MY
LORD,
[3][i] The Last time I had the honour of being in your Lordships company, you observed
that you was utterly at a loss to what facts many parts of the Declaration of
Independence published by the Philadelphia Congress referred, and that you
wished they had been more particularly mentioned, that you might better judge
of the grievances, alleged as special causes of the separation of the Colonies
from the other parts of the Empire. This hint from your Lordship induced me to
attempt a few Strictures upon the Declaration. Upon my first reading it, I
thought there would have been more policy in leaving the World altogether
ignorant of the motives of the Rebellion, than in offering such false and
frivolous reasons in support of it; and I flatter myself, that before I have
finished this letter, your Lordship will be of the same mind. But I beg leave,
first to make a few remarks upon its rise and progress.
I
have often heard men, (who I believe were free from party influence) express
their wishes, that the claims of the Colonies to an exemption from the
authority of Parliament in imposing taxes had been conceded; because they had
no doubts that America would have submitted in all other cases; and so this
unhappy Rebellion, which has already proved fatal to many hundreds of the
Subjects of the Empire, and probably will to many thousands more, might have
been prevented.
The
Acts for imposing Duties and Taxes may have accelerated the Rebellion, and if
this could have been foreseen, perhaps, it might have been good policy to have
omitted or deferred them; but I am of opinion, that if no Taxes or Duties had
been laid upon the Colonies, other pretences would have been found for [4]
exception to the authority of Parliament. The body of the people in the
Colonies, I know, were easy and quiet. They felt no burdens. They were
attached, indeed, in every Colony to their own particular Constitutions, but
the Supremacy of Parliament over the whole gave them no concern. They had been
happy under it for an hundred years past: They feared no imaginary evils for an
hundred years to come. But there were men in each of the principal Colonies,
who had independence in view, before any of those Taxes were laid, or proposed,
which have since been the ostensible cause of resisting the execution of Acts
of Parliament. Those men have conducted the Rebellion in the several stages of
it, until they have removed the constitutional powers of Government in each
Colony, and have assumed to themselves, with others, a supreme authority over
the whole.
Their
designs of Independence began soon after the reduction of Canada, relying upon
the future cession of it by treaty. They could have no other pretence to a
claim of independence, and they made no other at first, than what they called
the natural rights of mankind, to chuse their own forms of Government, and
change them when they please. This, they were soon convinced, would not be
sufficient to draw the people from their attachment to constitutions under
which they had so long been easy and happy: Some grievances, real or imaginary,
were therefore necessary. They were so far from holding Acts for laying Duties
to be unconstitutional, and, as has been since alledged, meer nullities, that
in Massachusetts Bay the General Assembly, about the year 1762, ordered an
Action to be brought against the Officers of the Customs, for charges made in
the Court of Admiralty, which had caused a diminution of the part of
forfeitures to the Province, by virtue of what is called the Sugar Act, passed
in the sixth year of George the Second. Surely they would not deny the
authority of Parliament to lay the Duty, while they were suing for their part
of the penalty for the non-payment of it.
[5]
Their first attempt was against the Courts of Admiralty, which they pronounced
unconstitutional, whose judgements, as well as jurisdiction, they endeavored to
bring into examen before the Courts of Common Law, and a Jury chosen from among
the people: About the same time, a strong opposition was formed against Writs
of Assistants, granted to the Officers of the Customs by the Supreme Courts,
and this opposition finally prevailed in all the Colonies, except two or three,
against, and in defiance of, an Act of Parliament which required the Supreme
Courts to grant these writs.
It
does not, however, appear that there was any regular plan formed for attaining
to Independence, any further than that every fresh incident which could be made
to serve the purpose, by alienating the affections of the Colonies from the
Kingdom, should be improved accordingly. One of these incidents happened in the
year 1764. This was the Act of Parliament granting certain duties on goods in
the British Colonies, for the support of Government, etc. At the same time a
proposal was made in Parliament, to lay a stamp duty upon certain writings in
the Colonies; but this was deferred until the next Session, that the Agents of
the Colonies might notify the several Assemblies in order to their proposing
any way, to them more eligible, for raising a sum for the same purpose with
that intended by a stamp duty. The Colony of Massachusetts Bay was more affected
by the Act for granting duties, than any other Colony. More molasses, the
principal article from which any duty could arise, was distilled into spirits
in that Colony than in all the rest. The Assembly of Massachusetts Bay,
therefore, was the first that took any publick of the Act, and the first which ever took exception to the
right of Parliament to impose Duties or Taxes on the Colonies, whilst they had
no representatives in the House of Commons. This they did in a letter to their
Agent in the summer of 1764, which they took care to print and publish before
it was possible for him to receive it. And in this letter they recommend to him
a pamphlet, wrote by one of their [6] members, in which there are proposals for
admitting representatives from the Colonies to fit in the House of Commons.
I
have this special reason, my Lord, for taking notice of this Act of the
Massachusetts Assembly; that though an American representation is thrown out as
an expedient which might obviate the objections to Taxes upon the Colonies, yet
it was only intended to amuse the authority in England; and as soon as it was
known to have its advocates here, it was renounced by the colonies, and even by
the Assembly of the Colony which first proposed it, as utterly impracticable.
