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

Your Honor is pleasd to say, that "we consider the Charter as a
Compact between the Crown and the People of this province" and to ask
a Question "Shall one Party to the Compact be held, and not the
other"? It is true, we consider the Charter as such a Compact, and
agree that both Parties are held. The Crown covenants, that a Great &
General Court shall be held, every last Wednesday in May for ever; The
Crown therefore, doubtless is bound by this Covenant. But we utterly
deny, that the people have covenanted to grant Money, or to do
Business, at least any other Business than chusing Officers and
Councellors to compleat the General Court, on the last Wednesday of
May, or in any other Day or Year whatever: Therefore this House, by
refusing to do Business, do not deprive the Crown of the Exercise of
the prerogative, nor fail of performing their part of the Compact.
Your Honor wd doubtless have been culpable had you refusd to call a
General Court on the last Wednesday in May: And the House might have
been equally culpable, if they had refusd to chuse a Speaker and
Clerk, or to elect Councellors, whereby to compleat the General Court;
for in Case of Omission in either part, a Question might arise,
Whether the people would have a Legislature. When the General Assembly
is thus formd, they are impowerd by the Charter, to make, ordain and
establish all Manner of wholesome and reasonable Orders, Laws,
Statutes & Ordinances, Directions and Instructions, either with
penaltys or without. But the Charter no where obliges the Genl Court,
to make any Orders, Laws, Statutes or Ordinances, unless they, at that
time judge it conducive to the publick Good to make them: Much less
does it oblige them to make any Laws &c, in any particular Session,
year or number of years, whenever they themselves shall judge them not
to be for the publick Good. Such an Obligation would leave them the
least Color of Freedom, but reduce them to a mere machine; to the
State the Parliament would have been in, if the Opinion of the two
Chiefe Justices and the three puisne Judges had prevaild in the Reign
of Richard the second "that the King hath the Governance of
Parliament, and may appoint what shall be first handled, and so
gradually what next, in all matters to be treated of in parliament,
even to the End of the parliament; and if any person shall act
contrary to the Kings pleasure made known therein, they are to be
punishd as Traitors"--for which opinion those five Judges had Judgment
as in Case of high Treason.--Your Honor will allow us to ask, Whether
the Doctrine containd in your Question viz, "If you should refuse to
do Business now you are met, would you not deprive the Crown of the
Exercise of the prerogative, and fail of performing your part of the
Compact" which implys a strong affirmation, is not in a Degree, the
very Doctrine of Chiefe Justice Tresilian and the four other Judges
just now mentiond? By convening in Obedience to his Majesty's Writ,
tested by your Honor, and again, at the time to which we are prorogud,
we have submitted to the prerogative, and performd our part of the
Compact.

This House has the same inherent Rights in this Province, as the House
of Commons has in Great Britain. It is our Duty to procure a Redress
of Grievances, and we may constitutionally refuse to grant our
Constituents money to the Crown, or to do any other Act of Government,
at any given time, that is not affixd by Charter to a certain Day,
until the Grievances of the people are redressd. We do not pretend,
that our Opinion is to prevail against his Majestys Opinion: We never
shall attempt to adjourn or prorogue or dissolve the General Court:
But we do hope, that our Opinion shall prevail, against any Opinion
whatever, of the proper time to make Laws and to do Business. And by
exerting this Power which the Constitution has given us, we hope to
convince your Honor and the Ministry of the Necessity of removing the
Court to Boston.--All judicious Men will allow that the proper time
for the House to do their part of the Business of the province, is for
the House to judge of and determine. The House think it is not, in the
present Circumstances of the province, a proper time to do this
Business, while the Court is constraind to hold their Session out of
Boston: Your Honor is of a different Opinion: We have conformd to this
Opinion as far as the Constitution requires us, And now our right of
judging commences. If your Honors or even his Majestys Opinion
concerning this Point is to prevail against the Opinion of the House,
why may not the Crown, according to the Tresilian Doctrine, as well
prescribe what Business we shall do, and in what Order.

