but the government would not venture to dis- | evident, in a case of as great importance as pute it. On the contrary, in four or five years any which could happen to the colony. King after the restoration, the government declared William and queen Mary were proclaimed in to the king's commissioners, that the act of the colony, king and queen of England, France, navigation had been for some years observed and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto here, that they knew not of its being greatly belonging, in the room of king James; and violated, and that such laws as appeared to be this, not by virtue of an act of the colony, for against it, were repealed. It is not strange, no such act ever passed, but by force of an act that these persons of influence should prevail of parliament, which altered the succession to upon a great part of the people to fall in, for a the crown, and for which the people waited time, with their opinions, and to suppose acts several weeks, with anxious concern. By force of the colony necessary to give force to acts of of another act of parliament, and that only, parliament. The government, however, several such officers of the colony as had taken the years before the charter was vacated, more ex- oaths of allegiance to king James, deemed plicitly acknowledged the authority of parlia- themselves at liberty to take, and accordingly ment, and voted that their governor should did take, the oaths to king William and queen take the oath required of him, faithfully to do Mary. And that I may mention other acts of and perform all matters and things enjoined the like nature together, it is by force of an act him by the acts of trade. I have not recited in of parliament, that the illustrious house of my speech, all these particulars, nor had I Hanover succeeded to the throne of Britain them all in my mind; but I think, I have said and its dominions, and by several other acts, nothing inconsistent with them. My principles the forms of the oaths have, from time to time, in government, are still the same with what been altered; and, by a late act, that form was they appear to be in the book you refer to; nor established which every one of us has complied am I conscious that, by any part of my conduct with, as the charter, in express words, requires, I have given cause to suggest the contrary. and makes our duty. Shall we now dispute whether acts of parliament have been submitted to, when we find them submitted to, in points which are of the very essence of our constitution? If you should disown that authority, which has power even to change the succession to the crown, are you in no danger of denying the authority of our most gracious sovereign, which I am sure none of you can have in your thoughts? Inasmuch as you say that I have not particularly pointed out to you the acts and doings of the general assembly, which relate to acts of parliament, I will do it now, and demonstrate to you that such acts have been acknowledged by the assembly, or submitted to by the people. From your predecessors' removal to America, until the year 1640, there was no session of parliament; and the first short session, of a few days only, in 1640, and the whole of the next session, until the withdraw of the king, being taken up in the disputes between the king and the parliament, there could be no room for plantation affairs. Soon after the king's withdraw, the house of commons passed the memorable order of 1642; and, from that time to the restoration, this plantation seems to have been distinguished from the rest; and the several acts and ordinances, which respected the other plantations, were never enforced here; and, possibly, under color of the exemption, in 1642, it might not be intended they should be executed. For fifteen or sixteen years after the restoration, there was no officer of the customs in the colony, except the governor, annually elected by the people, and the acts of trade were but little regarded; nor did the governor take the oath required of governors, by the act of the 12th of king Charles the II. until the time which I have mentioned.-Upon the revolution, the force of an act of parliament was I think I have before shewn you, gentlemen, what must have been the sense of our predecessors at the time of the first charter; let us now, whilst we are upon the acts and doings of the assembly, consider what it must have been at the time of the second charter. Upon the first advice of the revolution in England, the authority which assumed the government, instructed their agents to petition parliament to restore the first charter, and a bill for that purpose passed the house of commons, but went no further. Was not this owning the authority of parliament? By an act of parliament, passed in the first year of king William and queen Mary, a form of oaths was established, to be taken by those princes, and by all succeeding kings and queens of England, at their coronation; the first of which is, that they will govern the people of the kingdom, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same. When the colony directed their agents to make their humble application to king William, to grant the second charter, they could have no other pretence than, as they were inhabitants of part of the dominions of England; and they also knew the oath the king had taken, to govern them according to the statutes in parliament. Surely, then, at the time of this charter, also, it was the sense of our predecessors, as well as of the king and of the nation, that there was, and would remain, a supremacy in the parliament. About the same time, they acknowledge, in an address to the king, that they have no power to make laws repugnant to the laws of England. And, immediately after the assumption of the powers of government, by virtue of the new charter, an act was passed to revive, for a limited time, all the local laws of the colonies of Massachusetts Bay and New Plymouth, respectively, not repugnant to the laws of England. And, at the same session, an act passed, establishing naval officers, in several ports of the province, for which this reason is given, that all undue trading, contrary to an act of parliament, made in the fifteenth year of king Charles II. may be prevented in this, their majesty's province. The act of this province, passed so long ago as the second year of king George the I. for stating the fees of the custom house officers, must have relation to the acts of parliament, by which they are constituted; and the provision made in that act of the province, for extending the port of Boston to all the roads, as far as Cape Cod, could be for no other purpose, than for the more effectual carrying the acts of trade into execution. And, to come nearer to the present time, when an act of parliament had passed, in 1771, for putting an end to certain unwarrantable schemes, in this province, did the authority of government, or those persons more immediately affected by it, ever dispute the validity of it? On the contrary, have not a number of acts been passed in the province, the burdens to which such persons were subjected, might be equally apportioned; and have not all those acts of the province been very carefully framed, to