In every stage of the Revolt, the same disposition has always appeared. No
precise, unequivocal terms of submission to the authority of Parliament in any
case, have ever been offered by any Assembly. A concession has only produced a
further demand, and I verily believe if every thing had been granted short of
absolute Independence, they would not have been contented; for this was not the
object from the beginning. One of the most noted among the American clergy,
prophesied eight years ago, that within eight years from that time, the
Colonies would be formed into three distinct independent Republics, Northern,
Middle, and Southern. I could give your Lordship many irrefragable proofs of
this determined design, but I reserve them for a future letter, the subject of
which shall be the rise and
progress of the Rebellion in each of the Colonies.
Soon
after the intention of raising monies in America for the purpose of a revenue
was known, the promoters of Independence, and Revolt, settled certain
principles of polity, such as they thought would be best adapted to their
purpose.
“The
authority of Parliament over the Colonists ceased upon their leaving the
Kingdom. Every degree of subjection is therefore voluntary, and ought to
continue no longer than the authority
shall be for the public good.
“If
there had been no express compact by charters,
or implied by submitting to be governed under Royal Commissions, the Colonists
would be under no obligations to acknowledge the King of Great Britain as their
Sovereign, [7] and this obligation must cease when he shall cease to perform
his part of the conditions of the compact.
“As
every Colony, by charters or by Royal Commissions, was constituted with special
legislative powers to raise monies by Taxes, Duties, &c. no monies ought to
be raised from the inhabitants, by any other powers than the several
legislatures.
“As
the Colonies were settled by encouragement from, and some at great expense of,
the Kingdom, and principally for commercial purposes, subjection to necessary and reasonable Acts for regulating
commerce ought to be specially acknowledged.
“Other
Acts to be submitted to, or not, as they may, or may not, be for the benefit of
the Colonies.”
These
principles of Government in Colonies must soon work an Independence.
To
carry them to effect, Confederacies were formed by the chiefs of the revolters
in each Colony; and Conventions were held by Delegates when judged necessary.
Subjects for controversy in opposition to Government were fought for in each of
the Colonies, to irritate and inflame the minds of the people, and dispose them
to revolt: Dissentions and commotions in any Colony, were cherished and
increased, as furnishing proper matter to work upon: For the same purpose,
fictitious letters were published, as having been received from England,
informing of the designs of ministry, and even of Bills being before the
Parliament for introducing into the Colonies arbitrary Government, heavy Taxes,
and other cruel oppressions: Every legal measure for suppressing illicit trade
was represented as illegal and grievous; and the people were called upon to
resist it: A correspondence was carried on with persons in England, promoters
of the revolt, whose intelligence and advice from time to time were of great
use: Persons in England of superior rank and characters, but in opposition to
the measures of administration, were courted and deceived, by false
professions; and the real intentions of the revolters were concealed: The
tumults, riots, contempt, [8] and defiance of law in England, were urged to
encourage and justify the like disorders in the Colonies, and to annihilate the
powers of Government there.
Many
thousands of people who were before good and loyal subjects, have been deluded,
and by degrees induced to rebel against the best of Princes, and the mildest of
Governments.
Governors
and other servants of the Crown, and Officers of Government, with such as
adhered to them, have been removed and banished under pretence of their being
the instruments of promoting ministerial tyranny and arbitrary power; and
finally the people have subjected themselves to the most cruel oppressions of
fifty or sixty Despots.
It
will cause greater prolixity to analize the various parts of this Declaration,
than to recite the whole. I will therefore present it to your Lordship’s view
in distinct paragraphs, with my remarks, in order as the paragraphs are
published.
In Congress,
July 4, 1776
A
Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America in General
Congress assembled.
When
in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among
the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of
nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the
separation.
WE hold these
truths to be self-evident––That all Men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed; and whenever [, that whenever]any form of government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and
organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their safety and happiness. Prudence, [9] indeed,
will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light
and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that Mankind
are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a
long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object,
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it
is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for
their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies,
and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former
systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great Britain is a
history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let
facts be submitted to a candid world.
They
begin my Lord, with a false hypothesis, that the colonies are one distinct
people, and the kingdom another, connected by political bands. The Colonies, politically considered, never were a distinct people from
the kingdom. There never has been but one political band, and that was just the same before the first Colonists
emigrated as it has been ever since, the Supreme Legislative Authority, which
hath essential right, and is indispensably bound to keep all parts of the
Empire entire, until there may be a separation consistent with the general good
of the Empire, of which good, from the nature of government, this authority
must be the sole judge. I should
therefore be impertinent, if I attempted to shew in what case a whole people may be justified in rising up in oppugnation to the powers of
government, altering or abolishing them, and substituting, in whole or in part,
new powers in their stead; or in what sense all men are created equal; or how
far life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may
be said to be unalienable; only I could wish to ask the Delegates of Maryland,
Virginia, and the Carolinas, how their Constituents justify the depriving more
than an hundred thousand Africans of their rights to liberty, and [10] the
pursuit of happiness, and in some degree to their
lives, if these rights are so absolutely unalienable; nor shall I attempt to
confute the absurd notions of government, or to expose the equivocal or
inconclusive expressions contained in this Declaration; but rather to shew the
false representation made of the facts which are alledged to be the evidence of
injuries and usurpations, and the special motives to Rebellion. There are many
of them, with designs, left obscure; for as soon as they are developed, instead
of justifying, they rather aggravate the criminality of this Revolt.
The
first in order, He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and
necessary for the public good; is of so general a
nature, that it is not possible to conjecture to what laws or to what Colonies
it refers. I remember no laws which any Colony has been restrained from
passing, so as to cause any complaint of grievance, except those for issuing a
fraudulent paper currency, and making it a legal tender; but this is a
restraint which for many years past has been laid on Assemblies by an act of
Parliament, since which such laws cannot have been offered to the King for his
allowance. I therefore believe this to be a general charge, without any
particulars to support it; fit enough to be placed at the head of a list of
imaginary grievances.