The House is still ready to answer for all the ill Consequences which
can justly be attributed to them; nor are they sensible of any Danger
from exerting the power which the Charter has given them of doing
their part of the Business in their own time.--That the Province has
Enemies who are continually defaming it, and their Charter, is
certain; that there are Persons who are endeavoring to intimidate the
province from asserting and vindicating their just Rights and
Liberties, by Insinuations of Danger to the Constitution, is also
indisputable; But no Instance happend, even in the execrable Reign of
the worst of the Stuart Race, of a Forfeiture of a Charter, because
any one Branch of a Legislature, or even because the whole Government
under the Charter, refusd to do Business at a particular time, under
grievous Circumstances of Ignominy, Disgrace and Insult; and when
their Charter had explicitly given to that Government the sole power
of judging of the proper Season & Occasion of doing Business.

We are obligd at this time to struggle, with all the Powers with which
the Constitution hath furnishd us, in Defence of our Rights; to
prevent the most valueable of our Libertys, from being wrested from
us, by the subtle Machinations, and daring Encroachments of wicked
Ministers. We have seen of late, innumerable Encroachments on our
Charter: Courts of Admiralty extended from the high Seas, where by the
Compact in the Charter, they are confind, to numberless important
Causes upon Land: Multitudes of civil Officers, the Appointment of all
which is confind by Charter to the Governor and Council, sent here
from abroad by the Ministry: A Revenue, not granted by us, but torn
from us: Armys stationd here without our Consent; and the Streets of
our Metropolis, crimsond with the Blood of our fellow
Subjects.--These, and other Grievances and Cruelties, too many to be
here enumerated, and too melancholly to be much longer born by this
injurd People, we have seen brot upon us by the Devices of Ministers
of State. We have seen & had of late, Instructions to Governors which
threaten to destroy all the remaining Privileges of our Charter. In
June 1768, the House, by an Instruction were orderd to rescind an
excellent Resolution of a former House, on pain of Dissolution;4 they
refusd to comply with so impudent a Mandate, and were dissolvd. And
the Governor, tho' repeatedly requested, and tho' the Exigences of the
Province demanded a General Assembly, refusd to call a new one, till
the following May. In the last year, the General Court was forcd to
give Way to regular Troops, illegally quarterd in the Town of Boston,
in Consequence of Instructions to Crown Officers, and whose main Guard
was most daringly and insultingly placd at the Door of the State
house; and afterwards they were constraind to hold their Session at
Cambridge. The present year the Assembly is summond to meet, and is
still continued there in a kind of Duress, without any Reason that can
be given--any Motive whatever, that is not as great an Insult to them,
and Breach of their Privilege, as any of the foregoing.--Are these
things consistent with the Freedom of the House; or, could the General
Courts tamely submiting to such Usage, be thought to promote his
Majestys Service!

Should these Struggles of the House prove unfortunate and ineffectual,
this Province will submit, with pious Resignation to the Will of
Providence; but it would be a kind of Suicide, of which we have the
utmost Horror, thus to be made the Instruments of our Servitude.

We beg leave before we conclude, to make one Remark on what you say,
that "our Compliance can be of no Benefit to our Sovereign, any
farther than as he interests himself in the Happiness of his
Subjects." We are apprehensive that the World may take this for an
Insinuation, very much to our Dishonor: As if the Benefit of our
Sovereign were a Motive in our Minds, against a Compliance. But as
this Imputation would be extremely unjust, so we hope it was not
intended by your Honor. We are however obligd in Justice to our selves
and our Constituents to declare that if we had Reason to believe, that
a Compliance would by any, the least Benefit to our Sovereign, it
would be a very powerful Argument with us; But we are on the Contrary,
fully perswaded, that a Compliance at present, would be very injurious
and detrimental to his Majestys Service.

1From this point the manuscript is wholly in the handwriting of Adams.
2Massachusetts State Papers, pp. 237-240.
3Inaccurately quoted from T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of
Massachusetts Bay, vol. ii., p. 317.
4See Vol. I., p. 230.

ARTICLE SIGNED "A CHATTERER."1

[Boston Gazette, August 13, 1770.]

Messieurs EDES & GILL,

"What availed the good Qualites of Galba? He who should not have
employed bad Men, or at least should have restrained or punished them,
incurred the same Censure as if he himself had done it!--It is the
common Craft of corrupt Ministers to represent their Cause as the
Cause of their Prince."

