Chapter VII: Preface (6)

To this I answer, if parliament is to be our supreme legislature, we shall be under a complete oligarchy or aristocracy, not the British constitution, which this writer himself defines a mixture of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.--For king, lords and commons will constitute one great oligarchy, as they will stand related to America, as much as the decemvirs did in Rome; with this difference for the worse, that our rulers are to be three thousand miles off. The definition of an oligarchy, is a government by a number of grandees, over whom the people have no controul. The states of Holland were once chosen by the people frequently; then chosen for life. Now they are not chosen by the people at all. When a member dies, his place is filled up, not by the people he is to represent, but by the states. Is not this depriving the Hollanders of a free constitution, and subjecting them to an aristocracy, or oligarchy? Will not the government of America be like it? Will not representatives be chosen for them by others, whom they never saw nor heard of? If our provincial constitutions are in any respect imperfect and want alteration, they have capacity enough to discern it, and power enough to effect it, without the interposition of parliament. There never was an American constitution attempted by parliament, before the Quebec bill and Massachusetts bill. These are such _samples_ of what they may, and probably will be, that few Americans are in love with them. However, America will never allow that parliament has any authority to alter their constitution at all. She is wholly penetrated with a sense of the necessity of resisting it, at all hazards. And she would resist it, if the constitution of the Massachusetts had been altered as much for _the better_, as it is for the worse. The question we insist on most is not whether the alteration is for the better or not, but whether parliament has any right to make any alteration at all. And it is the universal sense of America, that it has none.

We are told that "the provincial constitutions have no principle of stability within themselves." This is so great a mistake, that there is not more order, or stability in any government upon the globe, than there ever has been in that of Connecticut. The same may be said of the Massachusetts and Pennsylvania; and indeed of the others very nearly. "That these constitutions in turbulent times would become wholly monarchial, or wholly republican;" they must be such times as would have a similar effect upon the constitution at home. But in order to avoid the danger of this, what is to be done? Not give us an English constitution, it seems, but make sure of us at once, by giving us constitutions wholly monarchical, annihilating our houses of representatives first, by taking from them the support of government, &c. and then making the councils and judges wholly dependant on the crown.

That a representation in parliament is impracticable we all agree: but the consequence is, that we must have a representation in our supreme legislatures here. This was the consequence that was drawn by kings, ministers, our ancestors, and the whole nation, more than a century ago, when the colonies were first settled, and continued to be the general sense until the last peace; and it must be the general sense again soon, or Great Britain will lose her colonies.

This is apparently the meaning of that celebrated passage in Gov. Hutchinson's letter, that rung through the continent, viz. "There must be an abridgment of what is called English liberties." But all the art and subtlety of Massachusettensis will never vindicate or excuse that expression. According to this writer, it should have been "there is an abridgment of English liberties, and it cannot be otherwise." But every candid reader must see that the letter writer had more than that in his _view_ and in his _wishes_. In the same letter, a little before, he says, "what marks of resentment the parliament will shew, whether they will be upon the province in general, or particular persons, is extremely uncertain; but that they will be placed somewhere is most certain, and I add, _because I think it ought to be so_." Is it possible to read this without thinking of the port bill, the charter bill, and the resolves for sending persons to England by the statute of Henry VIII. to be tried! But this is not all. "This is most certainly a crisis," says he, &c. "If no measure shall have been taken to secure this dependence, (i.e. the dependence which a colony ought to have upon the parent state) it is all over with us." "The friends of government will be utterly disheartened; and the friends of anarchy will be afraid of nothing, be it ever so extravagant." But this is not all. "I never think of the measures necessary for the peace and good order of the colonies without pain." "There must be an abridgment of what are called English liberties." What could he mean? Any thing less than depriving us of trial by jury? Perhaps he wanted an act of parliament to try persons here for treason by a court of admiralty. Perhaps an act that the province should be governed by a governor and a mandamus council, without an house of representatives. But to put it out of all doubt that his meaning was much worse than Massachusettensis endeavors to make it, he explains himself in a subsequent part of the letter. "I wish," says he, "the good of the colony, _when I wish to see some further restraint of liberty_." Here it is rendered certain, that he is pleading for a further restraint of liberty, not explaining the restraint, he apprehended the constitution had already laid us under.

My indignation at this letter, has sometimes been softened by compassion. It carries on the face of it evident marks of _madness_. It was written in such a transport of passions, _ambition_ and _revenge_ chiefly, that his reason was manifestly overpowered. The vessel was tost in such a hurricane, that she could not feel her helm. Indeed, he seems to have had a confused consciousness of this himself. Pardon me this excursion, says he, it really proceeds from the state of mind into which our perplexed affairs often throws me."