The
laws of England are or ought to be the laws of its Colonies. To prevent a
deviation further than the local circumstances of any Colony may make
necessary, all Colony laws are to be laid before the King; and if disallowed,
they then become of no force. Rhode-Island, and Connecticut, claim by Charters,
an exemption from this rule, and as their laws are never presented to the King,
they are out of the question. Now if the King is to approve of all laws, or
which is the same thing, of all which the people judge for the public good, for
we are to presume they pass no other, this reserve in all Charters and
Commissions is futile. This Charge is still more inexcusable, because I am well
informed, the disallowance of Colony laws has been much more frequent in
preceding reigns, than in the present.
[11] He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing
Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be
obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend [to] them.
Laws,
my Lord, are in force in the Colonies, as soon as a Governor has given his
assent, and remain in force until the King’s disallowance is signed. Some laws
may have their full effect before the King’s pleasure can be known. Some may
injuriously affect the property of the subject; and some may be prejudicial to
the prerogative of the Crown, and to the trade, manufactures and shipping of
the kingdom. Governors have been instructed, long before the present or the
last reign, not to consent to such laws, unless with a clause suspending their
operations until the pleasure of the King shall be known. I am sure your
Lordship will think that nothing is more reasonable. In Massachusetts Bay, the
Assembly would never pass a law with a suspending clause. To pass laws which
must have their whole operation, or which must cause some irreparable mischief
before the King’s pleasure can be known, would be an usurpation of the People
upon the Royal Prerogative: To cause the operation of such laws to be suspended
until the King can signify his pleasure by force of instructions, similar to
what has been given in all former Reigns, can never be charged as an usurpation
upon the rights of the People.
I
dare say, my Lord, that if there has ever been an instance of any laws lying
longer than necessary before the King’s pleasure has been signified, it has
been owing to the inattention in some of the servants of the Crown, and that
upon proper application any grievance would have been immediately redressed.
He
has refused to pass other laws for [the] accommodation of large districts of People, unless those People would
relinquish the rights [right] of Representation
in the legislature, a right inestimable to them,
and formidable to tyrants only.
[12]
We shall find, my Lord, that Massachusetts Bay is more concerned in this
Declaration than any other Colony. This article respects that Colony alone. By
its charter, a legislature is constituted: The Governor is appointed by the
King––The Council, consisting of twenty-eight members, were appointed, in the
first instance by the King, but afterwards are to be elected annually by the
two Houses––The House of Representatives is to consist of two members elected
annually by each town, but the number of the House is nevertheless made subject
to future regulations by acts of the General Assembly. Besides the Council, the
Civil Officers of the Government are also to be annually elected by the two
Houses. It appeared in a course of years, that by multiplying towns, the House
of Representatives had increased to double the number of which it consisted at
first. Their importance in all elections was increased in proportion; for the
number of the Council continued the same as at first. To prevent further
deviation from the spirit of the Charter, an instruction was then first given
to the Governors, not to consent to laws for making new towns so as to increase
the number of the House; unless there should be a clause in the law to suspend
its operation, until the King signifies his pleasure upon it. But here, my
Lord, lies the most shameful falsity of this article. No Governor ever refused
to consent to a law for making a new town, even without a suspending clause, if
provision was made that the inhabitants of the new town should continue to join
with the old, or with any other town contiguous or near to it, in the choice of
Representatives; so that there never was the least intention to deprive a
single inhabitant of the right of being represented; and, in fact, such
provision has ever been made, except where the inhabitants of the new town
chose to forego the right, which we must suppose they did not think inestimable, rather than pay the wages of their Representatives. This has been
the case in several instances, and it is notorious that the Assembly of that
Province have[13] made it their practice, from year to year, to lay fines on
their towns for not chusing Representatives. This is a wilful misrepresentation
made for the sake of the brutal insult at the close of the article.
He
has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and
distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of
fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
To
the same Colony this article also has respect. Your Lordship must remember the
riotous, violent opposition to Government in the Town of Boston, which alarmed
the whole Kingdom, in the year 1768. Four Regiments of the King’s forces were
ordered to that Town, to be aiding to the Civil Magistrate in restoring and
preserving peace and order. The House of Representatives, which was then
sitting in the Town, remonstrated to the Governor against posting Troops there,
as being an invasion of their rights. He thought proper to adjourn them to
Cambridge, where the House had frequently sat at their own desire, when they
had been alarmed with fear of small pox in Boston; the place therefor was not
unusual. The public rooms of the College, were convenient for the Assembly to
sit in, and the private houses of the Inhabitants for the Members to lodge in;
it therefore was not uncomfortable. It was
within four miles of the Town of Boston, and less distant than any other Town fit for the purpose.
When
this step, taken by the Governor, was known in England, it was approved, and
conditional instructions were given to continue the Assembly at Cambridge. The
House of Representatives raised the most frivolous of objections against the
authority of the Governor to remove the Assembly from Boston, but proceeded,
nevertheless, to the business of the Session as they used to do. In the next
Session, without any new cause, the Assembly refused to do any business unless
removed to Boston. This was making themselves judges of the place, and by the
same reason, of the time of holding the Assembly, instead of the Governor, [14]
who thereupon was instructed not to remove them to Boston, so long as they
continued to deny his authority to carry them to any other place.