His Honor the Lieutenant Governor, in his late Reply2 to the House of
Representatives, tells them, that "a Secretary of State has by Virtue
of his Office free Access" to the King; & "receives the Signification
of his Majesty's pleasure"; from whence he concludes that "he will
give no directions but what he knows to be agreable thereto", and
therefore "every order coming from a Minister of State, must be
suppos'd to come immediately from the Crown"--This is reasoning
plausibly enough; but before I can give my full Assent to the
Conclusion, I must have good Grounds to believe this same Secretary to
be a Man of Wisdom and Integrity; a Character, which however
requisite, does not always belong to a Minister of State. If he is
deficient in both or either of these, we can have no Assurance, that
every Order coming from him is declaratory of the Pleasure of the
Sovereign: His want of Wisdom may render him altogether incapable of
understanding the Mind of his royal Master; or, failing in point of
Integrity he may maliciously and traiterously pervert his benevolent
Intentions for the Good of his Subjects. Whenever Orders are given by
a Secretary of State, that are evidently calculated to injure the
Publick, we are by no Means to suppose them to come immediately from
the Crown, for the King can do no Wrong: Will his Honor have us
believe that the King can do a weak & foolish, or a malevolent and
wicked Act? If not, such Instructions are to be look'd upon as the
acts of the Minister and not of the King. Ministers of state were
formerly shields to the persons of Kings from such kind of
imputations; but it is much to be feared, if care is not taken to
prevent it, the idle whimsies of Ministers, their weakness and folly,
or their daring and impudent attempts to destroy the Liberties of the
People, will be attributed to a Cause which no one, to be sure at
present, will chuse to mention.--I hope his Honor's reasoning, and his
correspondent Conduct, does not lead to this--The House of
Representatives seem to be aware of the Danger of such Doctrine, when
they expressly say, "They presume not to call in question the Wisdom
of their Sovereign or the rectitude of his Intentions"; at the same
time that they speak with a manly Freedom, of certain Instructions
that have come from Ministers of State, and even treat them with
Indignity and Contempt. His Honor presumes "they would not have done
this, if they had known it to be an Order from his Majesty." I believe
they would not; they saw reason to think that the Mandate to rescind
in June 1768, was the mere act of a weak Minister; and as his Honor
does not give the least Intimation, that he either knows or believes
to the Contrary, I must beg leave to say, that in my poor Opinion, the
Epithet given to it by the House, is neither "coarse" nor "indecent."

We seem, Messrs. Printers, to be drawing very near the time, when some
people will be hardy enough to dispute, whether we are to be governed
according to the rule of the Constitution, the building of which has
been the Work of Ages, or to use the words of the House, by the
"breath of a Minister of State."--Instructions, form'd by a set of
Ministers, calculated for certain purposes and sent over to a
Governor, who to avoid their high Displeasure and the terrible Effects
of it, must implicitly believe, or say he believes them, to come
immediately from the King; and the House of Representatives must by no
means controvert them, lest, as Bernard once impudently told them,
they should be chargeable with "oppugnation against the King's
authority."3

There is a sort of Impropriety, as I take it, in saying that every
Order from a Minister of State comes immediately from the Crown.
However, little Inaccuracies in diction are not to be regarded in a
performance fraught with reason and sound argument: It is rather to be
wondered at that we meet with so few Imperfections, since we are
assured by his Honor that he had taken "one Day only for his Reply" to
an Answer which he intimates cost a Committee of the House full Eight
Days hard Labor.4 Some men are said to have intuitive knowledge; and
such have nothing to do but write down pages of unanswerable reasons
as fast as the Ink can flow.

It was doubtless from this opinion that "every Order from a Secretary
of State comes immediately from the King," or as his Honor elsewhere
more properly expresses it, is a 'Signification of his Majesty's
pleasure,' that he concludes it to be his Majesty's pleasure that he
should not communicate them; for such a prohibitory order is said to
come from the Secretary. But the House seemed to think it impossible
that our gracious King, should hold his Subjects to a blind obedience
to Orders which they were not permitted to see; and therefore
concluded, and as I humbly conceive very justly, that this order in a
particular manner, was to be suppos'd to be an Act of the Minister and
not of the King--His Honor indeed speaks of it with great Veneration;
and tells them that "the restraint he is under appears to him to be
founded upon wise Reasons." But from this alone, he could not with
certainty conclude that the Order came immediately from the King; for
it is undoubtedly his Honor's opinion, that the present set of
Ministers are very wise men, tho' not so wise as his Majesty; and
therefore he might take it for granted, the Order was founded on wise
reasons if it had come from them only. But as in these times of Light
and Liberty, every man chuses to see and judge for himself, especially
in all matters which are prescribed to him as rules of faith and
practice; it is pity his Honor did not condescend to communicate those
wise reasons, that the House and the People without Doors, here and
there "a transient Person" who may have a common share of
understanding, might judge whether they appeared to them to be reasons
becoming the Wisdom of a King, or only as the House somewhere express
it, "the freaks of a capricious Minister of State."