"It is our highest interest to continue a part of the British empire; and equally our duty to remain subject to the authority of parliament," says Massachusettensis.

We are a part of the British dominions, that is of the king of Great Britain, and it is our interest and duty to continue so. It is equally our interest and duty to continue subject to the authority of parliament, in the regulation of our trade, as long as she shall leave us to govern our internal policy, and to give and grant our own money, and no longer.

This letter concludes with an agreeable flight of fancy. The time may not be so far off, however, as this writer imagines, when the colonies may have the balance of numbers and wealth in her favour. But when that shall happen, if we should attempt to rule her by an American parliament, without an adequate representation in it, she will infallibly resist us by her arms.

NOVANGLUS.

ADDRESSED

_To the Inhabitants of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay_,

March 13, 1775.

MY FRIENDS,

It has been often observed by me, and it cannot be too often repeated, that _colonization_ is _casus omissus_ at common law. There is no such title known in that law. By common law, I mean that system of customs, written and unwritten, which was known and in force in England, in the time of king Richard 1st. This continued to be the case, down to the reign of Elizabeth, and king James 1st. In all that time, the laws of England were confined to the realm, and within the four seas. There was no provision made in this law for governing colonies beyond the Atlantic, or beyond the four seas, by authority of parliament, no nor for the king to grant charters to subjects to settle in foreign countries. It was the king's prerogative to prohibit the emigration of any of his subjects, by issuing his writ _ne exeat regno_. And therefore it was in the king's power to permit his subjects to leave the kingdom. 1 Hawk. P.C. c. 22. § 4. "It is a high crime to disobey the king's lawful commands, or prohibitions, as not returning from beyond sea, upon the king's letters to that purpose; for which the offender's lands shall be seized until he return; and when he does return, he shall be fined, &c. or going beyond sea, against the king's will, expressly signified, either by the writ _ne exeat regno_, or under the great or privy seal, or signet, or by proclamation." When a subject left the kingdom, by the king's permission, and if the nation did not remonstrate against it, by the nation's permission too, at least connivance, he carried with him, as a man, all the rights of nature. His allegiance bound him to the king, and entitled him to protection. But how? not in France; the king of England was not bound to protect him in France, nor in America; not in the dominions of Lewis, nor of Passachus, or Massachusetts. He had a right to protection, and the liberties of England upon his return there, not otherwise. How then do we, New Englandmen, derive our laws? I say, not from parliament, not from common law, but from the law of nature, and the compact made with the king in our charters. Our ancestors were entitled to the common law of England, when they emigrated, that is, to just so much of it as they pleased to adopt, and no more. They were not bound or obliged to submit to it, unless they chose it. By a positive principle of the common law, they were bound, let them be in what part of the world they would, to do nothing against the allegiance of the king. But no kind of provision was ever made by common law, for punishing or trying any man, even for treason, committed out of the realm. He must be tried in some county of the realm, by that law, the county where the overt-act was done, or he could not be tried at all. Nor was any provision ever made, until the reign of Henry VIII. for trying treasons committed abroad, and the acts of that reign were made on purpose to catch cardinal Pole.

So that our ancestors, when they emigrated, having obtained permission of the king to come here, and being never commanded to return into the realm, had a clear right to have erected in this wilderness a British constitution, or a perfect democracy, or any other form of government they saw fit. They indeed, while they lived, could not have taken arms against the king of England, without violating their allegiance, but their children would not have been born within the king's allegiance, would not have been natural subjects, and consequently not entitled to protection, or bound to the king.

Massachusettensis, Jan. 16, seems possessed of these ideas, and attempts in the most aukward manner, to get rid of them. He is conscious that America must be a part of the realm, before it can be bound by the authority of parliament; and therefore is obliged to suggest, that we are annexed to the realm, and to endeavour to confuse himself and his readers, by confounding the realm, with the empire and dominions.

But will any man soberly contend, that America was ever annexed to the realm? to what realm? When New England was settled, there was a realm of England, a realm of Scotland, and a realm of Ireland. To which of these three realms was New England annexed? To the realm of England, it will be said. But by what law? no territory could be annexed to the realm of England, but by an act of parliament. Acts of parliament have been passed to annex Wales, &c. &c. to the realm. But none ever passed to annex America. But if New-England was annexed to the realm of England, how came she annexed to the realm of, or kingdom of Great Britain? The two realms of England and Scotland were, by the act of union, incorporated into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain: but there is not one word about America in that act.