They fatigued the Governor by adjourning from day to
day, and refusing to do business one session after another, while he gave his
constant attendance to no purpose; and this they make the King’s fatiguing them to compel them to comply with his measures.
A
brief narrative of this unimportant dispute between an American Governor and
his Assembly, needs an apology to your Lordship; how ridiculous then do those
men make themselves, who offer it to the world as a ground to justify
rebellion?
He
has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly for opposing with manly firmness his Invasions of [on] the Rights of the People.
Contention
between Governors and their Assemblies have caused dissolutions of such
Assemblies, I suppose, in all the Colonies, in former as well as later times. I
recollect but one instance of the dissolution of an Assembly by special order
from the King, and that was in Massachusetts Bay. In 1768, the House of
Representatives passed a vote or resolve, in prosecution of the plan of
Independence, incompatible with the subordination of the Colonies to the
supreme authority of the Empire; and directed their Speaker to send a copy of
it in circular letters to the Assemblies of the other Colonies, inviting them
to avow the principles of the resolve, and to join in supporting them. No
Government can long subsist, which admits of combinations of the subordinate
powers against the supreme. This proceeding was therefore, justly deemed highly
unwarrantable; and indeed it was the beginning of that unlawful confederacy,
which has gone on until it has caused at least temporary Revolt of all the
Colonies which joined in it.
The
Governor was instructed to require the House of Representatives, in their next
Session to rescind or disavow this resolve, and if they refused, to dissolve
them, as the only way to prevent their prosecuting the plan of [15] Rebellion.
They delayed a definitive answer, and he indulged them, until they had finished
all the business of the Province, and then appeared his manly firmness in a rude answer and a peremptory refusal to comply with the King’s
demand. Thus my Lord, the regular use of the prerogative in suppressing a begun
Revolt, is urged as a grievance to justify the Revolt.
HE
has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions to cause others to be
erected [elected] whereby the legislative
powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for
their exercise; the state remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers
of invasions [invasion] from without, and
Convulsions within.
This
is connected with the last preceding article, and must relate to the same
Colony only; for no other ever presumed, until the year 1774, when the general
dissolution of the established government in all the Colonies was taking place,
to convene an Assembly, without the Governor, by the meer act of the People.
In
less than three months after the Governor had dissolved the Assembly of
Massachusetts Bay, the town of Boston, the first mover in all affairs of this
nature, applied to him to call another Assembly. The Governor thought he was the judge of the proper time for
calling an Assembly, and refused. The Town, without delay, chose their former
members, whom they called a Committee, instead
of Representatives; and they sent circular letters to all the other towns in
the Province inviting them to chuse Committees also; and all these Committees met in what they called a Convention,
and chose the Speaker of the last house their Chairman. Here was a House of Representatives in everything but name; and
they were proceeding upon business in the town of Boston, but were interrupted
by the arrival of two or three regiments, and a spirited message from the
Governor, and in two or three days returned to their homes.
This
vacation of three months was the long time the
people waited before they exercised their unalienable powers; the Invasions
from without were the arrival or expectation of
three or four regiments sent by the [16] King to aid the Civil Magistrate in
preserving the peace; and the Convulsions within were the tumults, riots and acts of violence which this Convention was called,
not to suppress but to encourage.
He
has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose
obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others
to encourage their migration[s] hither, and
raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
By
this and the next article, we have a short relief from the Province of
Massachusetts Bay. I cannot conceive that the subjects in the Colonies would
have had any cause of complaint if there never had been any encouragement given
to foreigners to settle among them; and it was an act of meer favour to the
Colonies which admitted foreigners to a claim of naturalization after a residence
of seven years. How has the King obstructed the operation of this act? In no
other way than by refusing his assent to colony acts for further encouragement.
Nothing can be more regular and constitutional. Shall any other than the
supreme authority of the Empire judge upon what terms foreigners may be
admitted to the privilege of natural born subjects? Parliament alone may pass
acts for this purpose. If there had been further conditions annexed to the
grants of unappropriated lands, than have ever yet been, or even a total
restriction of such grants when the danger of Revolt was foreseen, it might
have been a prudent measure; it certainly was justifiable, and nobody has any right to complain.
He
has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws
for establishing judiciary powers.
I
was, My Lord, somewhat at a loss, upon first reading this article, to what
transaction or to what Colony it could refer. I soon found, that the Colony
must be North Carolina; and that the transaction, referred to, is a reproach
upon the Colony, which the Congress have most wickedly perverted to cast
reproach upon the King.
[17]
In most, if not all, of the Colonies, laws have passed to enable creditors to
attach the effects of absent or absconding debtors; and to oblige the trustees
of such debtors to disclose upon oath the effects in their hands; and also all
persons indebted to them to disclose their debts. Whatever these laws may have
been in their original intention, they have proved most iniquitous in their
operation. The creditors, who first come to the knowledge of any effects, seize
them to the exclusion even of the other creditors in the Colony; and the
creditors in England, or at the greatest distance, stand still a worse chance.
I have known in some Colonies, instances of attachments of the effects of
bankrupts in England, which by force of these laws have been made, by the
American creditors, to the full satisfaction of their debts, when the creditors
in England have received a few shillings only on the pound. This frustrates our
own bankrupt laws. I believe they have never had any equitable bankrupt laws in
any Colony, of any duration: In New York, they have done more towards them than
any other Colony.
