish an additional fund. This is an important hint, which may relieve their lordships, unless a new manoeuvre should succeed, of which we have an account in the Boston Gazette enclosed. By a vessel just arrived from London, the friends of government, as they call themselves, pretend that they have certain assurances from administration, that in three months we shall not be troubled with commissioners or standing armies. This, if we could depend upon court promises, would afford an agreeable prospect. But the root of all our grievances is the parliament's taxing us, which they cannot do, but upon principles repugnant to and subversive of our constitution. If their lordships, the ministry, would be pleased to repeal the revenue acts, they would strike a blow at the root.

The grand design of our adversaries is to lull us into security, and make us easy while the acts remain in force, which would prove fatal to us.

I have written in great haste, and am sincerely your friend and humble servant,

1 R. H. Lee, Life of Arthur Lee, vol. i., pp. 215-219.

ARTICLE SIGNED "CANDIDUS."

[Boston Gazette, January 20, 1772.]

Messieurs EDES & GILL,

IN the Massachusetts-Gazette of the 9th instant, Chronus attempts to prove that "the Parliament's laying duties upon trade, for the express purpose of raising a revenue, is not repugnant to and subversive of our constitution." In defence of this proposition, he proceeds to consider the nation as commercial, and from thence to show the necessity of laws for the regulation of trade. - In the nation he includes Great-Britain and all the Colonies, and infers that these acts for the regulation of trade, "should extend to all the British dominions, to prevent one part of the national body from injuring another." And, says he, "If laws for the regulation of trade are necessary, who so proper to enact them, &c. as the British parliament, or to dispose of the fines & forfeitures arising from the breach of such acts?" And then he tells us, that as a number of preventive officers will hereupon become necessary, the parliament have thought proper to assign to his Majesty's revenue "the profits arising on the duties of importation for the payment of those officers ". This is Chronus's "method of reasoning ", to prove that because it is necessary that the parliament should enact laws for the regulation of trade, about which there has as yet been no dispute that I know of, and because it is proper that such preventive officers as shall be found needful to carry those laws into execution, should be paid out of the fines and forfeitures arising from the breach of them, Therefore, the parliament hath a right to make laws imposing duties or taxes, for the express purpose of raising a revenue in the colonies without their consent; and that this is not (as is alledg'd by our Patriots ") "repugnant to or subversive of our constitution ". Every one may easily see how Chronus evades the matter in dispute, and aims at amusing his readers according to his usual manner, by endeavouring, and that without a shadow of argument, to prove one point, instead of another which is quite distinct from it, and which he ought to prove, but cannot. He is indeed sensible that his artifice is seen through; that it will be urged that "he has evaded the chief difficulties," and that "the objection doth not lie against the regulation of trade, but against the imposing duties for the express purpose of raising a revenue." And he is full ready to remove this objection. But how? Why, by asking a question, which he often substitutes in the room of argument. Are we not, says he, "fellow-subjects with our brethren at home, and consequently bound to bear a part according to our ability, in supporting the honor & dignity of the crown?" It is allow'd that we are the subjects of the same prince with our brethren at home, and are in duty bound, as far as we are able, to support the honor and dignity of our Sovereign, while he affords us his protection. But does Chronus from thence infer an obligation on us to yield obedience to the acts of the British parliament imposing taxes upon us with the express intention of raising a revenue, to be appropriated for such purposes as that legislative thinks proper, without our consent? 0, says he, "there is good reason for this." What is the good reason? Why "if we will not consent to do anything ourselves ", "our money will be taken from us without our consent." This is conclusive argument indeed. And then he, as it were, imperceptibly glides into that which has ever appeared to be his favorite topick, however impertinent to the present point, viz, an independent support for the governor. He boldly affirms, what is a notorious untruth, that "we are unwilling to pay his Majesty's substitute in such a manner as should leave him that freedom and independency which is necessary to his station, and with which he is vested by the constitution:" And therefore the parliament hath a right to enable his Majesty to pay his substitute, out of a revenue extorted from us against our consent. If his premises were well grounded, his conclusion would not follow: And the question would still remain, to which Chronus has not attempted to give any rational answer, namely, By what authority doth the parliament these things, and who gave them this authority? Thus we still continue to dispute the authority of the parliament to lay duties and taxes upon us, with the express purpose of raising a revenue, as "repugnant to, and subversive of our constitution;" and for a reason which I dare say Chronus will never get over, namely, because as he himself allows," we are not represented in it." -

The English constitution, says Baron Montesquieu, has Liberty for its direct object: And the constitution of this province, as our own historian,1 informs us, is an epitome of the British constitution; and it undoubtedly has the same end for its object: Whatever laws therefore are made for our government, either in a manner, or for purposes subversive of Liberty, must be subversive of the end of the constitution, and consequently of the constitution itself. - No free people, as the Pennsylvania Farmer has observed, ever existed, or ever can exist without, to use a common but strong expression, keeping the purse-strings in their hands: But the parliament's laying taxes on the Colonies for the express purpose of raising a revenue, takes the purse strings out of their hands, and consequently it is "repugnant to, and subversive of (the end of) our constitution "-Liberty. Mr. Locke says, that the security of property is the end for which men enter into society; and I believe Chronus will not deny it: Whatever laws therefore are made in any society, tending to render property insecure, must be subversive of the end for which men prefer society to the state of nature; and consequently must be subversive of society itself:

But the parliament in which the Colonies have no voice, taking as much of their money as it pleases, and appropriating it to such purposes as it pleases, even against their consent, and as they think repugnant to their safety, renders all their property precarious, and therefore it is subversive of the end for which men enter into society and repugnant to every free constitution. - Mr. Hooker in his ecclesiastical polity, as quoted by Mr. Locke, affirms that "Laws they are not, which the public approbation hath not made so." This seems to be the language of nature and common sense; for if the public are bound to yield obedience to the laws, to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them: But the acts of parliament imposing duties, with the express purpose of raising a revenue in the colonies, have received every mark of the public disapprobation in every colony; and yet they are enforced in all, and in some with the utmost rigour. The British constitution having liberty for its object, is so framed, as that every man who is to be bound by any law about to be made, may be present by his representative in parliament, who may employ the whole force of his objections against it, if he cannot approve of it: If after fair debate, it is approv'd of by the majority of the whole representative body of the nation, the minority, by a rule essential in society, and without which it could not subsist, is bound to submit to it: But the colonies had no voice in parliament when the revenue acts were made; nay, though they had no representatives there, their petitions were rejected, because they were against duties to be laid on; and they have been called factious, for the objections they made, not only against their being taxed without their consent, which was a sufficient objection, but against the appropriation of the money when rais'd to purposes which as the Farmer has made to appear, will supersede the authority in our respective assemblies, which is most essential to liberty. Representation and Legislation, as well as taxation, are inseparable, according to the spirit of our constitution; and of all others that are free. Human foresight is incapable of providing against every accident. A small part of the nation may be "at sea, as Chronus tells us, when writs are issued out for the election of members of parliament"; and to admit that they, after their return "should be exempt from any acts of parliament, the members of which were chosen in their absence ", would be attended with greater evil to the community, the safety and welfare of which is the end of all legislation, than the misfortune of their voluntary absence, if it should prove one, could be to them. I say, if it should prove a misfortune to them; for those acts being made by the consent of representatives chosen by all the rest of the nation, it is presum'd they are calculated for the good of the whole, of which they, as a part, must necessarily partake: But the supposed case of these persons is far different from that of the colonists; who are, not by a voluntary choice of their own, but through necessity, not by mere accident, but by means of the local distance of their constant residence, excluded from being present by representation in the British legislature. Chronus allows that by means of their distance, "they are become incapable of exercising their original right of choosing representatives for the British parliament." If so, they cannot without subversion of the end of the British constitution, be bound to obedience, against their own consent, to such laws as are there made; especially such laws as tend to render precarious their property, the security of which is the end of men's entering into society. If they are thus bound, they are slaves and not free men: But slavery must certainly be "repugnant to the constitution" which has liberty for its direct object. If the supreme legislative of Great Britain, cannot consistently with the British constitution or the essential liberty of the colonies, make laws binding upon them, and Chronus for ought I can see, has not attempted to make it rationally appear that it can, it is dangerous for the colonies to admit any of its laws. For however upright some may think the present parliament to be, in intention, they may ruin us through mistake arising from an incurable ignorance of our circumstances; and though Chronus may be so singular as to judge the present revenue acts of parliament binding upon the colonies, to be salutary, the time may perhaps come, when even he may be convinced, that future ones may be oppressive and tyrannical, not only in their execution, but in the very intention of those that may make them.

Chronus says, that "he has all along taken it for granted, that the kingdom and the colonies are one dominion." If so he must allow the colonies to take it for granted that they have an equal share with the inhabitants of Britain in the rights belonging to this one dominion, and particularly in the cardinal right of being represented in the supreme legislature. But that right, he says, they are "incapable of exercising," by reason of their distance. We all agree in this, and it is not their fault? Why then should they not have the right of legislating for themselves, as well as that other part of this one dominion? Why truly, we have "a right of choosing an assembly, which with the concurrence of his Majesty's Governor, hath a power of enacting local statutes, establishing taxes, &c. - Yet still in subordination to the general laws of the empire, reserving the full right of supremacy & dominion, which are in themselves unalienable." If I understand his meaning in this dark expression, it is this, we have a right of choosing an assembly, but this assembly is controulable in all its acts, by another assembly which we have no right to choose, and which has this right of controul in itself unalienable. But the question still recurs, How came this right to be in the British parliament? Chronus says that "admitting that we are all one dominion, there is, and must be, a supreme, irresistible, absolute, uncontrouled authority, in which must reside the power of making and establishing laws," "and all others must conform to it, and be govern'd by it". But if we are all one dominion; or if I understand him, the members of one state, tho' so remotely situated, the kingdom from the Colonies, as that we cannot all partake of the rights of the supreme Legislature, why may not this "irresistible, absolute, uncontrouled," and controuling "authority, in which the jura summi imperii, or the rights of the government reside", be established in America, or in Ireland, as well as in Britain. Is there any thing in nature, or has Ireland or America consented that the part of this one dominion called Britain shall be thus distinguished? Or are we to infer her authority from her power? But it must be, and Chronus gives us no other reason for it than his bare affirmation, that "the King, Lords and Commons of Great-Britain form the supreme Legislature of the British dominions". And he adds, "to say that each of the Colonies had within itself a supreme independent Legislature, and that nevertheless the kingdom and the Colonies are all one dominion, is a solecism:" Let him then view the Kingdom and the Colonies in another light, and see whether there will be a solecism in considering them as more dominions than one, or separate states. It is certainly more concordant with the great law of nature and reason, which the most powerful nation may not violate and cannot alter, to suppose that the Colonies are separate independent and free, than to suppose that they must be one with Great-Britain and slaves. And slaves they must be, notwithstanding all which Chronus has said to the contrary, if Great Britain may make all laws whatsoever binding upon them, especially laws to take from them what portions of their property she pleases, without and against their consent.

I shall make further remarks upon Chronus, when I shall be at leisure.

CANDIDUS.

1 Mr. Hutchinson.

ARTICLE SIGNED "CANDIDUS."

[Boston Gazette, January 27, 1772; a complete draft of this article is in the Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library.]

Messieurs EDES & GILL,

I have observed from Baron Montesquieu, that the British constitution has liberty for its direct object and that the constitution of this province, according to Mr. Hutchinson, is an epitome of the British constitution: That the right of representation in the body that legislates, is essential to the British constitution, without which there cannot be liberty; and Chronus himself acknowledges, that the Americans are "incapable of exercising this right": Let him draw what conclusion he pleases. All I insist upon is, that the conclusion cannot be just, that "the parliament's laying duties upon trade with the express purpose of raising a revenue, is not repugnant to or subversive of our constitution." This doctrine, tho' long exploded by the best writers on both sides of the atlantic, he now urges; and he is reduced to this necessity, in order to justify or give coloring to his frequent bold assertions, that "no one has attempted even to infringe our liberties," and to his ungenerous reflections upon those who declare themselves of a different mind, as "pretended patriots," "overzealous," "intemperate politicians," "men of no property," who "expect to find their account" in perpetually keeping up the ball of contention. But after all that Chronus and his associates have said, or can say, the people of America have just "grounds still to complain" that their rights are violated. There seems to be a system of "tyranny and oppression" already begun. It is therefore the duty of every honest man, to alarm his fellow-citizens and countrymen, and awaken in them the utmost vigilance and circumspection. Jealousy, especially at such a time, is a political virtue: Nay, I will say, it is a moral virtue; for we are under all obligations to do what in us lies to save our country." Tyrants alone, says the great Vatel, will treat as seditious, those brave and resolute citizens, who exhort the people to preserve themselves from oppression, in vindication of their rights and privileges: A good prince, says he, will commend such virtuous patriots" and will "mistrust the selfish suggestions of a minister, who represents to him as rebels, all those citizens who do not hold out their hands to chains, who refuse lamely to suffer the strokes of arbitrary power."

I cannot help observing how artfully Chronus expresses his position, that the "parliament's laying duties upon trade with the express purpose of raising a revenue, is not repugnant to our constitution." It has not been made a question, that I know of, whether the parliament hath a right to make laws for the regulation of the trade of the colonies. Power she undoubtedly has to enforce her acts of trade: And the strongest maritime power caeteris paribus, will always make the most advantageous treaties, and give laws of trade to other nations, for whom there can be no pretence to the right of legislation. The matter however should be considered equitably, if it should ever be considered at all: If the trade of the Colonies is protected by the British navy, there may possibly be from thence inferr'd a just right in the parliament of Great Britain to restrain them from carrying on their trade to the injury of the trade of Great Britain. But this being granted, it is very different from the right to make laws in all cases whatever binding upon the Colonies, and especially for laying duties upon trade for the express purpose of raising a revenue. In the one case it may be the wisdom of the Colonies, under present circumstances to acquiesce in reasonable restrictions, rather than lose their whole trade by means of the depredations of a foreign power: In the other, it is a duty they owe themselves and their posterity, by no means to acquiesce; because it involves them in a state of perfect slavery. I say perfect slavery: For, as political liberty in its perfection consists in the people's consenting by themselves or their representatives, to all laws which they are bound to obey, so perfect political slavery consists in their being bound to obey any laws for taxing them, to which they cannot consent. If a people can be deprived of their property by another person or nation, it is evident that such a people cannot be free. Whether it be by a nation or a monarch, is not material: The masters indeed are different, but the government is equally despotic; and tho' the despotism may be mild, from principles of policy, it is not the less a despotism.