If I have leisure I shall write you again. In the mean Time, I am,
Your's,

A CHATTERER.

1The succeeding articles of this series were attributed to Adams by
George Bancroft. This is confirmed by apparently contemporaneous
annotations in the file of the Gazette owned by Harbottle Dorr, at one
time a selectman of Boston. At the trial of Capt. Preston in November,
1770, he was drawn as a juror and "challenged for cause." An
advertisement of his business appears in the Boston Gazette, October
1, 1770.
2August 3, 1770, Massachusetts State Papers, pp.249-254.
3May 29, 1766 Massachusetts State Papers, p. 75.
4Massachusetts State Papers, p. 254.

ARTICLE SIGNED "A CHATTERER."

[Boston Gazette, August 20, 1770.]

"One of the greatest indications of Wisdom that a Prince can show, is
to converse with and have about him virtuous and wise Men: But Princes
are liable to be deceived; Fraudum sedes aula, was the saying of a
Philosopher who understood Courts well.--A good Prince may suffer by
employing bad Ministers and Servants."

MESSIEURS PRINTERS,

WE are told in a late reply, that "the offices of Attornies and
Sollicitors-General have been for more than fifty years past filled up
by persons of the highest reputation for learning and integrity."1 I
am apt to think, if we look back we shall find that some of these
officers of the crown have been as deficient in learning or integrity,
or both, as we know some ministers of state have been. The house of
Representatives say, "the province has suffer'd much by their unjust,
groundless and illegal opinions"--2 Among other instances of weakness
or wickedness in some persons who have filled these offices, I shall
only mention one which now occurs to my mind--There is an act of
Parliament which exempts seamen from an impress in America: This act
was upon several occasions urged by the Americans, and it has been the
opinion of attornies and sollicitors general, at different times, that
the act was limitted to a time of war, when in truth there was no part
or clause whatever in it to justify such opinion.--Well then may it be
called a groundless opinion; and if groundless, will any one insist
that there was no defect in these instances in point of integrity, if
not of learning--Perhaps these opinions may appear to his Honor to be
founded upon wise reasons; but others who cannot see the force of
these reasons, have a right to think differently; and such a freedom
is not likely to bring dishonor upon them--It is enough for those who
are dependent upon the great for commissions, pensions, and the like,
to preach up implicit faith in the great--Others whose minds are
unfettered will think for themselves--They will not blindly adopt the
opinions even of persons who are advanced to the first stations in the
courts of law and equity, any further than the reasons which they
expressly give are convincing.--They will judge freely of every point
of state doctrine, & reject with disdain a blind submission to the
authority of mere names, as being equally ridiculous, as well as
dangerous in government and religion.--It may have been, Messirs.
Printers, too much the practice of late, for some plantation
governors, like Verres either ancient or modern, to oppress and plague
the people they were bound to protect, and, perhaps in obedience to
"orders that have come from secretaries of state"--These orders truly
were to be treated with as profound veneration, without the least
enquiry into their nature and tendency, as ever a poor deluded
Catholic reverenc'd the decree of Holy Father at Rome.--While such a
disposition prevailed, O how orderly were the people, how submissive
to government! But when once a statute or the constitution was
pleaded, which it was as dangerous for the people to look into, as it
would be for an Italian, after the example of the noble Bereans, to
search the scriptures, the secretary of state was to be informed that
the people were become rebellious; as they said of St. Paul for
preaching doctrines opposite to the humour of the Jewish Masters, that
he "turned the world upside down"--The whole ministerial cabal was
summoned; opinions were called for and taken--and however ludicrous,
to say the best of them, those opinions were, if the people did not
swallow them down as law & reason, they were told, that the freedom
they used with the characters of great men forsooth "would bring
dishonor upon them" and standing armies were sent to convince them of
the reasonableness of these opinions--I confess that "too great a
respect cannot be paid to the honorable part of the profession of the
law," but when state-lawyers, attorneys and sollicitors general, &
persons advanced to the highest stations in the courts of law,
prostitute the honor of the profession, become tools of ministers, and
employ their talents for explaining away, if possible the Rights of a
kingdom, they are then the proper objects of the odium and indignation
of the public.--A very judicious author has observed that "our
maladies and dangers have originated chiefly in the errors and
misconduct of ministers; who from defect of ability or fidelity, or
both, were unequal to the wants of a kingdom: A great genius, infinite
knowledge and infinite care, says he, are requisite to form a prime
minister; but youth and dissipation, with the trainings of the turf
and the gaming table, will now suffice to make a man master of the
most difficult trade in the world, without learning it"--Such were the
men, under whose Influence Attorneys and Sollicitors General, within
these fifty Years past, have held their places, and have even been
advanced to the highest Stations in the Courts of Law, without any
other recommendation than a servile disposition to prostitute the Law
and the Constitution, whenever their Masters should require it of
them--Such have been the Men, from whom Orders have come to Governors
and Commanders in Chief, civil and military in America! And shall we
easily be persuaded to take it for granted that such men are incapable
of abusing the high trust reposed in them, and that Orders coming from
them are always to be considered as "Significations of the pleasure of
the Sovereign."--