These
laws for attachments in most of the Colonies were temporary. The Governors were
very properly instructed not to consent to the revival of them, or not without
a suspending clause. In North Carolina, the law for attachments was tacked to,
or was part of, the same law which established their Courts of Justice. The Governor, as he ought to have done
if he had received no instruction, refused a bill for reviving the law, because
the provision for attachments was part of it: The Assembly refused to pass the
bill without the provision, and in this way determined they would have no
Courts of Justice, unless they were such as should be bound to support these
iniquitous attachments, peculiarly injurious to British and other distant
creditors, and very unequal to the creditors within the Colony.
All
this was fully known to the Congress, who, notwithstanding, have most falsely
represented the re–[18]gular use of the prerogative to prevent injustice, as an
obstruction of justice.
He
has made Judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices,
and the amount and payment of their salaries.
The
Americans claim a right to the English constitution and laws, as they stood
when the Colonies were planted. The Judges of England were then dependent on
the Crown for their continuance in office, as well as for their salaries. The
Judges in America, except the Charter–Colonies, have always been dependent on
the Crown for their continuance in office; and in some Colonies, the salaries
of the Chief Justice, and sometimes the other Judges, have been paid by the
Crown, and the Colonies have considered it as an act of favour shewn to them.
There
has been a change in the constitution of England in respect of the tenure of
the office of the Judges. How does this give a claim to America? It will be
said, the reason in both cases is the same. This will not be allowed, and until
the King shall judge it so, there can be no room for exception to his retaining
his prerogative.
And
for the salaries, they are fixed and do not
depend upon the behaviour of the Judges, nor have there ever been any instances
of salaries being with–held. If the Assemblies in the Colonies would have fixed the like salaries on their Judges, no provision would ever have
been made by the Crown; it being immaterial by whom the salary is paid,
provided the payment be made sure and certain.
This
is a complaint against the King, for not making a change in the constitution of
the Colonies, though there is not so much as a pretence that there has been the
least grievance felt in any Colony for want of this change; nor has there been
any complaint even of danger, in any Colony, except Massachusetts Bay.
[19] He has erected a Multitude of new offices, and sent hither Swarms of
officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
I
know of no new offices erected in America in the present reign, except those of
the Commissioners of the Customs and their dependents. Five Commissioners were
appointed, and four Surveyors General dismissed; perhaps fifteen to twenty
clerks and under officers were necessary for this board more than the Surveyors
had occasion for before: Land and tide waiters, weighers, &c. were known
officers before; the Surveyors used to encrease or lessen the number as the
King’s service required, and the Commissioners have done no more. Thirty or
forty additional officers in the whole Continent, are the Swarms which eat out the substance of the boasted number of three millions
of people.
Cases
had often happened in America, which Surveyors General had not authority to
decide. The American merchants complained of being obliged to apply to the
Commissioners of the Customs in London. The distance caused long delay, as well
as extraordinary charge. A Board in America, was intended to remove the cause
of these complaints, as well as to keep the inferior officers of the Customs to
their duty. But no powers were given to this Board more than the Commissioners
in London had before; and none but illicit traders ever had any reason to
complain of grievances; and they of no other than of being better watched than
they had ever been before. At this time the authority of Parliament to pass
Acts for regulating commerce was acknowledged, but every measure for carrying
such Acts into execution was pronounced an injury, and usurpation, and all the
effects prevented.
He
has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of
our legislatures.
This
is too nugatory to deserve any remark. He has kept no armies among them without
the consent of the Supreme Legislature. It is begging the question, [20] to
suppose that this authority was not sufficient without the aid of their own
Legislatures.
He
has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil
Power.
When
the Subordinate Civil Powers of the Empire became Aiders of the people in acts
of Rebellion, the King, as well he might, has employed the Military Power to
reduce those rebellious Civil Powers to their constitutional subjection to the
Supreme Civil Power. In no other sense has he ever affected to render the Military independent of, and superior to, the Civil
Power.
He
has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our
Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their
pretended Acts of [Acts of pretended] Legislation.
This
is a strange way of defining the part which the Kings of England take in
conjunction with the Lords and Commons in passing Acts of Parliament. But why
is our present Sovereign to be distinguished from all his predecessors since
Charles the Second? Even the Republic which they affected to copy after, and
Oliver, their favourite, because an Usurper, combined against them also. And then, how can a jurisdiction submitted to
for more than a century be foreign to their
constitution? And is it not the grossest prevarication to say this jurisdiction
is unacknowledged by their laws, when all Acts
of Parliament which respect them, have at all times been their rule of law in
all their judicial proceedings? If this is not enough; their own subordinate
legislatures have repeatedly in addresses, and resolves, in the most express
terms acknowledged the supremacy of Parliament;
and so late as 1764, before the conductors of this Rebellion had settled their
plan, the House of Representatives of the leading Colony made a public
declaration in an address to their Governor, that, although they humbly
apprehended they might propose their objections, to the late Act of Parliament
for granting certain duties in the British Colonies and Plantations in America,
yet [21] they at the same time, acknowledged that it was their duty to yield obedience to it while it continued unrepealed.
If
the jurisdiction of Parliament is foreign to their Constitution, what need of
specifying instances, in which they have been subjected to it? Every Act must
be an usurpation and injury. They must then be mentioned, my Lord, to shew,
hypothetically, that even if Parliament had jurisdiction, such Acts would be a
partial and injurious use of it. I will consider them to know whether they are
so or not.
For
quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.