Chronus talks of Magna Charta as though it were of no greater consequence than an act of parliament for the establishment of a corporation of buttonmakers. Whatever low ideas he may entertain of that Great Charter, and such ideas he must entertain of it to support the cause he hath espous'd, it is affirm'd by Lord Coke, to be declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England. "It is called Charta Libertatum Regni, the Charter of the Liberties of the kingdom, upon great reason, says that sage of the law, because liberos facit, it makes and preserves the people free." Those therefore who would make the people slaves, would fain have them look upon this charter, in a light of indifference, which so often affirms sua jura, suas libertates, their own rights, their own liberties: But if it be declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England, it cannot be altered in any of its essential parts, without altering the constitution. Whatever Chronus may have adopted from Mr. Hume, Vatel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that "the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution," "that their authority does not extend so far," & "that they ought to consider the fundamental laws as sacred, if the nation has not, in very express terms, given them power to change them." And he gives a reason for it solid and weighty; for, says he, "the constitution of the state ought to be fixed." Mr. Hume, as quoted by Chronus, says, the only rule of government is the established practice of the age, upon maxims universally assented to. If then any deviation is made from the maxims upon which the established practice of the age is founded, it must be by universal assent. "The fundamental laws," says Vatel, "are excepted from their (legislators) commission," "nothing leads us to think that the nation was willing to submit the constitution itself to their pleasure." "They derive their authority from the constitution, how then can they change it without destroying the foundation of their own authority?" If then according to Lord Coke, Magna Charta is declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of the people, and Vatel is right in his opinion, that the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution, I think it follows, whether Lord Coke has expressly asserted it or not, that an act of parliament made against Magna Charta in violation of its essential parts, is void. - "By the fundamental laws of England, says Vatel, the two houses of parliament in concert with the King, exercise the legislative power: But if the two houses should resolve to suppress themselves, and to invest the King with the full and absolute government, certainly the nation would not suffer it, "although it was done by a solemn act of parliament. But such doctrine is directly the reverse of that which Chronus holds; which amounts to this, that if the two houses should give up to the King, any, the most essential rights of the people declared in Magna Charta, the nation has not a power either de jura or de facto to prevent it. I may hereafter quote for his serious perusal, the reasoning of the immortal Locke upon this important subject, and am, in the mean time,

Your's, CANDIDUS.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MASSACHUSETTS TO THE GOVERNOR, APRIL 10, 1772.

[Massachusetts State Papers, pp. 315, 316; a draft, is in the Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library.]

May it please your Excellency.

The House of Representatives have duly considered your speech1 to both Houses, at the opening of this session. Your Excellency is pleased to acquaint us, that, "if we had desired you to carry the Court to Boston, because it is the most convenient place; and the prerogative of the Crown to instruct the Governor to convene the Court at such place as his Majesty may think proper, had not been denied; you should have obtained leave to meet us in Boston, at this time; but that you shall not be at liberty to do so, whilst this denial is persisted in."

We have maturely considered this point; and are still firmly in opinion, that such instruction is repugnant to the royal charter, wherein the Governor is vested with the full power of adjournment, proroguing and dissolving the General Assembly, as he shall judge necessary. Nothing in the charter, appears to us to afford the least grounds to conclude, that a right is reserved to his Majesty of controling the Governor, in thus exercising this full power. Nor indeed does it seem reasonable that there should for, it being impossible that any one, at the distance of three thousand miles, should be able to foresee the most convenient time or place of holding the Assembly, it is necessary that such discretionary power should be lodged with the Governor, who is, by Charter, constantly to reside within the Province.

We are still earnestly desirous of the removal of this Assembly to the Court House, in Boston; and we are sorry that your Excellency's determination thereon, depends upon our disavowing these principles; because we cannot do it consistently with the duty we owe our constituents. We are constrained to be explicit at this time; for if we should be silent, after your Excellency has recommended it to us, as a necessary preliminary, to desist from saying any thing upon this head, while we request your Excellency for a removal of the Assembly, for reasons of convenience only, it might be construed as tacitly conceding to a doctrine injurious to the constitution, and in effect, as rescinding our own record, of which we still deliberately approve.

The power of adjourning and proroguing the General Assembly, is a power in trust, to be exercised for the good of the province; this House have a right to judge for themselves, whether it was thus exercised. We cannot avoid taking this occasion, freely to declare to your Excellency, that the holding of the Assembly in this place, without any good reason which we can conceive of, under the many and great inconveniences which this, and former Houses, have so fully set forth to your Excellency, is, in our opinion, an undue exercise of power; and a very great grievance, which we still hope will soon be fully redressed.

Your Excellency may be assured, that this House will, with all convenient despatch, take into our most serious consideration, that part of your speech which concerns the establishment of a partition line between this province and the province of New York; and that we will, with great candor, contribute every thing in our power, to accomplish the same equitable terms.

The other parts of your Excellency's speech, have had the proper attention of the House; and we are determined, during the remainder of the session, which must be short, to consult his Majesty's real service - the true interest of the province.

1 The original message of Governor Hutchinson of April 8, 1772, is among the Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library, and on it is endorsed, in the handwriting of Adams, the fourth paragraph of the following reply. 2 Massachusetts State Papers, pp. 313-315.

ARTICLE SIGNED "VINDEX."

[Boston Gazette, April 20, 1772.]

Messieurs EDES & GILL,

Philanthrop Jun. in Draper's paper of the 9th current tells us, that "For four or five years together nobody could appear in print unless he was a favourer of what is call'd Liberty," and therefore concludes, "Falshood has been imposed on the credulous readers of News-papers, and has spread through the country for truth, because no one would contradict it." What fortitude must a man be possess'd of that can offer two such sentences to the eye of the public in a paper which for that space has contained nothing else in the political way? Again, why have we a mark of distinction in the signature? Was Philanthrop senior a liberty writer? Was the True Patriot a liberty writer? Were all the scribblers in Mein's Chronicle friends or favourers of what is called liberty? Blush! reformer blush at imposition of so gross a kind!

But what are the falshoods these credulous people have been led to believe? Why it seems that men from Lancaster and elsewhere, have been insinuating that we laboured under grievances in commerce, legislation, and execution of the wholesome laws of the land, when no such thing has been seen, felt, heard or understood among us; and one Lancaster man in particular, has been furnished with all his prejudices from the letters of Junius Americanus, a despicable creature (as we say) who has certainly blackened some men and measures in both Englands, in such manner as defies time itself to bleach their characters. And till the officious Philanthrop engaged, every one judged the friends, at least, of those respectable men, would avoid the provocation of fresh caustics to such rankled ulcers; but luxuriant flesh forever interrupts the efficacy of the most healing plaisters, and must be removed as fast as it puts forth. Indeed gentlemen, I myself who live in Boston, the centre of American politicks, have suspected we had some grievances to complain of before either Junius Anglicanus or Americanus ever published a letter on the subject to my knowledge: I thought the stamp-act a grievance, I think the extension of the vice-admiralty courts a grievance, I think the captious and unprecedented treatment of our legislature a grievance; and above all, I think the alteration of our free and mutually dependent constitution, into a dependent ministerial despotism a grievance so great, so ignominious and intolerable, that in case I did not hope things would in some measure regain their ancient situation, without more blood shed and murder than has already been committed, I could freely wish at the risk of my all to have a fair chance of offering to the manes of my slaughtered countrymen a libation of the blood of the ruthless traitors who conspired their destruction. It is here I confess my fingers would fall with weight, let those of Dr. Y -g, Mr. -x, or even Mr. A -s, fall how or where they pleased.

VINDEX.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MASSACHUSETTS TO THE GOVERNOR. JULY 14, 1772.1

[Massachusetts State Papers, pp. 330, 331 ; extracts are printed in W. V. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, vol. i., p. 482, with the statement that such extracts were copied from an original draft in the autograph of Adams.2]

May it please your Excellency,

In answer to your message of yesterday, this House beg leave to observe, that they are not unapprized that the Province House is out of repair, and that expense might be saved, by making such repairs as are necessary, as soon as may be. But, that building was procured for the residence of a Governor, whose sole support was to be provided for by the grants and acts of the General Assembly, according to the tenor of the charter: and, it is the opinion of this House, that it never was expected by any Assembly of this province, that it would be appropriated for the residence of any Governor, for whose support, adequate provision should be made in another way. Upon this consideration, we cannot think it our duty to make any repairs, at this time.

Your Excellency may be assured, that this House is far from being influenced by any personal disrespect. Should the time come, which we hope for, when your Excellency shall think yourself at liberty to accept of your whole support from this province, according to ancient and invariable usage, we doubt not, but you will then find the Representatives of this people ready to provide for your Excellency a house, not barely tenantable, but elegant. In the mean time, as your Excellency receives from his Majesty a certain and adequate support, we cannot have the least apprehensions that you will be so far guided by your own inclination, as that you will make any town in the province the place of your residence, but where it shall be most conducive to his Majesty's service, and the good and welfare of the people.

1 On this date the Governor prorogued the General Court to meet again September 30. The next session actually commenced January 6, 1773. 2 Wells also attributes to Adams the message of the house of May 29, 1772; Life of Samuel Adams, vol. I., p. 477; Massachusetts State Papers, p. 321.

ARTICLE SIGNED "VALERIUS POPLICOLA."1

[Boston Gazette, October 5, 1772.]

Messieurs EDES & GILL,

"Is there a Prince on Earth, who has power to lay a single Penny upon his subjects, without the Grant and Consent of those who are to pay it, otherwise than by Tyranny and Violence? No Prince can levy it unless through Tyranny and under Penalty of Excommunication. But there are those who are Bruitish enough not to know what they can do or omit in this Affair.

Such is the language of a great and good Historian and Statesman, a Subject of France. Had the English Politicians and Ministers been either half as honest or half as wise as he, they would never have driven the American Revenue without the Grant or Consent of those who pay it, to such a length, as to cause an Alienation of affection which perhaps may not easily if ever be recovered. By this kind of politics, says the worthy Frenchman, Charles the seventh brought a heavy Sin upon his own Soul and upon that of his Successors, and gave his Kingdom a Wound which would continue long to bleed. The British Ministers, possibly, may entertain different Ideas of Morals from those of the French Historian, if indeed they have any such kind of ideas at all. However, the Nation, I fear, will have Occasion to rue the day, when they suffer'd their Politics so far to prevail, as to gain such an Influence in their Parliament as they certainly did in the last, to say nothing of the present. The Impositions upon the French, says Mr. Gordon,2 grew monstrous almost as soon as they grew arbitrary. Charles the seventh, who began them, never rais'd annually more than one hundred and eighty thousand Pounds. His Son Lewis the eleventh almost trebled the Revenue; and since then, all that the Kingdom and People had, even to their Skins, has hardly been thought sufficient for their Kings." An awakening Caution to Americans! Lest by tamely submitting to be plundered, they encourage their Plunderers to grasp at all they have.

The Merchants of this Continent have passively submitted to the Indignity of a Tribute; and the Landholders, tho' Sharers in the Indignity, have been perhaps too unconcern'd Spectators of the humiliating Scene. Posterity, who will no doubt revenge their Fathers Wrongs, may also be ashamed, when in the Page of History they are informed of their tame Subjection. Had the Body of this People shown a proper Resentment, at the time when the proud Taskmasters first made their appearance, we should never have seen Pensioners multiplying like the Locusts in Egypt, which devoured every green Thing. I speak with Assurance; because it seldom has happened if ever, that even a small People has been kept long in Bondage, when they have unitedly and perseveringly resolv'd to be Free.

At that critical Period, we hearkened to what we then took to be, the Dictates of sound policy and Prudence. We were led to place a Confidence in those, whose Protection we had a right to claim, and we hoped for Deliverance in dry Remonstrances and humble Supplication. We have petition'd, repeatedly petition'd, and our Petitions have been heard, barely heard! The Grievances of this Continent have no doubt "reached the Royal Ear"; I wish I could see reason to say they had touch'd the Royal Heart. No - They yet remain altogether unredress'd. Such has been the baneful Influence of corrupt and infamous Ministers and Servants of the Crown; that the Complaints of three Millions of loyal Subjects have not yet penetrated the Royal Breast, to move it even to pity.

Have not our humble Petitions, breathing a true Spirit of rational Loyalty, and expressive of a just Sense of those Liberties the Restoration of which we implored, been followed with Grievance upon Grievance, as fast as the cruel Heart and Hand of a most execrable Paricide could invent and fabricate them? I will not at present enumerate Grievances; they are known, sufficiently known, felt and understood. Is it not enough, to have a Governor, an avowed Advocate for ministerial Measures, and a most assiduous Instrument in carrying them on - moddel'd, shaped, controul'd, and directed-totally independant of the people over whom he is commissioned to govern, and yet absolutely dependent upon the Crown - pensioned by those on whom his existence depends, and paid out of a Revenue establish'd by those who have no Authority to establish it, and extorted from the People in a Manner most Odious, insulting and oppressive. Is not this, Indignity enough to be felt by those who have any feeling? Are we still threatned with more? Is Life, Property and every Thing dear and sacred, to be now submitted to the Decisions of PENSION'D JUDGES, holding their places during the pleasure of such a Governor, and a Council perhaps overawed! To what a State of Infamy, Wretchedness and Misery shall we be reduc'd if our Judges shall be prevail'd upon to be thus degraded to Hirelings, and the Body of the People shall suffer their free Constitution to be overturn'd and ruin'd. Merciful GOD! Inspire Thy People with Wisdom and Fortitude, and direct them to gracious Ends. In this extreme Distress, when the Plan of Slavery seems nearly compleated, 0 save our Country from impending Ruin - Let not the iron Hand of Tyranny ravish our Laws and seize the Badge of Freedom, nor avow'd Corruption and the murderous Rage of lawless Power be ever seen on the sacred Seat of Justice!

Is it not High Time for the People of this Country explicitly to declare, whether they will be Freemen or Slaves? It is an important Question which ought to be decided. It concerns us more than any Thing in this Life. The Salvation of our Souls is interested in the Event: For wherever Tyranny is establish'd, Immorality of every Kind comes in like a Torrent. It is in the Interest of Tyrants to reduce the People to Ignorance and Vice. For they cannot live in any Country where Virtue and Knowledge prevail. The Religion and public Liberty of a People are intimately connected; their Interests are interwoven, they cannot subsist separately; and therefore they rise and fall together. For this Reason, it is always observable, that those who are combin'd to destroy the People's Liberties, practice every Art to poison their Morals. How greatly then does it concern us, at all Events, to put a Stop to the Progress of Tyranny. It is advanced already by far too many Strides. We are at this moment upon a precipice. The next step may be fatal to us. Let us then act like wise Men; calmly took around us and consider what is best to be done. Let us converse together upon this most interesting Subject and open our minds freely to each other. Let it be the topic of conversation in every social Club. Let every Town assemble. Let Associations & Combinations be everywhere set up to consult and recover our just Rights.