Your's,

A CHATTERER.

ARTICLE SIGNED "A CHATTERER."

[Boston Gazette, August 27, 1770.]

MESSIEURS PRINTERS,

I Find in the last Monday's Evening Post,1 a Piece, signed Probus; the
Intention of which seems to be, at least in Part, to show that I must
be "effectually disappointed in my Attempt to convince the World that
I am a greater Scholar than the Lieutenant-Governor of this Province"!
Now upon the Word of a Chatterer, I declare to all my kind Readers, as
well as Hearers, that I never did make the least Pretension to
Scholarship; and besides, the World must long have been so fully
convinced of the "profound Erudition" of the Lieutenant-Governor of
this Province, that it would be the highest Degree of Vanity in any
Man to think of rivaling him as a Scholar. It was obvious to common
Readers that "what comes from the King thro' his Minister, does not
come immediately from the King"--And yet every Paper of the 6th of
August led us to think that an "Expression in itself repugnant and
absurd", had, perhaps thro' Inadvertency, drop't even from a learned
Pen--So far was I from "bravely attacking the Word immediately," or
"entering into a formal Criticism," or any Criticism at all, that I
but barely mentioned it as a "little inaccuracy"; at the same Time
making the best Apology I could for it, by saying that as his Honor
had assured us he "had taken one Day only for his Reply" it was rather
to be wonder'd at, that we met with so few Imperfections of that kind.
But Probus has rectify'd the Mistake, and Probus has vindicated the
Lt. Governor of this Province as a Scholar.--We Chatterers, Messrs.
Printers, have as much Pretension to the Character of the Gentleman,
as any such formal and grave kind of folks as Probus: But I did not
think myself under any obligation "as a Gentleman or an honest Man" to
hunt after the Original, and therefore I have no Acknowlegment to make
to any one for "a faulty Neglect in not seeing it before my
Publication." I suppos'd, as any one might, that the printed Copies
were agreable to the original; and, that our Enemies may not avail
themselves of the common Artifice, in representing the Advocates for
the People as endeavoring to deceive the public I do again declare,
that "in my Conscience I thought the printed Copy to be genuine"; and
I hereby bear my Testimony, as far as that will go, against any Abuse
being offered to Probus, which, poor Man, he either is, or affects to
be under Apprehensions of, for rectifying this Mistake: But as few
persons beside his Honor the Pope, lay Claim to Infallibility, upon
due Consideration it seemeth not, that I am guilty of such high Crime
and Misdeameanour, as by any Rule in Law to be subjected to Indictment
or ex officio Information. However, I think it incumbent on you to
suffer your Readers to be advertiz'd, that instead of immediately in
his Honor's Reply to the House of Representatives, as published in
your Paper of the 6th of August, they ought to read mediately; which
may prevent some other Chatterer from rudely attempting to convince
the World that he is "a greater Scholar than the Lt. Governor of this
Province;" Such an attempt perhaps may otherwise be made at a Distance
where Probus may not have it in his Power to set right this notable
Mistake--The Word being thus restored, the Passage will remain just as
liable to the Chatterer's Exception, notwithstanding all that Probus
has said, as if it stood as it did; for the whole that was intended,
was, to show, that we ought to take the Characters of Ministers of
State into Consideration, before we conclude, as his Honor would have
us, that every Order from them comes mediately from the Crown, or is a
Signification of his Majesty's Pleasure.

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