Besides, if America was annexed to the realm, or a part of the kingdom, every act of parliament that is made, would extend to it, named or not named. But every body knows that every act of parliament, and every other record, constantly distinguishes between this kingdom, and his majesty's other dominions. Will it be said that Ireland is annexed to the realm, or a part of the kingdom of Great Britain? Ireland is a distinct kingdom, or realm, by itself, notwithstanding British parliament claims a right of binding it in all cases, and exercises it in some. And even so the Massachusetts is a realm, New York is a realm, Pennsylvania another realm, to all intents and purposes, as much as Ireland is, or England or Scotland ever were. The king of Great Britain is the sovereign of all these realms.

This writer says, "that in denying that the Colonies are annexed to the realm, and subject to the authority of parliament, individuals and bodies of men subvert the fundamentals of government, deprive us of British liberties, and build up absolute monarchy in the colonies."

This is the first time that I ever heard or read that the colonies are annexed to the realm. It is utterly denied that they are, and that it is possible they should be, without an act of parliament, and acts of the colonies. Such an act of parliament cannot be produced, nor any such law of any one colony. Therefore as this writer builds the whole authority of parliament upon this fact, viz: That the colonies are annexed to the realm, and as it is certain they never were so annexed, the consequence is, that his whole superstructure falls.

When he says, that they subvert the fundamentals of government, he begs the question. We say that the contrary doctrines subvert the fundamentals of government. When he says that they deprive us of British liberties, he begs the question again. We say that the contrary doctrine deprives us of English liberties; as to British liberties, we scarcely know what they are, as the liberties of England and Scotland are not precisely the same to this day. English liberties are but certain rights of nature, reserved to the citizen, by the English constitution, which rights cleaved to our ancestors, when they crossed the Atlantic, and would have inhered in them, if instead of coming to New-England they had gone to Outaheite, or Patagonia, even although they had taken no patent or charter from the king at all. These rights did not adhere to them the less, for their purchasing patents and charters, in which the king expressly stipulates with them, that they and their posterity should forever enjoy all those rights and liberties.

The human mind is not naturally the clearest atmosphere; but the clouds and vapours which have been raised in it, by the artifices of temporal and spiritual tyrants, have made it impossible to see objects in it distinctly. Scarcely any thing is involved in more systematical obscurity, than the rights of our ancestors, when they arrived in America. How, in common sense, came the dominions of king Philip, king Massachusetts, and twenty other sovereigns, independent princes here, to be within the allegiance of the kings of England, James and Charles? America was no more within the allegiance of those princes, by the common law of England, or by the law of nature, than France and Spain were. Discovery, if that was incontestible, could give no title to the English king, by common law, or by the law of nature, to the lands, tenements, and hereditaments of the native Indians here. Our ancestors were sensible of this, and therefore honestly purchased their lands of the natives. They might have bought them to hold allodially, if they would.

But there were two ideas, which confused them, and have continued to confuse their posterity, one derived from the feudal, the other from the canon law. By the former of these systems, the prince, the general, was supposed to be sovereign lord of all the lands, conquered by the soldiers in his army; and upon this principle, the king of England was considered in law as sovereign lord of all the land within the realm. If he had sent an army here to conquer king Massachusetts, and it had succeeded, he would have been sovereign lord of the land here upon these principles; but there was no rule of the common law, that made the discovery of a country by a subject, a title to that country in the prince. But conquest would not have annexed the country to the realm, nor have given any authority to the parliament. But there was another mist cast before the eyes of the English nation from another source. The pope claimed a sovereign propriety in, as well as authority over the whole earth. As head of the christian church, and vicar of God, he claimed this authority over all Christendom; and, in the same character, he claimed a right to all the countries and possessions of heathens and infidels; a right divine to exterminate and destroy them at his discretion, in order to propagate the catholic faith. When king Henry VIII. and his parliament, threw off the authority of the pope, stripped his holiness of his supremacy, and invested it in himself by an act of parliament, he and his courtiers seemed to think that all the rights of the holy see were transferred to him; and it was a union of these two, the most impertinent and fantastical ideas that ever got into an human pericranium, viz: that as feudal sovereign and supreme head of the church together, a king of England had a right to all the land their subjects could find, not possessed by any christian state, or prince, though possessed by heathen or infidel nations, which seems to have deluded the nation about the time of the settlement of the colonies. But none of these ideas gave or inferred any right in parliament, over the new countries conquered or discovered; and therefore denying that the colonies are a part of the realm, and that as such they are subject to parliament, by no means deprives us of English liberties. Nor does it "build up absolute monarchy in the colonies." For admitting these notions of the common and feudal law to have been in full force, and that the king was absolute in America, when it was settled; yet he had a right to enter into a contract with his subjects, and stipulate that they should enjoy all the rights and liberties of Englishmen forever, in consideration of their undertaking to clear the wilderness, propagate christianity, pay a fifth part of ore, &c. Such a contract as this has been made with all the colonies; royal governments, as well as charter ones. For the commissions to the governors contain the plan of the government, and the contract between the king and subject, in the former, as much as the charters in the latter.