When
troops were employed in America, in the last reign, to protect the Colonies
against the French invasion, it was necessary to provide against mutiny and
desertion, and to secure proper quarters. Temporary Acts of Parliament were
passed for that purpose, and submitted to in the Colonies. Upon the peace,
raised ideas took place in the Colonies, of their own importance, and caused a
reluctance against Parliamentary authority, and an opposition to the Acts for
quartering troops, not because the provision made was in itself unjust or
unequal, but because they were Acts of a Parliament whose authority was denied.
The provision was as similar to that in England as the state of the Colonies
would admit.
For
protecting them by a mock trial from punishment, for any murder[s] which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.
It
is beyond human wisdom to form a system of laws so perfect as to be adapted to
all cases. It is happy for a state, that there can be an interposition of
legislative power in those cases, where an adherence to established rules would
cause injustice. To try men before a biassed and predetermined Jury would be a
mock trial. To prevent this, the Act of Parliament,
complained of, was passed. Surely, if in any case Parliament may interpose and
alter the general rule of law, it may in this. America has not been
distinguished from other parts of the Empire. Indeed, the removal of trials
[22] for the sake of unprejudiced disinterested Juries, is altogether
consistent with the spirit of our laws, and the practice of courts in changing
the venue from one county to another.
For
cutting off our trade with all parts of the world.
Certainly,
my Lord, this could not be a cause of Revolt.
The Colonies had revolted from the Supreme Authority, to which, by their
constitutions, they were subject, before the Act was passed. A Congress had
assumed an authority over the whole, and had rebelliously prohibited all
commerce with the rest of the Empire. This act, therefore, will be considered
by the candid world, as a proof of the
reluctance in government against what is dernier resort in every state, and as
a milder measure to bring the Colonies to a re–union with the rest of the
Empire.
For
imposing taxes on us without our consent.
How
often has your Lordship heard it said, that the Americans are willing to submit
to the authority of Parliament in all cases except that of taxes? Here we have
a declaration made to the world of the causes which have impelled separation,
and that if any one cause was distinguished from another, special notice would
be taken of it. That of taxes seems to have been in danger of being forgot. It
comes in late, and in as slight a manner as is possible. And I know, my Lord,
that these men, in the early days of their opposition to Parliament, have
acknowledged that they pitched upon this subject of taxes, because it was most
alarming to the people, every man perceiving immediately that he is personally
affected by it; and it has, therefore, in all communities, always been a
subject more dangerous to government than any other, to make innovation in; but
as their friends in England had fell in with the idea that Parliament could
have no right to tax them because not represented, they thought it best it
should be believed they were willing to submit to other acts of legislation
[23] until this point of taxes could be gained; owing at the same time, that
they could find no fundamentals in the English Constitution, which made
representation more necessary in acts for taxes, than acts for any other
purpose; and that the world must have a mean opinion of their understanding, if
they should rebel rather than pay a duty of three–pence per pound on tea, and yet be content to submit to an act which
restrained them from making a nail to shoe their own horses. Some of them, my
Lord, imagine they are as well acquainted with the nature of government, and
with the constitution and history of England, as many of their partisans in the
kingdom; and they will sometimes laugh at the doctrine of fundamentals from
which even Parliament itself can never deviate; and they say it has been often
held and denied merely to serve the cause of party, and that it must be so until
these unalterable fundamentals shall be ascertained; that the great Patriots in
the reign of King Charles the Second, Lord Russell, Hampden, Maynard, &c.
whose memories they reverence, declared their opinions, that there were no
bounds to the power of Parliament by any fundamentals whatever, and that even
the hereditary succession to the Crown might be, as it since has been, altered
by Act of Parliament; whereas they who call themselves Patriots in the present
day have held it to be a fundamental, that there can be no taxation without
representation, and that Parliament cannot alter it.
But
as this doctrine was held by their friends, and was of service to their cause
until they were prepared for total independence, they appeared to approve it:
As they have now no further occasion for it, they take no more notice of an act
for imposing taxes than of many other acts; for a distinction in the authority
of Parliament in any particular case, cannot serve their claim to a general
exemption, which they are now preparing to assert.
For
depriving us, in many cases, of the benefit[s] of a trial [of trial] by jury.
[24]
Offences against the Excise Laws, and against one or more of late Acts of
Trade, are determined without a Jury in England. It appears by the law books of
some of the Colonies, that offences against their Laws of Excise, and some
other Laws, are also determined without a Jury; and civil actions, under a sum
limited, are determined by a Justice of the Peace. I recollect no cases in
which trials by Juries are taken away in America, by Acts of Parliament, except
such as are tried by the Courts of Admiralty, and these are either for breaches
of the Acts of trade, or trespasses upon the King’s woods. I take no notice of
the Stamp Act, because it was repealed soon after it was designed to take
place.
I
am sorry, my Lord, that I am obliged to say, there could not be impartial
trials by Juries in either of these cases. All regulation of commerce must
cease, and the King must be deprived of all the trees reserved for the Royal
Navy, if no trials can be had but by Jury. The necessity of the case justified
the departure from the general rule; and in the reign of King William the
Third, jurisdiction, in both these cases, was given to the Admiralty by Acts of
Parliament; and it has ever since been part of the constitution of the
Colonies; and it may be said, to the honour of those Courts, that there have
been very few instances of complaint of injury from their decrees. Strange that
in the reign of King George the Third, this jurisdiction should suddenly become
an usurpation and ground of Revolt.
For
Transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences.