" The Country claims our active Aid. That let us roam; & where we find a Spark Of public Virtue, blow it into Flame."

VALERIUS POPLIC0LA.

1 Attributed to Adams by W. V. Wells. See above, page 256. 2 Rev. William Gordon, of Roxbury, author of The History of the Rise, Progress, and Establishment, of the Independence of the United States of America.

TO ANDREW ELTON WELLS.1

[MS., Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library.]

BOSTON Octob 21 1772

My DEAR SIR

I have receivd several Letters from you; and my not having returnd any Answer to them before, is owing by no means to an Inattention to them, but to my misfortune in not hearing of the few Vessells that pass from hence to Georgia being about to sail, till I lost the Opportunity. I therefore upon the first Notice, make use of this Conveyance to assure you of my tender Regards & Affection for you as a Brother; sincerely hoping this will meet yourself & Family in health & happiness. Indeed common Experience convinces me that there is very little Dependence upon either in this Life; We too often mistake our true Happiness, and when we arrive to the Enjoyment of that which seemd to promise it to us, we find that it is all an imaginary Dream, at the best fleeting & transitory. We have an affecting Instance of this within our own Connections; Your amiable Sister Kitty was agreably married, and when in the daily Expectation of seeing the happy Pledge of conjugal Affection, cutt off without a moments Warning of the fatal Stroke of Death! Still more happy however in another Life as we [have] abundant Reason to be assured; for the Christian Temper & Behavior she constantly exhibited, when she least expected it, afford us more solid hopes of her present Happiness, than any Expressions she might have made use of, had she been permitted, at the time of her Departure. One would from this & other like Instances conclude, that to be possessd of the Christian Principles, & to accommodate our whole Deportment to such Principles, is to be happy in this Life; it is this that sweetens every thing we enjoy; indeed of it self it yields us full Satisfaction, & thus puts it out of the power of the World to disappoint us by any of its frowns.

Your last Letter mentioned your Expectation of the sudden Dissolution of your General Assembly, which I perceive afterwards took place. It appears still to be the determination of the ministry to enslave the Colonies, and the Governors are to be the Instruments. It therefore behoves every Colony to be vigilant; & agreably to the Advice of the Pennsylvania Farmer, Each should support the others. This Province seems to be devoted to ministerial Vengeance. We have been long struggling against the Incroachments of Tyranny, which now threatens its Completion by the Independency of the Governor & the Judges of the superior Court. If the Tribute which is by Acts of Parliament extorted from the Americans, is appropriated for making the executive Power totally independent of the People for their Support, while it is absolutely dependent upon the Crown for its being as well as Subsistence, there will be an End of freedom. In such Courts & under such an Administration, you will easily conceive what Constructions of Law & what Decisions the people are to expect. I send you two or three of our latest papers; there may be some Speculations upon the Subject in them, which you may think proper to get republishd in your papers.

You mentiond in one of your Letters your Intention to send your Daughter here, than which nothing would be more agreable to us.

Your Sister, my dear Betsy,2 joyns with me in Expressions of Love to Mrs Wells, & begs me to assure you that she is, as I am in strict truth Yours affectionately,

1 Brother-in-law of Adams. 2 Mrs. Adams.

TO ELBRIDGE GERRY.

[J. T. Austin, Life of Elbridge Gerry, vol. i., Pp. 9, 10.]

BOSTON, October 27, 1772.

I have just now received your favour, dated this day. I am perfectly of your opinion with regard to the independency of the judges. It is a matter beyond doubt in my mind. I was told yesterday, by one of his majesty's council, that Mr. Hutchinson has a letter by the packet, from Bernard, which advises him of it as a fact. This town is to meet to-morrow, to consider what is proper for them to do. We have looked upon it as of so interesting a nature to us, that even the report should alarm us. It is proposed by many among us to apply to the judges for their explicit declaration, whether they will accept of so odious a support, and to apply also to the governour for a general assembly forthwith. I will write you on Thursday, and let you know the event. Our enemies would intimidate us, by saying our brethren in the other towns are indifferent about this matter, for which reason I am particularly glad to receive your letter at this time. Roxbury, I am told, is thoroughly awake. I wish we could arouse the continent.

I write in the utmost haste,

TO ELBRIDGE GERRY.

[MS., Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library; a text with slight variations is in J. T. Austin, Life of Elbridge Gerry, vol. i., pp. 10-12.]

BOSTON Oct 29 1772

MY DEAR SIR

I wrote you in great Haste on Tuesday last. Since which the Freeholders & other Inhabitts of this Town have had a Meeting,1 to enquire into the Grounds of the Report that the Salaries of the Judges are fixd & paid by order of the Crown, and to determine upon such measures as should be proper for them to take upon so alarming an Occasion.

The inclosd paper contains a short but true Account of their proceedings. It is proposd by some to petition the Governr to order a session of the Genl Assembly, and that the Town should expressly declare their natural & Charter Rights to their Representatives, and the Instances in which they have been violated peremptorily requiring them to take every Step which the Constitution prescribes to redress our Grievances, or if every such Step has been already taken, to inform their Constituents, that they may devise such Measures as they may see their way clear to take, or patiently bear the Yoke. I will acquaint you with the proceedings of the Town as they pass. In the mean time I wish your Town would think it proper to have a Meeting, which may be most seasonable at this time. For as the Superr Court is to be held at Salem next Week, you will have the Oppy of making a decent Application to them, & enquiring of the Certainty of this Report, & other matters mentd in your Letter to me. Which Enquiry will be more naturally made to them in Case the Govr should decline answering the message of this Town, or do it, if I may be allowd the Expression, equivocally.

This Country must shake off their intollerable burdens at all Events. Every day strengthens our oppressors & weakens us. If each Town would declare its Sense of these Matters I am perswaded our Enemies would not have it in their power to divide us, in whh they have all along shown their dexterity. Pray use your Influence with Salem & other Towns - But I am now going with our Comt to his Excellency.2 Shall be glad of a Letter from you. Your last I read to the Town to their great Satisfaction though I concealed the name of its worthy Author.

1 October 28, Boston Record Commissioners' Report, vol. xviii., p. 88. 2 Adams, Otis and Joseph Warren were members of a committee of seven appointed by the Town of Boston on October 28 to present to the Governor the address adopted by the Town on that date. Ibid., p. 90. The address was prepared by a committee consisting of Adams, Joseph Warren and Benjamin Church. The text is in ibid., p. 89. Cf. Works of John Adams, vol. ii., p. 299 (October 27, 1772).

TO ARTHUR LEE.1

[MS., Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library; a text, with variations, is in R. H. Lee, Life of Arthur Lee, vol. ii., Pp. 193-195.] BOSTON Novr 3 1772

MY DEAR SIR/

Since my last we have Advice that Lord Hillsborough is removd from the American Department, & tho he makes his Exit with the smiles & honors of the Court, he has the Curses of the disinterrested & better part of the Colonists. Not that it is thought his Lordship is by any means to be reckoned the most inveterate & active of all the Conspirators against our Rights: There are others on this Side of the Atlantick who have been more assiduous in plotting the Ruin of our Liberties than even he, and they are the more infamous, because the Country they would enslave, is that very Country in which (to use the Words of their Adulators & Expectants) they were "born & educated."

The Character of Lord Dartmouth has been unexceptionable in America in point of moral Virtue; I wish it could be ascertaind of all his Majestys Ministers and Servants. It is the opinion I have of them that makes me tremble for his Lordship, lest in the Circle he should make Shipwreck of his Virtue. I am well informd that he has wrote a very polite Letter to Hutchinson, in which he expresses a Satisfaction in his Conduct, & tells him he has always been of Opinion that the King has a Right to pay his Governors & other officers but surely he should have made himself thoroughly acquainted with the several political Institutions and Charters of the Colonies as well as the nature of free Governments in general before he explicitly & officially declares such an Opinion. I wish a Consideration that he has to correspond with the most artful plausible and insinuating Geniusses, & some of them the most malicious Enemies of the common Rights of Mankind, might induce his Lordship to be upon his Guard against too suddenly giving full Credit to their Representations, which perhaps was the capital mistake of his predecessor in office - our Conspirators were alarmd at his Appointment & I believe are determined if they can to impose upon his Credulity, if he has any such Weakness about him.

We are now alarmd with the Advice that the Judges of our Superior Court, have Salaries appointed by order of the Crown, independent of the people. This has occasiond a meeting of this metropolis, the proceedings of which you have in the inclosed papers. At the first meeting on the Wednesday2 & at the last Adjournment on the Monday3 following, there was a respectable Appearance of the Inhabitants, tho not so full as has sometimes been on Occasions of much less Importance; owing partly to its being the Season of the year when the Town is filled with our Country folks & every one is laying up provisions necessary for the approaching long Winter, partly from the Industry of the Enemies to prevent a full meeting as they before had been to prevent any meeting at all (for they dread nothing more) & partly from the Opinion of some that there was no method left to be taken but the last, which is also the Opinion of many in the Country. However as I said before, there was a respectable meeting; and I think the Town has taken a necessary Step to ascertain the true Sense of the Country with regard to our Grievances, which being known, it will be the easier to determine upon & prosecute to Effect the Methods which ought to be taken for the Redress of our intollerable Grievances. The Tories give out, tho in Whispers, that they expect what they call a Breese before long, which they say they gather from the slow, but regular Approaches that are made. They will form what Judgment they please. Perhaps they begin to be apprehensive that the body of a long insulted people will bear the Insults & Oppression no longer than untill they feel in themselves Strength to shake off the Yoke. If this is their Determination, it is justifiable as far as the Declaration of Mr. H. himself has Weight; for I am told by a Gentleman whom I can credit, that in Conversation he said there was nothing in Morality that forbid Resistance.

In your last you expressd your hopes of the removal of Hillsborough. I could not joyn with you; for if I am to have a master, let me have a severe one that I may always have the mortifying Sense of it. I shall then always be disposed to take the first fair Opportunity of ridding my self of Slavery. There is danger of the peoples being flatterd with such partial Reliefe as Lord Dartmouth may be able, (if disposed) to obtain for them & building upon vain Hopes till their Chains are rivetted. Are they not still heaping Grievance upon Grievance, & while they remain, to what purpose would it be if his Lordship should get a few boyish Instructions to the Govr relaxed? Would this be a reason for a final Submission to a Tribute & Egyptian Taskmasters in Support of despotick Power! The Tribute, the Tribute is the Indignity which I hope in God will never be patiently borne by a People who of all the people on the Earth deserve most to be free.

I am astonishd that [Dr. Franklin] has written no Letter to the Speaker.

I shall write you by the next Ship.

1 Arthur Lee to Samuel Adams, January 25, 1773: "I have just now received your favour of Nov. 3, 1772, together with a pamphlet and some papers, for which I am extremely obliged to you. . . . I shall take the liberty of putting the first part of your letter in the newspapers here, as I think it extremely proper my Lord Dartmouth should read the excellent admonition it contains." R. H. Lee, Life of Arthur Lee, vol. i., p. 226. 2 Boston Record Commissioners' Report, vol. xviii., p. 88. 3 Ibid., p. 92.

TO ELBRIDGE GERRY.

[MS., Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library; a text, with variations, is in J. T. Austin, Life of Elbridge Gerry, vol. i., pp. 15-l8.]

BOSTON 5 Novr 1772

MY DEAR SIR

I recd with pleasure your Letter of the 2d Inst. I was sure you cd not but be of Opinion, that Unanimity in the Measures taken by the friends of the Country is of the utmost Importance. I must with great Deferrence to your Judgment, think that even in our wretched State, the mode of petitioning the Govr will have a good Effect. I was aware that his Answers would be in the same high tone, in which we find them expressd; yet our requests have been so reasonable that in refusing to comply with them he must have put himself in the wrong -, in the opinion of every honest & sensible man; the Consequence of which will be, that such measures as the people may determine upon to save themselves, if rational & manly, will be the more reconcileable even to cautious minds, & thus we may expect that Unanimity which we wish for.

I have the satisfaction of inclosing the last proceedings of our Town meeting, in which I think you will perceive a Coincidence with your own Judgment, in a plan concerted for the whole to act upon. Our timid sort of people are disconcerted, when they are positively told that the Sentiments of the Country are different from those of the City. Therefore a free Communication with each Town will serve to ascertain this matter; and when once it appears beyond Contradiction, that we are united in Sentiments there will be a Confidence in each other, & a plan of Opposition will be easily formed, & executed with Spirit. In such a Case (to return your own Language with entire Approbation) those "who have Virtue enough to oppose the wicked designs of the Great, will have this for their boast that they have struggled for & with an honest people."

I was at first of your Opinion "that it wd be most proper for a Come from Boston, united with Comtes from two or three other Towns to wait on the Judges" &c. and I mentiond it to several Gentlemen of the Neighboring Towns who approved of it, but so much Caution prevails, that they suspected whether their respective towns wd stir till Boston had given the Lead, (a needless Compliment to the Capital); This turnd our Thoughts to the Measures taken by the Town, & led me to conceive hopes, that as the Superr Court wd be soon sitting at Salem, Mbl Head & other towns in that County would come into such a proposal.

I take Notice of what you observe "that our whole dependence as people seems to be upon our own Wisdom & Valor," in which I fully agree with you. It puts me in mind of a Letter I recd not along ago from a friend of mine of some note in London, wherein he says, "your whole dependence under God is upon your own Virtue, (Valor). I know of no Noblemen in this Kingdom who care any thing about you, excepting Lords Chatham & Shelburne, & you would do well to be watchful even of them."

I earnestly wish that the Inhabitants of Marblehead & other Towns would severally meet, & if they see Cause, among other Measures, second this town & appoint a Come to be ready to communicate with ours1 when ready. This would at once discover an Union of Sentiments thus far & have its Influence on other Towns. It wd at least show that Boston is not wholly deserted, & might prevent "its falling a Sacrifice to the Rage or ridicule of our (common) Enemies." I shall be pleasd with your further Sentiments & am in strict truth,

1 The Boston Committee of Correspondence was appointed on November 2. "It was then moved by Mr Samuel Adams, That a Committee of Correspondence be appointed to consist of twenty one Persons - to state the Rights of the Colonists and of this Province in particular, as Men, as Christians, and as Subjects; to communicate and publish the same to the several Towns in this Province and to the World as the sense of this Town, with the Infringements and Violations thereof that have been, or from time to time may be made - Also requesting of each Town a free communication of their Sentiments on this Subject - And the Question being accordingly put - Passed in the Affermative. Nem Cont. Boston Record Commissioner Report, vol. xviii., p.93. Cf., William Gordon, History of the Rise, Progress, and Establishment, of the Independence of the United States of America, vol. i., pp. 312-314.