prevent their militating with the act of parliament? I will mention, also, an act of parliament, made in the first year of queen Anne, although the proceedings upon it more immediately respected the council. By this act no office, civil or military, shall be void, by the death of the king, but shall continue six months, unless suspended, or made void, by the next successor. By force of this act, governor Dudley continued in the administration six months from the demise of queen Anne, and immediately after, the council assumed the administration, and continued it until a proclamation arrived from king George, by virtue of which governor Dudley reassumed the government. It would be tedious to enumerate the addresses, votes and messages, of both the council and house of representatives, to the same purpose. I have said enough to shew that this government has submitted to parliament, from a conviction of its constitutional supremacy, and this not from inconsideration, nor merely from reluctance at the idea of contending with the parent state. If, then, I have made it appear that, both by the first and second charters, we hold our lands, and the authority of government, not of the king, but of the crown of England, that being a dominion of the crown of England, we are consequently subject to the supreme authority of England. That this hath been the sense of this plantation, except in those few years when the principles of anarchy, which had prevailed in the kingdom, had not lost their influence here; and if, upon a review of your principles, they shall appear to you to have been delusive and erroneous, as I think they must, or, if you shall only be in doubt of them, you certainly will not draw that conclusion, which otherwise you might do, and which I am glad you have hitherto avoided; especially when you consider the obvious and inevitable distress and misery of independence upon our mother country, if such independence could be allowed or maintained, and the probability of much greater distress, which we are not able to foresee. You ask me, if we have not reason to fear we shall soon be reduced to a worse situation than that of the colonies of France, Spain, or Holland. I may safely affirm that we have not; that we have no reason to fear any evils from a submission to the authority of parliament, equal to what we must feel from its authority being disputed, from an uncertain rule of law and government. For more than seventy years together, the supremacy of parliament was acknowledged, without complaints of grievance. The effect of every measure cannot be foreseen by human wisdom. What can be expected more, from any authority, than when the unfitness of a measure is discovered, to make it void? When, upon the united representations and complaints of the American colonies, any acts have appeared to parliament to be unsalutary, have there not been repeated instances of the repeal of such acts? We cannot expect these instances should be carried so far as to be equivalent to a disavowal, or relinquishment of the right itself. SENTATIVES. Why, then, shall we fear for ourselves, and our | ANSWER OF THE HOUSE OF REPREposterity, greater rigor of government for seventy years to come, than what we and our predecessors have felt, in the seventy years past. TO THE SPEECH OF THE GOVERNOR, OF FEB- May it please your Excellency, In your speech, at the opening of the present session, your excellency expressed your displeasure at some late proceedings of the town of Boston, and other principal towns in the province. And, in another speech 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 You must give me leave, gentlemen, in a few words, to vindicate myself from a charge, in one part of your answer, of having, by my speech, reduced you to the unhappy alternative of appearing, by your silence, to acquiesce in my sentiments, or of freely discussing this point of the supremacy of parliament. I saw, as I have before observed, the capital town of the province, without being reduced to such an alternative, voluntarily, not only discussing but determining this point, and inviting every other town and district in the province to do the like. I saw that many of the principal towns had followed the example, and that there was imminent danger of a compliance in most, if not all the rest, in order to avoid being distinguished. Was not I reduced to the alternative of ren-have "invited every other town and district in dering myself justly obnoxious to the displeasure of my sovereign, by acquiescing in such irregularities, or of calling upon you to join with me in suppressing them? Might I not rather have expected from you an expression of your concern, that any persons should project and prosecute a plan of measures, which would lay me under the necessity of bringing this point before you? It was so far from being my inclination, that nothing short of a sense of my duty to the king, and the obligations I am under to consult your true interest, could have compelled me to it. Gentlemen of the Council, and Gentlemen of the House of Representatives, We all profess to be the loyal and dutiful subjects of the king of Great Britain. His majesty considers the British empire as one entire dominion, subject to one legislative power; a due submission to which, is essential to the maintenance of the rights, liberties and privileges of the several parts of this dominion. We have abundant evidence of his majesty's tender and impartial regard to the rights of his subjects; and I am authorized to say, that "his majesty will most graciously approve of every constitutional measure that may contribute to the peace, the happiness, and prosperity of his colony of MassachusettsBay, and which may have the effect to shew to the world, that he has no wish beyond that of reigning in the hearts and affections of his people." T. HUTCHINSON. 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 sub jects, 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, agreeably 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 constitution 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 fend 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." 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. parliament, of authority to make future laws | obliged to pay a dutiful regard to the mother binding therein, is a fact which your excellency commonwealth, and to be in readiness to dehas not disproved, if you have denied it. Nor have you shown 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 Your excellency says, that "persons thus upon a supposition, that Ireland had, by an act holding under the crown of England, remain of their own, in the reign of king John, con- or become subjects of England," by which, we sented to be thus bound; and, upon any other suppose your excellency to mean, subject to the supposition, this opinion would be against rea- supreme authority of parliament," to all intents son; for consent only gives human laws their and purposes, as fully as if any of the royal force. We beg leave, upon what your excel-manors, etc., within the realm, had been granted lency 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 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 |