I
know of no Act, but that of the 12th of the present reign, to
prevent the setting fire to his Majesty’s Ships, Docks, Arsenals, &c. to
which this article can refer——But are these pretended offences?
By
an Act of Parliament made in the 35th year of King Henry the Eighth,
all treasons committed in any parts without the realm, may be tried in any county
of England; and in the reign of Queen Anne, persons were condemned in England
for offences against [25] this Act in America; but the Act does not comprehend
felonies.
The
offences against the last Act are made felony; and as it is most likely they should
be committed in times of faction and party–rage, the Act leaves it in the power
of the Crown to order the trial of any offence committed without the realm,
either in the Colony, Island, Fort, where it may be committed, or in any County
within the Realm.
An
opinion prevailed in America, that this Act was occasioned by the burning of
the King’s Schooner, Gaspee, by people in the Colony of Rhode Island; but the
Act had passed before that fact was committed, though it was not generally
known in America, until some months after. The neglect of effectual inquiry
into that offence, by the authority in Rhode Island Colony, shews that the Act
was necessary; but when it passed, there does not appear to have been any
special view to America, more than to the forts and settlements in Europe,
Asia, or Africa.
For
abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighbouring province,
establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its boundaries, so
as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing it [the same absolute Rule into these Colonies] into their colonies.
It
would be impertinent to make any remarks upon the general fitness of the Quebec
Act for the purposes for which it passed, seeing your Lordship has so lately
fully considered and given your voice to it.
But
what, my Lord, have the American Colonies to do with it? There are four New
England Colonies: In two of them, both Governor and Council are annually
elected by the body of the people; in a third, the Council is annually elected
by the Assembly; in the fourth, both Governor and Council are appointed by the
Crown: The three Charter Governments, four near a century past, have never
felt, nor had any reason to fear, any change in their constitutions, from the
example of the Fourth. Just as much reason have the Colonies in general to fear
a change in their [26] several constitutions, no two of which are alike, from
the example of Quebec.
With
as little reason may they complain of the enlargement of the boundaries of
Quebec. It was time to include the ungranted territory of America in some
jurisdiction or other, to prevent further encroachment upon it. What claim
could any of the Colonies have to a territory beyond their own limits? No other
security against an improper settlement of this country could have been made
equally judicious and unexceptionable. This exception is therefore utterly
impertinent, and seems to proceed from disappointment in a scheme for
engrossing the greatest part of this ungranted territory.
For
taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, [and] altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments.
For
suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves [in]vested with power, to legislate for us in all cases
whatsoever.
These
two articles are so much of the same nature, that I consider them together.
There has been no Colony Charter altered except that of Massachusetts Bay, and
that in no respect, that I recollect, except that the appointment and power of
the Council are made to conform to that of the Council of the other Royal
Governments, and the laws which relate to grand and petit juries are made to
conform to the general laws of the Realm.
The
only instance of the suspension of any legislative power is that of the
province of New York, for refusing to comply with an Act of Parliament for
quartering the King’s troops posted there for its protection and defence
against the French and Indian enemies.
The
exceptions, heretofore, have rather been to the authority of Parliament to
revoke, or alter Charters, or legislative powers once granted and established,
than to the injurious or oppressive use of the authority upon these occasions.
When
parties run high, the most absurd doctrines, if a little disguised, are easily
received, and embraced. [27] Thus, because in the Reign of Charles the First,
resistance to Taxes imposed by the authority of the King alone was justifiable, and the contrary doctrine of having taken the
names Passive Obedience and Non–Resistance,
those terms became odious; therefore in the Reign of George the Third,
resistance to Taxes imposed, by the King, Lords and Commons, upon America while not represented in Parliament, is justifiable
also; and the contrary doctrine is branded with the odious terms of Passive
Obedience and Non–Resistance; as if the latter case
were analogous to the former. And because in the Reign of Charles the Second
and James the Second, Royal Charters were deemed sacred and not to be revoked or altered at the will and pleasure of the King
alone; therefore in the Reign of George the Third,
they are sacred also, and not to be revoked nor
altered by the authority of Parliament.
The
common people who, relying upon the authority of others, confound cases
together which are so essentially different, may be excused; but what excuse,
my Lord, can be made for those men, in England as well as in America, who, by
such fallacies, have misguided the people and provoked them to rebellion?
He
has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging
War against us.
He
has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns and destroyed the
Lives of our People.
He
is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign mercenaries to
compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances
of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and
totally unworthy the head of a civilized Nation.
He
has constrained our fellow Citizens, taken captive on the high Seas, to bear
arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their Friends and
Brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He
has excited domestick [domestic] insurrections
amongst us and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our frontiers,
the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an
undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
[28]
These, my Lord, would be weighty charges from a loyal and dutiful people against an unprovoked Sovereign: They are more than the people of England pretended to bring against
King James the Second, in order to justify the Revolution. Never was there an
instance of more consummate effrontery. The Acts of a justly incensed Sovereign for suppressing a most unnatural, unprovoked Rebellion, are here
assigned as the causes of this Rebellion. It is
immaterial whether they are true or false. They are all short of the penalty of
the laws which had been violated. Before the date of any one of them, the
Colonists had as effectually renounced their allegiance by their deeds as they
have since done by their words. They had displaced the civil and military
officers appointed by the King’s authority and set up others in their stead.