TO ELBRIDGE GERRY.

[MS., Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library; a text, with variations, is in J. T. Austin, Life of Elbridge Gerry, vol. i., pp. 19-21.]

BOSTON Novr 14 1772

MY DEAR SIR

Your Letter of the 10 Inst.1 did not come to my hand till this Evening. It is a great Satisfaction to me to be assured from you that the Friends to Liberty in Marblehead are active & that there is like to be a Town meeting there. Our Committee are industrious, and I think I may promise you, they will be ready to report to the Town in two or three days; so that if your Town should think proper to make an Adjournment for ten days or a Fortnight, they will doubtless by that time if not before have an Opportunity of acting upon our Resolutions. I am sorry when any of our Proceedings are not exactly according to your Mind. The Word you object to2 in our resolves was designd to introduce into our State of Grievances "the Chh Innovations and the Establishment of those Tyrants in Religion, Bishops" which as you observe will probably take place. I cannot but hope, when you consider how indifferent too many of the Clergy are to our just & righteous Cause, that some of them are the Adulators of our Oppressors, and even some of the best of them are extremely cautious of recommending (at least in their publick performances), the Rights of their Country to the protection of Heaven, lest they should give offence to the little Gods on Earth, you will judge it quite necessary that we should assert [and] vindicate our Rights as Christians as well as Men & Subjects.

The Town of Roxbury are to meet on Monday next; and a great Number in Cambridge have subscribed a Petition to their Selectmen for a Meeting there. I have recd a Letter from a Gentleman of Influence in Plymouth who is pleasd to say, he thinks the general plan adopted here will produce great Consequences if supported with Spirit in the Country; & that he believes there will be no Difficulty in getting a Meeting there & carrying the point in seconding this town. He tells me, the Pulse of his fellow Townsmen beat high and their resentment he supposes is equal to that of any other Town. May God grant, that the Love of Liberty & a Zeal to support it may enkindle in every town. If the Enemies should see the flame bursting in different parts of the Country & distant from each other, it might discourage their attempts to damp & quench it. I am well assured they are alarmd at the Measure now taking, being greatly apprehensive of the same Consequences from it which our good friend at Plymouth hopes and expects. This should animate us in carrying it into Execution. I beg you would exert your utmost Influence in your neighboring towns and elsewhere. I hear Nothing of old Salem. I fear they have had an opiate administerd to them. I am told there has been a Consultation there, a Cabal in which his E -- y presided. Pray let me still be favord with your Letters & be assured I am sincerely

YOUR FRIEND,

1 T. Austin, Life of Elbridge Gerry, vol. i., pp. 18, 19; the original is in the Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library. 2 "Christians."

THE RIGHTS OF THE COLONISTS, A LIST OF VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS AND A LETTER OF CORRESPONDENCE.1

Adopted by the Town of Boston, November 20, I772.2

[Boston Record Commissioners' Report, vol. xviii., pp. 94-108.]

The Committee appointed by the Town the second Instant "to State the Rights of the Colonists and of this Province in particular, as Men, as Christians, and as Subjects; to communicate and publish the same to the several Towns in this Province and to the World as the sense of this Town with the Infringements and Violations thereof that have been, or from Time to Time may be made. Also requesting of each Town a free Communication of their Sentiments Reported First, a State of the Rights of the Colonists and of this Province in particular -- Secondly, A List of the Infringements, and Violations of those Rights. -- Thirdly, A Letter of Correspondence with the other Towns. -- 1st. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men. -- Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can - Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature -

All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please: And in case of intollerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another. -- When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And previous limitations as form an equitable original compact. ---

Every natural Right not expressly given up or from the nature of a Social Compact necessarily ceded remains.

All positive and civil laws, should conform as far as possible, to the Law of natural reason and equity. -

As neither reason requires, nor religeon permits the contrary, every Man living in or out of a state of civil society, has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. -

"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty" in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws Of God and nature, as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former. -

In regard to Religeon, mutual tolleration in the different professions thereof, is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced; and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind: And it is now generally agreed among christians that this spirit of toleration in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society "is the chief characteristical mark of the true church " 3 & In so much that Mr Lock has asserted, and proved beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only Sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach Doctrines subversive of the Civil Government under which they live. The Roman Catholicks or Papists are excluded by reason of such Doctrines as these "that Princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those they call hereticks may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of Government, by introducing as far as possible into the states, under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty and property, that solecism in politicks, Imperium in imperio 4 leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war and blood shed -

The natural liberty of Men by entring into society is abridg'd or restrained so far only as is necessary for the Great end of Society the best good of the whole-

In the state of nature, every man is under God, Judge and sole Judge, of his own rights and the injuries done him: By entering into society, he agrees to an Arbiter or indifferent Judge between him and his neighbours; but he no more renounces his original right, than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to Referees or indifferent Arbitrations. In the last case he must pay the Referees for time and trouble; he should be also willing to pay his Just quota for the support of government, the law and constitution; the end of which is to furnish indifferent and impartial Judges in all cases that may happen, whether civil ecclesiastical, marine or military. -

"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man ; but only to have the law of nature for his rule."-

In the state of nature men may as the Patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberty and property: and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence; and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable natural right to an honourable support from the same principle "that the labourer is worthy of his hire" but then the same community which they serve, ought to be assessors of their pay: Governors have no right to seek what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honourable servants of the society, they would soon become Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants. Hence as a private man has a right to say, what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a Community to determine what they will give and grant of their Substance, for the Administration of publick affairs. And in both cases more are ready generally to offer their Service at the proposed and stipulated price, than are able and willing to perform their duty. -

In short it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one or any number of men at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights when the great end of civil government from the very nature of its institution is for the support, protection and defence of those very rights: the principal of which as is before observed, are life liberty and property. If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave --

2d The Rights of the Colonists as Christians - These may be best understood by reading - and carefully studying the institutes of the great Lawgiver and head of the Christian Church: which are to be found closely5 written and promulgated in the New Testament -

By the Act of the British Parliament commonly called the Toleration Act, every subject in England Except Papists &c was restored to, and re-established in, his natural right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. And by the Charter of this Province it is granted ordained and established (that it is declared as an original right) that there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God, to all christians except Papists, inhabiting or which shall inhabit or be resident within said Province or Territory.6 Magna Charta itself is in substance but a constrained Declaration, or proclamation, and promulgation in the name of King, Lord, and Commons of the sense the latter had of their original inherent, indefeazible natural Rights,7 as also those of free Citizens equally perdurable with the other. That great author that great jurist, and even that Court writer W Justice Blackstone holds that this recognition was justly obtained of King John sword in hand: and peradventure it must be one day sword in hand again rescued and preserved from total destruction and oblivion.

3d. The Rights of the Colonists as Subjects

A Common Wealth or state is a body politick or civil society of men, united together to promote their mutual safety and prosperity, by means of their union.8

The absolute Rights of Englishmen, and all freemen in or out of Civil society, are principally, personal security personal liberty and private property.

All Persons born in the British American Colonies are by the laws of God and nature, and by the Common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well Entitled, and by the Acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled to all the natural essential, inherent & inseperable Rights Liberties and Privileges of Subjects born in Great Britain, or within the Realm. Among those Rights are the following; which no men or body of men, consistently with their own rights as men and citizens or members of society, can for themselves give up, or take away from others

First, "The first fundamental positive law of all Commonwealths or States, is the establishing the legislative power; as the first fundamental natural law also, which is to govern even the legislative power itself, is the preservation of the Society."9

Secondly, The Legislative has no right to absolute arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people: Nor can mortals assume a prerogative, not only too high for men, but for Angels; and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone. -

"The Legislative cannot Justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that Justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided, by promulgated, standing and known laws, and authorized independent Judges;" that is independent as far as possible of Prince or People. "There shall be one rule of Justice for rich and poor; for the favorite in Court, and the Countryman at the Plough."10

Thirdly, The supreme power cannot Justly take from any man, any part of his property without his consent, in person or by his Representative. -

These are some of the first principles of natural law & Justice, and the great Barriers of all free states, and of the British Constitution in particular. It is utterly irreconcileable to these principles, and to many other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense and reason, that a British house of commons, should have a right, at pleasure, to give and grant the property of the Colonists. That these Colonists are well entitled to all the essential rights, liberties and privileges of men and freemen, born in Britain, is manifest, not only from the Colony charter, in general, but acts of the British Parliament.

The statute of the 13th of George 2. c. 7. naturalizes even foreigners after seven years residence. The words of the Massachusetts Charter are these, "And further our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby for us, our heirs and successors, grant establish and ordain, that all and every of the subjects of us, our heirs and successors, which shall go to and inhabit within our said province or territory and every of their children which shall happen to be born there, or on the seas in going thither, or returning from thence shall have and enjoy, all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects within any of the dominions of us, our heirs and successors, to all intents constructions & purposes whatsoever as if they and every of them were born within this our Realm of England." Now what liberty can there be, where property is taken away without consent? Can it be said with any colour of truth and Justice, that this Continent of three thousand miles in length, and of a breadth as yet unexplored, in which however, its supposed, there are five millions of people, has the least voice, vote or influence in the decisions of the British Parliament? Have they, all together, any more right or power to return a single number11 to that house of commons, who have not inadvertently, but deliberately assumed a' power to dispose of their lives,12 Liberties and properties, then13 to choose an Emperor of China! Had the Colonists a right to return members to the british parliament, it would only be hurtfull; as from their local situation and circumstances it is impossible they should be ever truly and properly represented there. The inhabitants of this country in all probability in a few years will be more numerous, than those of Great Britain and Ireland together; yet it is absurdly expected by the promoters of the present measures, that these, with their posterity to all generations, should be easy while their property, shall be disposed of by a house of commons at three thousand miles distant from them; and who cannot be supposed to have the least care or concern for their real interest: Who have not only no natural care for their interest, but must be in effect bribed against it; as every burden they lay on the colonists is so much saved or gained to themselves. Hitherto many of the Colonists have been free from Quit Rents; but if the breath of a british house of commons can originate an act for taking away all our money, our lands will go next or be subject to rack rents from haughty and relentless landlords who will ride at ease, while we are trodden in the dirt. The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of traitors and rebels, only for complaining of their grievances; How long such treatment will, or ought to be born is submitted.

A List of Infringements & Violations of Rights

We cannot help thinking, that an enumeration of some of the most open infringments of our rights, will by every candid Person be Judged sufficient to Justify whatever measures have been already taken, or may be thought proper to be taken, in order to obtain a redress of the Grievances under which we labour.

Among many others we Humbly conceive, that the following will not fail to excite the attention of all who consider themselves interested in the happiness and freedom of mankind in general, and of this continent and province in particular.

1st - The British Parliament have assumed the power of legislation for the Colonists in all cases whatsoever, without obtaining the consent of the Inhabitants, which is ever essentially necessary to the right establishment of such a legislative -

2d - They have exerted that assumed power, in raising a Revenue in the Colonies without their consent; thereby depriving them of that right which every man has to keep his own earnings in his own hands until he shall in person, or by his Representative, think fit to part with the whole or any portion of it. This infringement is the most extraordinary, when we consider the laudable care which the British House of Commons have taken to reserve intirely and absolutely to themselves the powers of giving and granting moneys. They not only insist on originating every money bill in their own house, but will not even allow the House of Lords to make an amendment in these bills. So tenacious are they of this privilege, so jealous of any infringement of the sole & absolute right the people have to dispose of their own money. And what renders this infringement the more grievous is, that what of our earnings still remains in our own hands is in a great measure deprived of its value, so long as the British Parliament continue to claim and exercise this power of taxing us; for we cannot Justly call that our property which others may, when they please take away from us against our will. -

In this respect we are treated with less decency and regard than the Romans shewed even to the Provinces which They had conquered. They only determined upon the sum which each should furnish, and left every Province to raise it in the manner most easy and convenient to themselves -

3d - A number of new Officers, unknown in the Charter of this Province, have been appointed to superintend this Revenue, whereas by our Charter the Great & General Court or Assembly of this Province has the sole right of appointing all civil officers, excepting only such officers, the election and constitution of whom is in said charter expressly excepted; among whom these Officers are not included. -

4th - These Officers are by their Commission invested with powers altogether unconstitutional, and entirely destructive to that security which we have a right to enjoy; and to the last degree dangerous, not only to our property; but to our lives: For the Commissioners of his Majestys customs in America, or any three of them, are by their Commission impowered," by writing under their hands and seales to constitute and appoint inferior Officers in all and singular the Port within the limits of their commissions" Each of these. petty officers so made is intrusted with power more absolute and arbitrary than ought to be lodged in the hands of any man or body of men whatsoever; for in the commission aforementioned, his Majesty gives & grants unto his said Commissioners, or any three of them, and to all and every the Collectors Deputy Collectors, Ministers, Servants, and all other Officers serving and attending in all and every the Ports and other places within the limits of their Commission, full power and authority from time to time, at their and any of their wills and pleasures, as well By Night as by day to enter and go on board any Ship, Boat, or other Vessel, riding lying or being within, or coming into any Port, Harbour, Creek or Haven, within the limits of their commission; and also in the day time to go into any house, shop, cellar, or any other place where any goods wares or merchandizes lie concealed, or are suspected to lie concealed, whereof the customs & other duties, have not been, or shall not be, duly paid and truly satisfied, answered or paid unto the Collectors, Deputy Collectors, Ministers, Servants, and other Officers respectively, or otherwise agreed for; and the said house, shop, warehouse, cellar, and other place to search and survey, and all and every the boxes, trunks, chests and packs then and there found to break open." -

Thus our houses and even our bed chambers, are exposed to be ransacked, our boxes chests & trunks broke open ravaged and plundered by wretches, whom no prudent man would venture to employ even as menial servants; whenever they are pleased to say they suspect there are in the house wares &c for which the dutys have not been paid. Flagrant instances of the wanton exercise of this power, have frequently happened in this and other sea port Towns. By this we are cut off from that domestick security which renders the lives of the most unhappy in some measure agreable. Those Officers may under colour of law and the cloak of a general warrant, break thro' the sacred rights of the Domicil, ransack mens houses, destroy their securities, carry off their property, and with little danger to themselves commit the most horred murders. -

