The Writings of Samuel Adams, volume II (1770 1773)

S >> Samuel Adams >> The Writings of Samuel Adams, volume II (1770 1773)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28

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.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28