They had new modelled their civil governments, and appointed a general
government, independent of the King, over the whole. They had taken up arms,
and made a public declaration of their resolution to defend themselves, against
the forces employed to support his legal authority over them. To subjects, who
had forfeited their lives by acts of Rebellion, every act of the Sovereign
against them, which falls short of the forfeiture, is an act of favour. A most
ungrateful return has been made for this favour. It has been improved to
strengthen and confirm the Rebellion against him.
In
every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for redress in the most
humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated
injury.
What
these oppressions were your Lordship has seen, for we may fairly conclude, that
every thing appears in this Declaration, which can give colour to this horrid
Rebellion, so that these men can never complain of being condemned without a
full hearing.
But
does your Lordship recollect any petitions in the several stages of these
pretended oppressions? Has there ever been a petition to the King?
——To
give his Assent to these wholesome and necessary Laws to which he had refused
it?
[29]——To
allow his Governors to pass laws without a suspending clause, or without the
people’s relinquishing the right of representation?
——To
withdraw his instructions for calling legislative bodies at unusual,
uncomfortable and distant places?
——To
allow Assemblies, which had been dissolved, by his order, to meet again?
——To
pass laws to encourage the migration of foreigners?
——To
consent to the establishment of judiciary Powers?
——To
suffer Judges to be independent for the continuance of their offices and
salaries?
——To
vacate or disannul new erected offices?
——To
withdraw his troops in times of peace, until it
appeared that the reason for it was to give a free course to Rebellion?
And
yet these, my Lord, are all the oppressions pretended to have been received
from the King, except those in combination with
the two Houses of Parliament; and they are all either grossly misrepresented,
or so trivial and insignificant as to have been of no general notoriety in the
time of them, or mere contests between Governors and Assemblies, so light and
transient, as to have been presently forgot. All the petitions we have heard
of, have been against Acts of the Supreme Legislature; and in all of them
something has been inserted, or something has been done previous to them, with
design to prevent their being received.
They
have petitioned for the repeal of a law, because Parliament had not right to
pass it. The receiving and granting the prayer of such petition, would have
been considered as a renunciation of right; and from a renunciation in one
instance, would have been inferred a claim to renunciation in all other
instances. The repealing, or refraining from enacting any particular laws, or
relieving from any kind of service, while a due submission to the laws in
general shall be continued, and suitable return be made of other services,
seems to be all which the Supreme Authority may grant, or the [30] people or
any part of them, require. If anything, my Lord, short of Independence was the
redress sought for, all has been granted which has been prayed for, and could
be granted.
A
Prince, whose character is thus marked, by every act which defines the [may define a] tyrant; is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Indignant
resentment must seize the breast of every loyal subject. A tyrant, in modern
language, means, not merely an absolute and arbitrary, but a cruel, merciless
Sovereign. Have these men given an instance of any one Act in which the King
has exceeded the just Powers of the Crown as limited by the English
Constitution? Has he ever departed from known established laws, and substituted
his own will as the rule of his actions? Has there ever been a Prince by whom
subjects in rebellion, have been treated with less severity, or with longer
forbearance?
Nor
have we been wanting in Attention[s] to our
British Brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their
legislature, to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded
them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have
appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by
the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would
inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been
deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore,
acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as
we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.
We
therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General
Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the
rectitude of our intentions, do in the name and by the authority [by Authority] of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly
publish and declare, That these United Colonies, are, and [of right] ought to be, Free and Independent States, and [States;] that they are absolved from all allegiance to the
British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of
Great Britain, is and ought [31] to be totally
dissolved, and that as free and Independent States, they have full power to
levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all
other Acts and things which Independent States may of right do. And for the
support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the protection of Divine
Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our Lives, our Fortunes and our
sacred Honor. Signed by order and in behalf of the Congress.
John
Hancock, President
They
have, my Lord, in their late address to the people of Great Britain, fully
avowed these principles of Independence, by declaring they will pay no
obedience to the laws of the Supreme Legislature; they have also pretended,
that these laws were the mandates of edicts of the Ministers, not the acts of a
constitutional legislative power, and have endeavoured to persuade such as they
called their British Brethren, to justify the Rebellion begun in America; and
from thence they expected a general convulsion in the Kingdom, and that
measures to compel a submission would in this way be obstructed. These expectations
failing, after they had gone too far in acts of Rebellion to hope for impunity,
they were under necessity of a separation, and
of involving themselves, and all over whom they had usurped authority, in the
distresses and horrors of war against that power from which they revolted, and
against all who continued in their subjection and fidelity to it.
Gratitude,
I am sensible, is seldom to be found in a community, but so sudden a revolt
from the rest of the Empire, which had incurred so immense a debt, and with
which it remains burdened, for the protection and defence of the Colonies, and
at their most importunate request, is an instance of ingratitude no where to be
paralleled.
Suffer
me, my Lord, before I close this Letter, to observe, that though the professed
reason for publishing the Declaration was a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind, yet the real design was to reconcile the people of America to that
Independence, which always before, they had been made to believe was not [32]
intended. This design has too well succeeded. The people have not observed the
fallacy in reasoning from the whole to part; nor the absurdity of making the governed to be governors. From a disposition
to receive willingly complaints against Rulers, facts misrepresented have
passed without examining. Discerning men have concealed their sentiments,
because under the present free government in
America, no man may, by writing or speaking, contradict any part of this
Declaration, without being deemed an enemy to his country, and exposed to the
rage and fury of the populace.
I
have the honour to be,
My
Lord,
Your
Lordship’s most humble,
And
most obedient servant.
To the Right
Honourable
The
E––– of –––
London,
October 15th, 1776.
Resources 