And we complain of it as a further grievance, that notwithstanding by the Charter of this Province, the Governor and the Great and General Court or Assembly of this Province or Territory, for the time being shall have full power and authority, from time to time, to make, ordain and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, orders, statutes, and ordinances, directions and instructions, and that if the same shall not within the term of three years after presenting the same to his Majesty in privy council be disallowed, they shall be and continue in full force and effect, untill the same shall be repealed by the Great and General Assembly of this Province: Yet the Parliament of Great Britain have rendered or attempted to render, null and void a law of this Province made and passed in the Reign of his late Majesty George the first, intitled "An Act stating the Fees of the Custom- house Officers within this Province" and by meer dint of power, in violation of the Charter aforesaid, established other and exorbitant fees, for the same Officers; any law of the Province to the contrary notwithstanding -

5th - Fleets and Armies have been introduced to support these unconstitutional Officers in collecting and managing this unconstitutional Revenue; and troops have been quarter'd in this Metropolis for that purpose. Introducing and quartering standing Armies in a free Country in times of peace without the consent of the people either by themselves or by their Representatives, is, and always has been deemed a violation of their rights as freemen; and of the Charter or Compact made between the King of Great Britain, and the People of this Province, whereby all the rights of British Subjects are confirmed to us. -

6th - The Revenue arising from this tax unconstitutionally laid, and committed to the management of persons arbitrarily appointed and supported by an armed force quartered in a free City, has been in part applyed to the most destructive purposes. It is absolutely necessary in a mixt government like that of this Province, that a due proportion or balance of power should be established among the several branches of legislative. Our Ancestors received from King William & Queen Mary a Charter by which it was understood by both parties in the contract, that such a proportion or balance was fixed; and therefore every thing which renders any one branch of the Legislative more independent of the other two than it was originally designed, is an alteration of the constitution as settled by the Charter; and as it has been untill the establishment of this Revenue, the constant practise of the General Assembly to provide for the support of Government, so it is an essential part of our constitution, as it is a necessary means of preserving an equilibrium, without which we cannot continue a free state. -

In particular it has always been held, that the dependence of the Governor of this Province upon the General Assembly for his support, was necessary for the preservation of this equilibrium; nevertheless his Majesty has been pleased to apply fifteen hundred pounds sterling annually out of the American revenue, for the support of the Governor of this Province independent of the Assembly, whereby the ancient connection between him and this people is weakened, the confidence in the Governor lessened and the equilibrium destroyed, and the constitution essentially altered. -

And we look upon it highly probable from the best intelligence we have been able to obtain, that not only our Governor and Lieuvetenant Governor, but the Judges of the Superior Court of Judicature, as also the Kings Attorney and Solicitor General are to receive their support from this Grievous tribute. This will if accomplished compleat our slavery. For if taxes are raised from us by the Parliament of Great Britain without our consent, and the men on whose opinions and decisions our properties liberties and lives, in a great measure depend, receive their support from the Revenues arising from these taxes, we cannot, when we think on the depravity of mankind, avoid looking with horror on the danger to which we are exposed? The British Parliament have shewn their wisdom in making the Judges there as independent as possible both on the Prince and People, both for place and support: But our Judges hold their Commissions only during pleasure; the granting them salaries out of this Revenue is rendering them independent on the Crown for their support. The King upon his first accession to the Throne, for giving the last hand to the independency of the Judges in England, not only upon himself but his Successors by recommending and consenting to an act of Parliament, by which the Judges are continued in office, notwithstanding the demise of a King, which vacates all other Commissions, was applauded by the whole Nation. How alarming must it then be to the Inhabitants of this Province, to find so wide a difference made between the Subjects in Britain and America, as the rendering the Judges here altogether dependent on the Crown for their support. -

7th - We find ourselves greatly oppressed by Instructions sent to our Governor from the Court of Great Britain, whereby the first branch of our legislature is made merely a ministerial engine. And the Province has already felt such effects from these Instructions, as We think Justly intitle us to say that they threaten an entire destruction of our liberties, and must soon, if not checked, render every branch of our Government a useless burthen upon the people. We shall point out some of the alarming effects of these Instructions which have already taken place. -

In consequence of Instructions, the Governor has called and adjourned our General Assemblies to a place highly inconvenient to the Members and grately disadvantageous to the interest of the Province, even against his own declared intention -

In consequence of Instructions, the Assembly has been prorogued from time to time, when the important concerns of the Province required their Meeting -

In obedience to Instructions, the General Assembly was Anno 1768 dissolved by Governor Bernard, because they would not consent to rescind the resolution of a former house, and thereby sacrifise the rights of their constituents. -

By an Instruction, the honourable his Majesty Council are forbid to meet and transact matters of publick concern as a Council of advice to the Governor, unless called by the Governor; and if they should from a zealous regard to the interest of the Province so meet at any time, the Governor is ordered to negative them at the next Election of Councellors. And although by the Charter of this Province the Great & General Court have full power and authority to impose taxes upon the estates and persons of all and every the proprietors and inhabitants of this Province, yet the Governor has been forbidden to give his consent to act imposing a tax for the necessary support of government, unless such persons as were pointed out In the said instruction, were exempted from paying their Just proportion of said tax -

His Excellency has also pleaded Instructions for giving up the provincial fortress, Castle William into the hands of troops, over whom he had declared he had no controul (and that at a time when they were menaceing the Slaughter of the Inhabitants of the Town, and our Streets were stained with the blood which they had barbariously shed) Thus our Governor, appointed and paid from Great Britain with money forced from us, is made an instrument of totally preventing or at least of rendering [futile], every attempt of the other two branches of the Legislative in favor of a distressed and wronged people: And least the complaints naturally occasioned by such oppression should excite compassion in the Royal breast, and induce his Majesty seriously to set about relieving us from the cruel bondage and insult which we his loyal Subjects have so long suffered, the Governor is forbidden to consent to the payment of an Agent to represent our grievances at the Court of Great Britain, unless he the Governor consent to his election, and we very well know what the man must be to whose appointment a Governor in such circumstances will consent -

While we are mentioning the infringement of the rights of this Colony in particular by means of Instructions, we cannot help calling to remembrance the late unexampled suspension of the legislative of a Sister Colony, New York by force of an Instruction, untill they should comply with an Arbitrary Act of the British Parliament for quartering troops, designed by military execution, to enforce the raising of a tribute. -

8th - The extending the power of the Courts of Vice Admirality to so enormous a degree as deprives the people in the Colonies in a great measure of their inestimable right to tryals by Juries., which has ever been Justly considered as the grand Bulwark and security of English property.

This alone is sufficient to rouse our jealousy:And we are again obliged to take notice of the remarkable contrast, which the British Parliament has been pleased to exhibit between the Subjects in Great Britain & the Colonies. In the same Statute, by which they give up to the decision of one dependent interested Judge of Admirality the estates and properties of the Colonists, they expressly guard the estates & properties of the people of Great Britain; for all forfeitures & penalties inflicted by the Statute of George the Third, or any other Act of Parliament relative to the trade of the Colonies, may be sued for in any Court of Admiralty in the Colonies; but all penalties and forfeitures which shall be incurred in Great Britain, may be sued for in any of his Majestys Courts of Record in Westminster or in the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, respectively. Thus our Birth Rights are taken from us; and that too with every mark of indignity, insult and contempt. We may be harrassed and dragged from one part of the Continent to the other (which some of our Brethren here and in the Country Towns already have been) and finally be deprived of our whole property, by the arbitrary determination of one biassed, capricious Judge of the Admirality.

9th - The restraining us from erecting Stilling Mills for manufacturing our Iron the natural produce of this Country, Is an infringement of that right with which God and nature have invested us, to make use of our skill and industry in procuring the necessaries and conveniences of life. And we look upon the restraint laid upon the manufacture and transportation of Hatts to be altogether unreasonable and grievous. Although by the Charter all Havens Rivers, Ports, Waters, &c. are expressly granted the Inhabitants of the Province and their Successors, to their only proper use and behoof forever, yet the British Parliament passed an Act, whereby they restrain us from carrying our Wool, the produce of our own farms, even over a ferry; whereby the Inhabitants have often been put to the expence of carrying a Bag of Wool near an hundred miles by land, when passing over a River or Water of one quarter of a mile, of which the Province are the absolute Proprietors, would have prevented all that trouble. -

10th - The Act passed in the last Session of the British Parliament, intitled, An Act for the better preserving his Majestys Dock Yards, Magizines, Ships, Ammunition and Stores, is, as we apprehend a violent infringement of our Rights. By this Act any one of us may be taken from his Family, and carried to any part of Great Britain, there to be tried whenever it shall be pretended that he has been concerned in burning or otherwise destroying any Boat or Vessel, or any Materials for building &c. any Naval or Victualling Store &c. belonging to his Majesty. For by this Act all Persons in the Realm, or in any of the places thereto belonging (under which denomination we know the Colonies are meant to be included) may be indicted and tryed either in any County or Shire within this Realm, in like manner and form as if the offence had been committed in said County, as his Majesty and his Successors may deem Most expedient. Thus we are not only deprived of our grand right to tryal by our Peers in the Vicinity, but any Person suspected, or pretended to be suspected, may be hurried to Great Britain, to take his tryal in any County the King or his Successors shall please to direct; where, innocent or guilty he is in great danger of being condemned; and whether condemned or acquitted he will probably be ruined by the expense attending the tryal, and his long absence from his Family and business; and we have the strongest reason to apprehend that we shall soon experience the fatal effects of this Act, as about the year 1769 the British Parliament passed Resolves for taking up a number of Persons in the Colonies and carrying them to Great Britain for tryal, pretending that they were authorised so to do, by a Statute passed in the Reign of Henry the Eighth, in which they say the Colonies were included, although the Act was passed long before any Colonies were settled, or even in contemplation. -

11th - As our Ancestors came over to this Country that they might not only enjoy their civil but their religeous rights, and particularly desired to be free from the Prelates, who in those times cruilly persecuted all who differed in sentiment from the established Church; we cannot see without concern the various attempts, which have been made and are now making, to establish an American Episcopate. Our Episcopal Brethren of the Colonies do enjoy, and rightfully ought ever to enjoy, the free exercise of their religeon, we cannot help fearing that they who are are so warmly contending for such an establishment, have views altogether inconsistent with the universal and peaceful enjoyment of our christian privileges: And doing or attempting to do any thing which has even the remotest tendency to endanger this enjoyment, is Justly looked upon a great grievance, and also an infringement of our Rights, which is not barely to exercise, but peaceably & securely to enjoy, that liberty wherewith CHRIST has made us free.

And we are further of Opinion, that no power on Earth can justly give either temporal or spiritual Jurisdiction within this Province, except the Great & General Court. We think therefore that every design for establishing the Jurisdiction of a Bishop in this Province, is a design both against our Civil and Religeous rights: And we are well informed, that the more candid and Judicious of our Brethren of the Church of England in this and the other Colonies, both Clergy and Laity, conceive of the establishing an American Episcopate both unnecessary and unreasonable. -

12th - Another Grievance under which we labour is the frequent alteration of the bounds of the Colonies by decisions before the King and Council, explanatory of former grants and Charters. This not only subjects Men to live under a constitution to which they have not consented, which in itself is a great Grievance; but moreover under color, that the right of Soil is affected by such declarations, some Governors, or Ministers, or both in conjunction, have pretended to Grant in consequence of a Mandamus many thousands of Acres of Lands appropriated near a Century past; and rendered valuable by the labors of the present Cultivators and their Ancestors. There are very notable instances of Setlers, who having first purchased the Soil of the Natives, have at considerable expence obtained confermation of title from this Province; and on being transferred to the Jurisdiction of the Province of New Hampshire have been put to the trouble and cost of a new Grant or confermation from thence and after all this there has been a third declaration of Royal Will, that they should thence forth be considered as pertaining To the Province of New York. The troubles, expences and dangers which hundreds have been put to on such occasions, cannot here be recited; but so much may be said, that they have been most cruelly harrassed, and even threatned with a military force, to dragoon them into a compliance, with the most unreasonable demands.

A Letter of Correspondence to the Other Towns. Boston November 20: 1772

Gentlemen We the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of Boston in Town Meeting duly Assembled, according to Law, apprehending there is abundant to be alarmed at14 the plan of Despotism, which the enemies of our invaluable rights have concerted, is rapidly hastening to a completion, can no longer conceal our impatience under a constant, unremitted, uniform aim to enslave us, or confide in an Administration which threatens us with certain and inevitable destruction. But, when in addition to the repeated inroads made upon the Rights and Liberties of the Colonists, and of those in this Province in particular, we reflect on the late extraordinary measure in affixing stipends or Salaries from the Crown to the Offices of the Judges of the Superior Court of Judicature, making them not only intirely independent of the people, whose lives and properties are so much in their power, but absolutely dependent on the Crown (which may hereafter, be worn by a Tyrant) both for their appointment and support, we cannot but be extremely alarmed at the mischievous tendency of this innovation; which in our opinion is directly contrary to the spirit of the British Constitution, pregnant with innumerable evils, and hath a direct tendency To deprive us of every thing valuable as Men, as Christians and as Subjects, entitled, by the Royal Charter, to all the Rights, liberties and privileges of native Britons. Such being the critical state of this Province, we think it our duty on this truly distressing occasion, to ask you, What can withstand the Attacks of mere power? What can preserve the liberties of the Subject, when the Barriers of the Constitution are taken away? The Town of Boston consulting on the matter above mentioned, thought proper to make application to the Governor by a Committee; requesting his Excellency to communicate such intelligence as he might have received relative to the report of the Judges having their support independent of the grants of this Province a Copy of which you have herewith in Paper N. 1.15 To which we received as answer, the Paper N. 2.16 The Town on further deliberation, thought it advisable to refer the matter to the Great and General Assembly; and accordingly in a second address as N. 3.17 they requested his Excellency that the General Court might Convene at the time to which they then stood prorogued; to which the Town received the reply as in N. 4.18 in which we are acquainted with his intentions further to prorogue the General Assembly, which has since taken place. Thus Gentlemen it is evident his Excellency declines giving the least satisfaction as to the matter in request. The affair being of publick concernment, the Town of Boston thought it necessary to consult with their Brethren throughout the Province; and for this purpose appointed a Committee, to communicate with our fellow Sufferers, respecting this recent instance of oppression, as well as the many other violations of our Rights under which we have groaned for several Years past - This Committee have briefly Recapitulated the sense we have of our invaluable Rights as Men, as Christians, and as Subjects; and wherein we conceive those Rights to have been violated, which we are desirous may be laid before your Town, that the subject may be weighed as its importance requires, and the collected wisdom of the whole People, as far as possible, be obtained, on a deliberation of such great and lasting moment as to involve in it the fate of all our Posterity - Great pains has been taken to perswade the British Administration to think that the good People of this Province in general are quiet and undisturbed at the late measures; and that any uneasiness that appears, arises from a few factious designing and disaffected men. This renders it the more necessary, that the sense of the People should be explicitly declared. - A free communication of your sentiments to this Town, of our common danger, is earnestly solicited and will be gratefully received. If you concur with us in opinion, that our Rights are properly stated, and that the several Acts of Parliament, and Measures of Administration, pointed out by us are subversive of these Rights, you will doubtless think it of the utmost importance that we stand firm as one man, to recover and support them; and to take such measures by directing our Representatives, or otherwise, as your wisdom and fortitude shall dictate, to rescue from impending ruin our happy and glorious constitution. But if it should be the general voice of this Province, that the Rights as we have stated them, do not belong to us; or that the several measures of Administration in the British Court, are no violations of these Rights, or that if they are thus violated or infringed, they are not worth contending for, or resolutely maintaining; - should this be the general voice of the Province, we must be resigned to our wretched fate; but shall forever lament the extinction of that generous ardor for Civil and Religeous liberty, which in the face of every danger, and even death itself, induced our fathers to forsake the bosom of their Native Country, and begin a settlement on bare Creation - But we trust this cannot be the case: We are sure your wisdom, your regard to yourselves and the rising Generation, cannot suffer you to dose, or set supinely indifferent on the brink of destruction, while the Iron hand of oppression is dayly tearing the choicest Fruit from the fair Tree of Liberty, planted by our worthy Predecessors, at the expence of their treasure, & abundantly water'd with their blood - It is an observation of an eminent Patriot, that a People long inured to hardships, loose by degrees the very notions of liberty; they look upon themselves as Creatures at mercy, and that all impositions laid on by superior hands, are legal and obligatory. - But thank Heaven this is not yet verified in America! We have yet some share of publick virtue remaining: we are not afraid of poverty, but disdain slavery. - The fate of Nations is so Precarious and revolutions in States so often take place at an unexpected moment, when the hand of power by fraud or flattery, has secured every Avenue of retreat, and the minds of the Subject debased to its purpose, that it becomes every well wisher to his Country, while it has any remains of freedom, to keep an Eagle Eye upon every inovation and stretch of power, in those that have the rule over us. A recent instance of this we have in the late Revolutions in Sweden, by which the Prince once subject to the laws of the State, has been able of a sudden to declare himself an absolute Monarch The Sweeds were once a free, martial and valient people: Their minds are now so debaced, that they rejoice at being subject to the caprice and arbitrary power of a Tyrant & kiss their Chains. It makes us shudder to think, the late measures of Administration may be productive of the like Catastrophe; which Heaven forbid! - Let us consider Brethren, we are struggling for our best Birth Rights & Inheritance; which being infringed, renders all our blessings precarious in their enjoyments, and consequently trifling in their value. Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves on the ruin of this Country. Let us convince every Invader of our freedom, that we will be as free as the Constitution our Fathers recognized, will Justify. - 19

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.

Soon after the arrival of the charter, viz, in 1692, your Excellency's history informs us,8 "the first act" of this Legislative, was a sort of Magna Charta, asserting and setting forth their general privileges, and this clause was among the rest; "no aid, tax, tallage, assessment, custom, loan, benevolence, or imposition whatever, shall be laid, assessed, imposed, or levied on any of their Majesty's subjects, or their estates, on any pretence whatever, but by the act and consent of the Governor, Council, and Representatives of the people assembled in General Court." And though this act was disallowed, it serves to show the sense which the General Assembly, contemporary with the granting the charter, had of their sole and exclusive right to legislate for the colony. The history says, "the other parts of the act were copied from Magna Charta;" by which, we may conclude that the Assembly then construed the words, "not repugnant to the laws," to mean, conformable to the fundamental principles of the English constitution. And it is observable, that the Lords of Privy Council, so lately as in the reign of Queen Anne, when several laws enacted by the General Assembly were laid before her Majesty for her allowance, interpreted the words in this charter, "not repugnant to the laws of England," by the words, "as nearly as conveniently may be agreeable to the laws and statutes of England." And her Majesty was pleased to disallow those acts, not because they were repugnant to any law or statute of England, made expressly to refer to the colony, but because divers persons, by virtue thereof, were punished, without being tried by their peers in the ordinary "courts of law," and "by the ordinary rules and known methods of justice," contrary to the express terms of Magna Charta, which was a statute in force at the time of granting the charter, and declaratory of the rights and liberties of the subjects within the realm.

You are pleased to say, that "our provincial or local laws have, in numerous instances, had relation to acts of Parliament, made to respect the plantations, and this colony in particular." The authority of the Legislature, says the same author who is quoted by your Excellency, "does not extend so far as the fundamentals of the constitution. They ought to consider the fundamental laws as sacred, if the nation has not in very express terms, given them the power to change them. For the constitution of the state ought to be fixed; and since that was first established by the nation, which afterwards trusted certain persons with the Legislative power, the fundamental laws are excepted from their commission." Now the fundamentals of the constitution of this province, are stipulated in the charter; the reasoning, therefore, in this case, holds equally good. Much less, then, ought any acts or doings of the General Assembly, however numerous, to neither of which your Excellency has pointed us, which barely relate to acts of Parliament made to respect the plantations in general, or this colony in particular, to be taken as an acknowledgment of this people, or even of the Assembly, which inadvertently passed those acts, that we are subject to the supreme authority of Parliament; and with still less reason are the decisions in the executive courts to determine this point. If they have adopted that "as part of the rule of law," which, in fact, is not, it must be imputed to inattention or error in judgment, and cannot justly be urged as an alteration or restriction of the Legislative authority of the province.

Before we leave this part of your Excellency's speech, we would observe, that the great design of our ancestors in leaving the kingdom of England, was to be freed from a subjection to its spiritual laws and courts, and to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences. Your Excellency, in your history observes, that their design was "to obtain for themselves and their posterity, the liberty of worshipping God in such manner as appeared to them most agreeable to the sacred scriptures." And the General Court themselves declared in 1651, that "seeing just cause to fear the persecution of the then Bishop, and high commission for not conforming to the ceremonies of those under their power, they thought it their safest course, to get to this outside of the world, out of their view and beyond their reach." But, if it had been their sense, that they were still to be subject to the supreme authority of Parliament, they must have known that their design might, and probably would be frustrated; that the Parliament, especially considering the temper of those times, might make what ecclesiastical laws they pleased, expressly to refer to them, and place them in the same circumstances with respect to religious matters, to be relieved from which, was the design of their removal; and we would add, that if your Excellency's construction of the clause in our present charter is just, another clause therein, which provides for liberty of conscience for all christians, except papists, may be rendered void by an act of Parliament made to refer to us, requiring a conformity to the rights and mode of worship in the church of England, or any other.

Thus we have endeavored to show the sense of the people of this colony under both charters; and, if there have been in any late instances a submission to acts of Parliament, it has been, in our opinion, rather from inconsideration, or a reluctance at the idea of contending with the parent state, than from a conviction or acknowledgment of the Supreme Legislative authority of Parliament.

Your Excellency tells us, "you know of no line that can be drawn between the supreme authority of Parliament and the total independence of the colonies." If there be no such line, the consequence is, either that the colonies are the vassals of the Parliament, or that they are totally independent. As it cannot be supposed to have been the intention of the parties in the compact, that we should be reduced to a state of vassalage, the conclusion is, that it was their sense that we were thus independent. "It is impossible," your Excellency says, "that there should be two independent Legislatures in one and the same state." May we not then further conclude, that it was their sense, that the colonies were, by their charters, made distinct states from the mother country? Your Excellency adds, "for although there may be but one head, the King, yet the two Legislative bodies will make two governments as distinct as the kingdoms of England and Scotland, before the union." Very true, may it please your Excellency; and if they interfere not with each other, what hinders, but that being united in one head and common Sovereign, they may live happily in that connection, and mutually support and protect each other? Notwithstanding all the terrors which your Excellency has pictured to us as the effects of a total independence, there is more reason to dread the consequences of absolute uncontroled power, whether of a nation or a monarch, than those of a total independence. It would be a misfortune "to know by experience, the difference between the liberties of an English colonist and those of the Spanish, French, and Dutch": and since the British Parliament has passed an act, which is executed even with rigor, though not voluntarily submitted to, for raising a revenue, and appropriating the same, without the consent of the people who pay it, and have claimed a power of making such laws as they please, to order and govern us, your Excellency will excuse us in asking, whether you do not think we already experience too much of such a difference, and have not reason to fear we shall soon be reduced to a worse situation than that of the colonies of France, Spain, or Holland?

If your Excellency expects to have the line of distinction between the supreme authority of Parliament, and the total independence of the colonies drawn by us, we would say it would be an arduous undertaking, and of very great importance to all the other colonies; and therefore, could we conceive of such a line, we should be unwilling to propose it, without their consent in Congress.

To conclude, these are great and profound questions. It is the grief of this House, that, by the ill policy of a late injudicious administration, America has been driven into the contemplation of them. And we cannot but express our concern, that your Excellency, by your speech, has reduced us to the unhappy alternative, either of appearing by our silence to acquiesce in your Excellency's sentiments, or of thus freely discussing this point.

After all that we have said, we would be far from being understood to have in the least abated that just sense of allegiance which we owe to the King of Great Britain, our rightful Sovereign; and should the people of this province be left to the free and full exercise of all the liberties and immunities granted to them by charter, there would be no danger of an independence on the Crown. Our charters reserve great power to the Crown in its Representative, fully sufficient to balance, analogous to the English constitution, all the liberties and privileges granted to the people. All this your Excellency knows full well; and whoever considers the power and influence, in all their branches, reserved by our charter, to the Crown, will be far from thinking that the Commons of this province are too independent.

1 Adams was a member of the committee appointed by the House on January 8 to prepare this answer, and also a member of the committee appointed January 26 to present the answer to the Governor. Concerning the authorship of the answer, see W. V. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams. vol. ii., p. 31, and R. Frothingham, Life of Joseph Warren, p. 223. For a claim adverse to the authorship of Samuel Adams, see W. Tudor, Life of James Otis, p. 411, See also below, pages 430, 431. 2 Massachusetts State Papers, pp. 336-342. 3 T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, vol. i. p. 322. 4 A Collection of Original Papers Relative to the History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay. Boston, 1769. Reprinted by the Prince Society, 2 vols., Albany, 1865, under the title The Hutchinson Papers. 5 The Hutchinson Papers, vol, ii., pp. 210 et seq. 7 Daniel Neal, History of New England. London, 1720, vol. ii., p. 479. 8 T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, vol ii., p. 64.

THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE OF BOSTON TO THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE OF LYNN.1

[MS., Committee of Correspondence Papers, Lenox Library.]

BOSTON Febry 9 1773

SIRS

The Committee of Correspondence have now before them the Letter of the Town of Lynn, & will, agreable to their desire, lay it before this Town. We heartily joyn with you in wishing the glorious spirit of Liberty which now animates the Inhabitants of this Province shall be diffused through the Colonies, & happily Effect the restoration of their Rights, which are cruelly ravishd from them.

1 Addressed to Ebenezer Burrill, town clerk. [1773] SAMUEL ADAMS. 427

To DARIUS SESSIONS.1

[MS., Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library.]

[February --, 1773.]

SIR

As I am informd the Commissioners are all now in Newport, and your Assembly is to meet this day I am anxious to know precisely the Steps that are or shall be taken by each. I hope your Governor will not think it proper for him to act in the Commission if the others should determine so to do. Will it not be construed as conceding on his part to the Legality of it? Every Movement on the Side of the Commissioners & the Assembly must be important. I trust no Concessions will be made on your part which shall have the remotest tendency to fix a precedent; for if it is once establishd, a thousand Commissions of the like arbitrary kind may be introducd to the utter ruin of your free Constitution. The promoters of ministerial measures in this Town are pleasd to hear from one of the Commissioners that they are treated with great respect: Even common Civility will be thus colourd to serve the great purpose. Will it not be necessary at all Events for the Assembly to enter a protest on their Journal against so unconstitutional a proceeding. This is the Sentiment of a Gentleman here whose Judgment I very much regard. Such has been the constant practice of the Assembly of this province in like Cases, for some years past. You will see by our Governors Speech what Use is made of Mistakes of this Sort; they are even Improved as Arguments of our having voluntarily consented to be the Vassals of the British Parliament. Indeed the Doctrine he has advancd strikes at the root of every civil Constitution in America. If it be admissible, you have no just Cause to complain of the present Measure for it is founded upon the Authority of that parliament, to the Jurisdiction of which notwithstanding your Charter, you remain subject.

I shall receive a Letter from you by the return of the post if your Attention to the publick Affairs will admit of it, as a great favor. In the mean time I beg you to excuse this hasty Scrawl & believe me to be &c

1 See above, page 389. note.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MASSACHUSETTS TO THE GOVERNOR. FEBRUARY 12, 1773.1

[Massachusetts State Papers, pp. 366, 367; printed also in the Gentleman's Magazine, vol. xliii., Pp. 198, 199.]

May it please your Excellency,

Your message of the 4th instant,2 informs this House, that his Majesty has been pleased to order that salaries shall be allowed to the Justices of the Superior Court of this province.

We conceive that no Judge, who has a due regard to justice, or even to his own character, would choose to be placed under such an undue bias as they must be under, in the opinion of this House, by accepting of, and becoming dependent for their salaries upon the Crown.

Had not his Majesty been misinformed, with respect to the constitution and appointment of our Judges, by those who advised to this measure, we are persuaded, he would never have passed such an order; as he was pleased to declare, upon his accession to the throne, that "he looked upon the independence and uprightness of the Judges, as essential to the impartial administration of justice, as one of the best securities of the rights and liberties of his subjects, and as most conducive to the honor of the Crown."

Your Excellency's precaution to prevent all claim from the province for any services, for which the Justices may also be entitled to a salary from the King, is comparatively, of very small consideration with us.

When we consider the many attempts that have been made, effectually to render null and void those clauses in our charter, upon which the freedom of our constitution depends, we should be lost to all public feeling, should we not manifest a just resentment. We are more and more convinced, that it has been the design of administration, totally to subvert the constitution, and introduce an arbitrary government into this province; and we cannot wonder that the apprehensions of this people are thoroughly awakened.

We wait with impatience to know, and hope your Excellency will very soon be able to assure us, that the Justices will utterly refuse ever to accept of support, in a manner so justly obnoxious to the disinterested and judicious part of the good people of this province, being repugnant to the charter, and utterly inconsistent with the safety of the rights, liberties and properties of the people.

1 Stated to have been written by Adams, in W. V. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, vol. ii., p. 47, but with no authority given. 2 Massachusetts State Papers, pp. 365, 366.

TO JOHN ADAMS.1

[MS., Adams Papers, Quincy, Mass.; a facsimile is in Works of John Adams, vol. ii., p. 310.]

MY DEAR SIR

If you have had Leisure to commit your Thoughts to writing agreable to my request I shall be obligd if you will send them by the Bearer. The Govr says the House have incautiously applied a rule of the Common Law2 (see the 4th Coll. of his Speech). The Assertion is mine, upon your Authority as I thought. If it be vindicable, pray give me your Aid in that as briefly as you please. I am sorry to trouble you at a time when I know you must be much engagd but to tell you a Secret, if there be a Lawyer in the house in Major Hawleys Absence, there is no one whom I incline to confide in.

Monday Evg

1 Presumably written on February 22 or March I, 1773. Cf. W. V. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, vol. ii., p. 41. 2 Speech of February 16, 1773. Massachusetts State Papers, p. 374. See ibid., p. 387.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MASSACHUSETTS TO THE GOVERNOR. MARCH 2, 1773.1

[Massachusetts State Papers, pp. 384-396; printed also in the Boston Gazette, March 8, 1773, and in The Speeches of His Excellency Governor Hutchinson, pp. 90-113.]

May it please your Excellency,

In your speech, at the Opening of the present session2, your Excellency expressed your displeasure, at some late proceedings of the town of Boston, and other principal towns in the province. And, in another speech3 to both Houses, we have your repeated exceptions at the same proceedings, as being "unwarrantable," and of a dangerous nature and tendency; "against which, you thought yourself bound to call upon us to join with you in bearing a proper testimony." This House have not discovered any principles advanced by the town of Boston, that are unwarrantable by the constitution; nor does it appear to us, that they have "invited every other town and district in the province, to adopt their principles." We are fully convinced, that it is our duty to bear our testimony against "innovations, of a dangerous nature and tendency;" but, it is clearly our opinion, that it is the indisputable right of all, or any of his Majesty's subjects, in this province, regularly and orderly to meet together, to state the grievances they labor under; and, to propose, and unite in such constitutional measures, as they shall judge necessary or proper, to obtain redress. This right has been frequently exercised by his Majesty's subjects within the realm; and, we do not recollect an instance, since the happy revolution, when the two Houses of Parliament have been called upon to discountenance, or bear their testimony against it, in a speech from the throne.

Your Excellency is pleased to take notice of some things, which we "allege," in our answer to your first speech; and, the observation you make, we must confess, is as natural, and undeniably true, as any one that could have been made; that, "if our foundation shall fail us in every part of it, the fabric we have raised upon it, must certainly fall." You think this foundation will fail us; but, we wish your Excellency had condescended to a consideration of what we have "adduced in support of our principles." We might then, perhaps, have had some things offered for our conviction, more than bare affirmations; which, we must beg to be excused, if we say, are far from being sufficient, though they came with your Excellency's authority, for which, however, we have a due regard.

Your Excellency says, that, "as English subjects, and agreeable to the doctrine of the feudal tenure, all our lands are held mediately, or immediately, of the Crown." We trust, your Excellency does not mean to introduce the feudal system in its perfection; which, to use the words of one of our greatest historians, was "a state of perpetual war, anarchy, and confusion, calculated solely for defence against the assaults of any foreign power; but, in its provision for the interior order and tranquillity of society, extremely defective. A constitution, so contradictory to all the principles that govern mankind, could never be brought about, but by foreign conquest or native usurpation." And, a very celebrated writer calls it, "that most iniquitous and absurd form of government, by which human nature was so shamefully degraded." This system of iniquity, by a strange kind of fatality, "though originally formed for an encampment, and for military purposes only, spread over a great part of Europe;" and, to serve the purposes of oppression and tyranny, "was adopted by princes, and wrought into their civil constitutions;" and, aided by the canon law, calculated by the Roman Pontiff, to exalt himself above all that is called God, it prevailed to the almost utter extinction of knowledge, virtue, religion, and liberty from that part of the earth. But, from the time of the reformation, in proportion as knowledge, which then darted its rays upon the benighted world, increased, and spread among the people, they grew impatient under this heavy yoke; and the most virtuous and sensible among them, to whose steadfastness, we, in this distant age and climate, are greatly indebted, were determined to get rid of it; and, though they have in a great measure subdued its power and influence in England, they have never yet totally eradicated its principles.

Upon these principles, the King claimed an absolute right to, and a perfect estate in, all the lands within his dominions; but, how he came by this absolute right and perfect estate, is a mystery which we have never seen unravelled, nor is it our business or design, at present, to inquire. He granted parts or parcels of it to his friends, the great men, and they granted lesser parcels to their tenants. All, therefore, derived their right and held their lands, upon these principles, mediately or immediately of the King; which Mr. Blackstone, however, calls, "in reality, a mere fiction of our English tenures."

By what right, in nature and reason, the christian princes in Europe, claimed the lands of heathen people, upon a discovery made by any of their subjects, is equally mysterious. Such, however, was the doctrine universally prevailing, when the lands in America were discovered; but, as the people of England, upon those principles, held all the lands they possessed, by grants from the King, and the King had never granted the lands in America to them, it is certain they could have no sort of claim to them. Upon the principles advanced, the lordship and dominion, like that of the lands in England, was in the King solely; and a right from thence accrued to him, of disposing such territories, under such tenure, and for such services to be performed, as the King or Lord thought proper. But how the grantees became subjects of England, that is, the supreme authority of the Parliament, your Excellency has not explained to us. We conceive that upon the feudal principles, all power is in the King; they afford us no idea of Parliament. "The Lord was in early times, the Legislator and Judge over all his feudatories," says Judge Blackstone. By the struggle for liberty in England, from the days of King John, to the last happy revolution, the constitution has been gradually changing for the better; and upon the more rational principles, that all men, by nature, are in a state of equality in respect of jurisdiction and dominion, power in England has been more equally divided. And thus, also in America, though we hold our lands agreeably to the feudal principles of the King; yet our predecessors wisely took care to enter into compact with the King, that power here should also be equally divided, agreeable to the original fundamental principles of the English constitution, declared in Magna Charta, and other laws and statutes of England, made to confirm them.

Your Excellency says, "you can by no means concede to us that it is now, or was, when the plantations were first granted, the prerogative of the Kings of England, to constitute a number of new governments, altogether independent of the sovereign authority of the English empire." By the feudal principles, upon which you say "all the grants which have been made of America, are founded, the constitutions of the Emperor, have the force of law." If our government be considered as merely feudatory, we are subject to the King's absolute will, and there is no authority of Parliament, as the sovereign authority of the British empire. Upon these principles, what could hinder the King's constituting a number of independent governments in America? That King Charles the I. did actually set up a government in this colony, conceding to it powers of making and executing laws, without any reservation to the English Parliament, of authority to make future laws binding therein, is a fact which your Excellency has not disproved, if you have denied it. Nor have you shewn that the Parliament or nation objected to it; from whence we have inferred that it was an acknowledged right. And we cannot conceive, why the King has not the same right to alienate and dispose of countries acquired by the discovery of his subjects, as he has to "restore, upon a treaty of peace, countries which have been acquired in war," carried on at the charge of the nation; or to "sell and deliver up any part of his dominions to a foreign Prince or state, against the general sense of the nation;" which is "an act of power," or prerogative, which your Excellency allows. You tell us, that, "when any new countries are discovered by English subjects, according to the general law and usage of nations, they become part of the state. The law of nations is, or ought to be, founded on the law of reason. It was the saying of Sir Edwin Sandis, in the great case of the union of the realm of Scotland with England, which is applicable to our present purpose, that "there being no precedent for this case in the law, the law is deficient; and the law being deficient, recourse is to be had to custom; and custom being insufficient, we must recur to natural reason;" the greatest of all authorities, which, he adds, "is the law of nations." The opinions, therefore, and determinations of the greatest Sages and Judges of the law in the Exchequer Chamber, ought not to be considered as decisive or binding, in our present controversy with your Excellency, any further, than they are consonant to natural reason. If, however, we were to recur to such opinions and determinations, we should find very great authorities in our favor, to show, that the statutes of England are not binding on those who are not represented in Parliament there. The opinion of Lord Coke, that Ireland was bound by statutes of England, wherein they were named, if compared with his other writings, appears manifestly to be grounded upon a supposition, that Ireland had, by an act of their own, in the reign of King John, consented to be thus bound; and, upon any other supposition, this opinion would be against reason; for consent only gives human laws their force. We beg leave, upon what your Excellency has observed of the colony becoming a part of the state, to subjoin the opinions of several learned civilians, as quoted by a very able lawyer in this country. "Colonies," says Puffendorf, "are settled in different methods; for, either the colony continues a part of the Commonwealth it was set out from, or else is obliged to pay a dutiful regard to the mother Commonwealth, and to be in readiness to defend and vindicate its honor, and so is united by a sort of unequal confederacy; or, lastly, is erected into a separate Commonwealth and assumes the same rights, with the state it descended from." And, King Tullius, as quoted by the same learned author, from Grotius, says, "we look upon it to be neither truth nor justice, that mother cities, ought, of necessity, and by the law of nature, to rule over the colonies."

Your Excellency has misinterpreted what we have said, "that no country, by the common law, was subject to the laws or the Parliament, but the realm of England;" and, are pleased to tell us, "that we have expressed ourselves incautiously."4 We beg leave to recite the words of the Judges of England, in the before mentioned case, to our purpose. "If a King go out of England with a company of his servants, allegiance remaineth among his subjects and servants, although he be out of his realm, whereto his laws are confined." We did not mean to say, as your Excellency would suppose, that "the common law prescribes limits to the extent of the Legislative power," though, we shall always affirm it to be true, of the law of reason and natural equity. Your Excellency thinks, you have made it appear, that the "colony of Massachusetts Bay is holden as feudatory of the imperial Crown of England;" and, therefore, you say, "to use the words of a very great authority in a case, in some respects analogous to it," being feudatory, it necessarily follows, that "it is under the government of the King's laws." Your Excellency has not named this authority; but, we conceive his meaning must be, that being feudatory, it is under the government of the King's laws absolutely; for, as we have before said, the feudal system admits of no idea of the authority of Parliament; and this would have been the case of the colony, but for the compact with the King in the charter.

Your Excellency says, that "persons thus holding under the Crown of England, remain, or become subjects of England," by which, we suppose your Excellency to mean, subject to the supreme authority of Parliament, "to all intents and purposes, as fully, as if any of the royal manors, &c. within the realm, had been granted to them upon the like tenure." We apprehend, with submission, your Excellency is mistaken in supposing that our allegiance is due to the Crown of England. Every man swears allegiance for himself, to his own King, in his natural person. Every subject is presumed by law to be sworn to the King, which is to his natural person," says Lord Coke. Rep. on Calvin's case.5 "The allegiance is due to his natural body;" and, he says, "in the reign of Edward II. the Spencers, the father and the son, to cover the treason hatched in their hearts, invented this damnable and damned opinion, that homage and oath of allegiance was more by reason of the King's Crown, that is, of his politic capacity, than by reason of the person of the King; upon which opinion, they inferred execrable and detestable consequents." The Judges of England, all but one, in the case of the union between Scotland and England, declared, that "allegiance followeth the natural person, not the politic;" and, "to prove the allegiance to be tied to the body natural of the King, and not to the body politic, the Lord Coke cited the phrases of divers statutes, mentioning our natural liege Sovereign." If, then, the homage and allegiance is not to the body politic of the King, then it is not to him as the head, or any part of that Legislative authority, which your Excellency says, "is equally extensive with the authority of the Crown throughout every part of the dominion;" and your Excellency's observations thereupon, must fail. The same Judges mention the allegiance of a subject to the Kings of England, who is out of the reach and extent of the laws of England, which is perfectly reconcileable with the principles of our ancestors, quoted before from your Excellency's history, but, upon your Excellency's principles, appears to us to be an absurdity. The Judges, speaking of a subject, say, "although his birth was out of the bounds of the kingdom of England, and out of the reach and extent of the laws of England, yet, if it were within the allegiance of the King of England, &c. Normandy, Aquitain, Gascoign, and other places, within the limits of France, and, consequently, out of the realm or bounds of the kingdom of England, were in subjection to the Kings of England." And the Judges say, "Rex et Regnum, be not so relatives, as a King can be King but of one kingdom, which clearly holdeth not, but that his kingly power extending to divers nations and kingdoms, all owe him equal subjection, and are equally born to the benefit of his protection; and, although he is to govern them by their distinct laws, yet any one of the people coming into the other, is to have the benefit of the laws, wheresoever he cometh." So they are not to be deemed aliens, as your Excellency in your speech supposes, in any of the dominions, all which accords with the principles our ancestors held. "And he is to bear the burden of taxes of the place where he cometh, but living in one, or for his livelihood in one, he is not to be taxed in the other, because laws ordain taxes, impositions, and charges, as a discipline of subjection, particularized to every particular nation." Nothing, we think, can be more clear to our purpose than this decision of Judges, perhaps as learned, as ever adorned the English nation, or in favor of America, in her present controversy with the mother state.

Your Excellency says, that, by "our not distinguishing between the Crown of England, and the Kings and Queens of England, in their personal or natural capacities, we have been led into a fundamental error." Upon this very distinction we have availed ourselves. We have said, that our ancestors considered the land, which they took possession of in America, as out of the bounds of the kingdom of England, and out of the reach and extent of the laws of England; and, that the King also, even in the act of granting the charter, considered the territory as not within the realm; that the King had an absolute right in himself to dispose of the lands, and that this was not disputed by the nation; nor could the lands, on any solid grounds, be claimed by the nation; and, therefore, our ancestors received the lands, by grant, from the King; and, at the same time, compacted with him, and promised him homage and allegiance, not in his public or politic, but natural capacity only. If it be difficult for us to show how the King acquired a title to this country in his natural capacity, or separate from his relation to his subjects, which we confess, yet we conceive, it will be equally difficult for your Excellency to show how the body politic and nation of England acquired it. Our ancestors supposed it was acquired by neither; and, therefore, they declared, as we have before quoted from your history, that saving their actual purchase from the natives, of the soil, the dominion, the lordship, and sovereignty, they had in the sight of God and man, no right and title to what they possessed. How much clearer then, in natural reason and equity, must our title be, who hold estates dearly purchased at the expense of our own, as well as our ancestors labor, and defended by them with treasure and blood.

Your Excellency has been pleased to confirm, rather than deny or confute, a piece of history, which, you say, we took from an anonymous pamphlet, and by which you "fear we have been too easily misled." It may be gathered from your own declaration, and other authorities, besides the anonymous pamphlet, that the House of Commons took exception, not at the King's having made an absolute grant of the territory, but at the claim of an exclusive right to the fishery on the banks and sea coast, by virtue of the patent. At this you say, "the House of Commons was alarmed, and a bill was brought in for allowing a free fishery." And, upon this occasion, your Excellency allows, that "one of the Secretaries of State declared, that the plantations were not annexed to the Crown, and so were not within the jurisdiction of Parliament." If we should concede to what your Excellency supposes might possibly or "perhaps," be the case, that the Secretary made this declaration, "as his own opinion," the event showed that it was the opinion of the King too; for it is not to be accounted for upon any other principle, that he would have denied his royal assent to a bill, formed for no other purpose, but to grant his subjects in England, the privilege of fishing on the sea coasts in America. The account published by Sir Ferdinando Gorges himself, of the proceedings of Parliament on this occasion, your Excellency thinks, will remove all doubt, of the sense of the nation, and of the patentees of this patent or charter, in 1620. "This narrative," you say, "has all the appearance of truth and sincerity," which we do not deny; and, to us, it carries this conviction with it, that "what was objected" in Parliament, was the exclusive claim of fishing only. His imagining that he had satisfied the House, after divers attendances, that the planting a colony was of much more consequence than a simple disorderly course of fishing, is sufficient for our conviction. We know that the nation was at that time alarmed with apprehensions of monopolies; and, if the patent of New England was presented by the two Houses as a grievance, it did not show, as your Excellency supposes, "the sense they then had of their authority over this new acquired territory," but only their sense of the grievance of a monopoly of the sea.

We are happy to hear your Excellency say, that "our remarks upon, and construction of the words, not repugnant to the laws of England, are much the same with those of the Council." It serves to confirm us in our opinion, in what we take to be the most important matter of difference between your Excellency and the two Houses. After saying, that the statute of 7th and 8th of William and Mary favors the construction of the words, as intending such laws of England as are made more immediately to respect us, you tell us, that "the province Agent, Mr. Dummer, in his much applauded defence, says, that, then a law of the plantations may be said to be repugnant to a law made in Great Britain, when it flatly contradicts it, so far as the law made there, mentions and relates to the plantations."6 This is plain and obvious to common sense, and, therefore, cannot be denied. But, if your Excellency would read a page or two further in that excellent defence,7 you will see that he mentions this as the sense of the phrase, as taken from an act of Parliament, rather than as the sense he would choose himself to put upon it; and, he expressly designs to show, in vindication of the charter, that, in that sense of the words, there never was a law made in the plantations repugnant to the laws of Great Britain. He gives another construction, much more likely to be the true intent of the words, namely, "that the patentees shall not presume, under color of their particular charters, to make any laws inconsistent with the great charter, and other laws of England, by which the lives, liberties, and properties of Englishmen are secured."8 This is the sense in which our ancestors understood the words; and, therefore, they are unwilling to conform to the acts of trade, and disregarded them till they made provision to give them force in the colony, by a law of their own; saying, that "the laws of England did not reach America; and those acts were an invasion of their rights, liberties, and properties," because they were not "represented in Parliament." The right of being governed by laws, which were made by persons, in whose election they had a voice, they looked upon as the foundation of English liberties. By the compact with the King, in the charter, they were to be as free in America, as they would have been if they had remained within the realm; and, therefore, they freely asserted, that they "were to be governed by laws made by themselves, and by officers chosen by themselves." Mr. Dummer says, "it seems reasonable enough to think that the Crown," and, he might have added, our ancestors, "intended by this injunction to provide for all its subjects, that they might not be oppressed by arbitrary power; but being still subjects, they should be protected by the same mild laws, and enjoy the same happy government, as if they continued within the realm."9 And, considering the words of the charter in this light, he looks upon them as designed to be a fence against oppression and despotic power. But the construction which your Excellency puts upon the words, reduces us to a state of vassalage, and exposes us to oppression and despotic power, whenever a Parliament shall see fit to make laws for that purpose, and put them in execution.

We flatter ourselves, that, from the large extracts we have made from your Excellency's history of the colony, it appears evidently, that under both charters, it hath been the sense of the people and of the government, that they were not under the jurisdiction of Parliament. We pray you again to turn to those quotations, and our observations upon them; and we wish to have your Excellency's judicious remarks. When we adduced that history, to prove that the sentiments of private persons of influence, four or five years after the restoration, were very different from what your Excellency apprehended them to be, when you delivered your speech, you seem to concede to it, by telling us, "it was, as you take it, from the principles imbibed in those times of anarchy, (preceding the restoration,) that they disputed the authority of Parliament;" but, you add, "the government would not venture to dispute it." We find in the same history,10 a quotation from a letter of Mr. Stoughton, dated seventeen years after the restoration, mentioning "the country's not taking notice of the acts of navigation, to observe them." And it was, as we take it, after that time, that the government declared, in a letter to their Agents, that they had not submitted to them; and they ventured to "dispute" the jurisdiction, asserting, that they apprehended the acts 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 that "the laws of England did not reach America." It very little avails in proof, that they conceded to the supreme authority of Parliament, their telling the Commissioners, "that the act of navigation had for some years before, been observed here; that they knew not of its being greatly violated; and that, such laws as appeared to be against it, were repealed." It may as truly be said now, that the revenue acts are observed by some of the people of this province; but it cannot be said that the government and people of this province have conceded, that the Parliament had authority to make such acts to be observed here. Neither does their declaration to the Commissioners, that such laws as appeared to be against the act of navigation, were repealed, prove their concession of the authority of Parliament, by any means, so much as their making provision for giving force to an act of Parliament within this province, by a deliberate and solemn act or law of their own, proves the contrary.

You tell us, that "the government, four or five years before the charter was vacated, in more explicitly," that is, than by a conversation with the Commissioners, "acknowledged the authority of Parliament, and voted, that their Governor should take the oath required of him, faithfully to do and perform all matters and things enjoined him by the acts of trade." But does this, may it please your Excellency, show their explicit acknowledgment of the authority of Parliament? Does it not rather show directly the contrary? For, what could there he for their vote, or authority, to require him to take the oath already required of him, by the act of Parliament, unless both he, and they, judge that an act of Parliament was not of force sufficient to bind him to take such oath? We do not deny, but, on the contrary, are fully persuaded, that your Excellency's principles in governments are still of the same with what they appear to be in the history; for, you there say, that "the passing this law, plainly shows the wrong sense they had of the relation they stood in to England." But we are from hence convinced, that your Excellency, when you wrote the history, was of our mind in this respect, that our ancestors, in passing the law, discovered their opinion, that they were without the jurisdiction of Parliament; for it was upon this principle alone, they shewed the wrong sense they had in your Excellency's opinion, of the relation they stood in to England.

Your Excellency, in your second speech, condescends to point out to us the acts and doings of the General Assembly, which relates to acts of Parliament, which, you think, "demonstrates that they have been acknowledged by the Assembly, or submitted to by the people;" neither of which, in our opinion, shows that it was the sense of the nation, and our predecessors, when they first took possession of this plantation, or colony, by a grant and charter from the Crown, that they were to remain subject to the supreme authority of the English Parliament.

Your Excellency seems chiefly to rely upon our ancestors, after the revolution, "proclaiming King William and Queen Mary, in the room of King James," and taking the oaths to them, "the alteration of the form of oaths, from time to time," and finally, "the establishment of the form, which every one of us has complied with, as the charter, in express terms requires, and makes our duty." We do not know that it has ever been a point in dispute, whether the Kings of England were ipso facto Kings in, and over, this colony, or province. The compact was made between King Charles the I. his heirs and successors, and the Governor and company, their heirs and successors. It is easy, upon this principle, to account for the acknowledgment of, and submission to King William and Queen Mary, as successors of Charles the I. in the room of King James; besides, it is to be considered, that the people in the colony, as well as in England, had suffered under the tyrant James, by which, he had alike forfeited his right to reign over both. There had been a revolution here, as well as in England. The eyes of the people here, were upon William and Mary; and the news of their being proclaimed in England, was, as your Excellency's history tells us, "the most joyful news ever received in New England."11 And, if they were not proclaimed here, "by virtue of an act of the colony," it was, as we think may be concluded from the tenor of your history, with the general or universal consent of the people, as apparently, as if "such act had passed." It is consent alone, that makes any human laws binding; and as a learned author observes, a purely voluntary submission to an act, because it is highly in our favor and for our benefit, is in all equity and justice, to be deemed as not at all proceeding from the right we include in the Legislators, that they, thereby obtain an authority over us, and that ever hereafter, we must obey them of duty. We would observe, that one of the first acts of the General Assembly of this province, since the present charter, was an act, requiring the taking the oaths mentioned in an act of Parliament, to which you refer us. For what purpose was this act of the Assembly passed, if it was the sense of the Legislators that the act of Parliament was in force in the province? And, at the same time, another act was made for the establishment of other oaths necessary to be taken; both which acts have the royal sanction, and are now in force. Your Excellency says, that when the colony applied to King William for a second charter, they knew the oath the King had taken, which was to govern them according to the statutes in Parliament, and (which your Excellency here omits,) the laws and customs of the same. By the laws and customs of Parliament, the people of England freely debate and consent to such statutes as are made by themselves, or their chosen Representatives. This is a law, or custom, which all mankind may justly challenge as their inherent right. According to this law, the King has an undoubted right to govern us. Your Excellency, upon recollection, surely will not infer from hence, that it was the sense of our predecessors that there was to remain a supremacy in the English Parliament, or a full power and authority to make laws binding upon us, in all cases whatever, in that Parliament where we cannot debate and deliberate upon the necessity or expediency of any law, and, consequently, without our consent; and, as it may probably happen, destructive of the first law of society, the good of the whole. You tell us, that "after the assumption of all the powers of government, by virtue of the new charter, an act passed for the reviving, for a limited time, all the local laws of the Massachusetts Bay and New Plymouth respectively, not repugnant to the laws of England. And, at the same session, an act passed establishing naval officers, that all undue trading, contrary to an act of Parliament, may be prevented." Among the acts that were then revived, we may reasonably suppose, was that, whereby provision was made to give force to this act of Parliament, in the province. The establishment, therefore, of the naval officers, was to aid the execution of an act of Parliament, for the observance of which, within the colony, the Assembly had before made provision, after free debates, with their own consent, and by their own act.

The act of Parliament, passed in 1741,12 for putting an end to several unwarrantable schemes, mentioned by your Excellency, was designed for the general good; and, if the validity of it was not disputed, it cannot be urged as a concession of the supreme authority, to make laws binding on us in all cases whatever. But, if the design of it was for the general benefit of the province, it was, in one respect, at least greatly complained of, by the persons more immediately affected by it; and to remedy the inconvenience, the Legislative of this province, passed an act, directly militating with it; which is the strongest evidence, that although they may have submitted, sub silentio, to some acts of Parliament, that they conceived might operate for their benefit, they did not conceive themselves bound by any of its acts, which, they judged, would operate to the injury even of individuals.

Your Excellency has not thought proper, to attempt to confute the reasoning of a learned writer on the laws of nature and nations, quoted by us, on this occasion, to shew that the authority of the Legislature does not extend so far as the fundamentals of the constitution. We are unhappy in not having your remarks upon the reasoning of that great man; and, until it is confuted, we shall remain of the opinion, that the fundamentals of the constitution being excepted from the commission of the Legislators, none of the acts or doings of the General Assembly, however deliberate and solemn, could avail to change them, if the people have not, in very express terms, given them the power to do it; and, that much less ought their acts and doings, however numerous, which barely refer to acts of Parliament made expressly to relate to us, to be taken as an acknowledgment, that we are subject to the supreme authority of Parliament.

We shall sum up our own sentiments in the words of that learned writer, Mr. Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Policy, as quoted by Mr. Locke. "The lawful power of making laws to command whole political societies of men, belonging so properly to the same entire societies, that for any prince or potentate of what kind soever, to exercise the same of himself, and not from express commission, immediately and personally received from God, is no better than mere tyranny. Laws, therefore, they are not, which public approbation hath not made so; for human laws, of what kind soever, are available by consent." "Since men, naturally, have no full and perfect power to command whole politic multitudes of men, therefore, utterly without our consent, we could in such sort, be at no man's commandment living. And to be commanded, we do not consent, when that society. whereof we be a party, hath at any time before consented." We think your Excellency has not proved, either that the colony is a part of the politic society of England, or that it has ever consented that the Parliament of England or Great Britain, should make laws binding upon us, in all cases, whether made expressly to refer to us or not.

We cannot help, before we conclude, expressing our great concern, that your Excellency has thus repeatedly, in a manner, insisted upon our free sentiments on matters of so delicate a nature and weighty importance. The question appears to us, to be no other, than, whether we are the subjects of absolute unlimited power, or of a free government, formed on the principles of the English constitution. If your Excellency's doctrine be true, the people of this province hold their lands of the Crown and people of England; and their lives, liberties, and properties, are at their disposal, and that, even by compact and their own consent. They were subject to the King as the head alterius populi of another people, in whose Legislative they have no voice or interest. They are, indeed, said to have a constitution and a Legislative of their own; but your Excellency has explained it into a mere phantom; limited, controled, superseded, and nullified, at the will of another. Is this the constitution which so charmed our ancestors, that, as your Excellency has informed us, they kept a day of solemn thanksgiving to Almighty God when they received it? And were they men of so little discernment, such children in understanding, as to please themselves with the imagination, that they were blessed with the same rights and liberties which natural born subjects in England enjoyed, when, at the same time, they had fully consented to be ruled and ordered by a Legislative, a thousand leagues distant from them, which cannot be supposed to be sufficiently acquainted with their circumstances, if concerned for their interest, and in which, they cannot be in any sense represented?

1 Hutchinson is the principal authority for the statement that this document, as well as that of January 26, 1773, was prepared by Adams. Cf., R. Frothingham, Life of Joseph Warren, p. 223. W. V. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, vol. ii., p. 45. An instance of the later recognition of this claim is in Publications, Colonial Society of Massachusetts, vol. vi., p. 170. And see also above, pages 401, 430. 2 Massachusetts State Papers, p. 338. 3Ibid., pp. 368-381. February 16. 4 See above, page 430. 5 Rep. x. (16o8). Referred to as the leading case" on the subject as recently as 1897. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 United States Reports, 649. 6 Jer. Dummer, A Defence of the New England Charters. London, 1721, p. 57 7 Ibid., pp. 58, 59. 8 Ibid., p. 59. 9 Jer. Dummer, A Defence of the New England Charters. London, 1721, pp. 59, 60. The quotation is abridged. 10 T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, vol. i., p. 319. 11 T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, vol. i., p. 387. 12 14 Geo. II., chap. 37.