Indeed this was the reasoning, and upon these feudal and _catholic_ principles in the time of some of the predecessors of Massachusettensis. This was the meaning of Dudley, when he asked, "Do you think that English liberties will follow you to the ends of the earth?" His meaning was, that English liberties were confined to the realm, and out of that the king was absolute. But this was not true; for an English king had no right to be absolute over Englishmen, out of the realm, any more than in it, and they were released from their allegiance, as soon as he deprived them of their liberties.

But "our charters suppose regal authority in the grantor." True they suppose it, whether there was any or not. "If that authority be derived from the British (he should have said English) crown, it presupposes this territory to have been a part of the British (he should have said English) dominion, and as such subject to the imperial sovereign." How can this writer shew this authority to be derived from the English crown, including in the idea of it lords and commons? Is there the least color for such an authority but in the popish and feudal ideas before mentioned? And do these popish and feudal ideas include parliament? Was parliament, were lords and commons parts of the head of the church, or was parliament, that is, lords and commons, part of the sovereign feudatory? Never. But why was this authority derived from the English, any more than the Scottish or Irish crown? It is true the land was to be held in soccage, like the manor of East Greenwich; but this was compact, and it might have been as well to hold, as they held in Glasgow or Dublin.

But, says this writer, "if that authority was vested in the person of the king in a different capacity, the British constitution and laws are out of the question, and the king must be absolute as to us, as his prerogatives have never been limited." Not the prerogatives limited in our charters, when in every one of them all the rights of Englishmen are secured to us! Are not the rights of Englishmen sufficiently known, and are not the prerogatives of the king among those rights?

As to those colonies which are destitute of charters, the commissions to their governors have ever been considered as equivalent securities, both for property, jurisdiction, and privileges, with charters; and as to the power of the crown being absolute in those colonies, it is absolute no where. There is no fundamental or other law, that makes a king of England absolute any where, except in conquered countries; and an attempt to assume such a power, by the fundamental laws, forfeits the prince's right even to the limited crown.

As to "the charter governments reverting to absolute monarchy, as their charters may happen to be forfeited, by the grantees not fulfilling the conditions of them;" I answer, if they could be forfeited, and were actually forfeited, the only consequence would be, that the king would have no power over them at all. He would not be bound to protect the people, nor, that I can see, would the people here, who were born here, be, by any principle of common law, bound even to allegiance to the king. The connection would be broken between the crown and the natives of the country.

It has been a great dispute whether charters granted within the realm, can be forfeited at all. It was a question debated with infinite learning, in the case of the charter of London: it was adjudged forfeited, in an arbitrary reign: but afterwards, after the revolution, it was declared in parliament, not forfeited, and by an act of parliament made incapable of forfeiture. The charter of Massachusetts was declared forfeited too. So were other American charters. The Massachusetts alone, were tame enough to give it up. But no American charter will ever be decreed forfeited again, or if any should, the decree will be regarded no more, than a vote of the lower house of the robinhood society. The court of chancery has no authority without the realm; by common law, surely it has none in America. What! the privileges of millions of Americans depend on the discretion of a lord chancellor? God forbid! The passivity of this colony in receiving the present charter, in lieu of the first, is, in the opinion of some, the deepest stain upon its character. There is less to be said in excuse for it, than the witchcraft, or hanging the Quakers. A vast party in the province were against it at the time, and thought themselves betrayed by their agent. It has been a warning to their posterity, and one principal motive with the people, never to trust any agent with power to concede away their privileges again. It may as well be pretended that the people of Great Britain can forfeit their privileges, as the people of this province. If the contract of state is broken, the people and king of England must recur to nature. It is the same in this province. We shall never more submit to decrees in chancery, or acts of parliament, annihilating charters, or abridging English liberties.

Whether Massachusettensis was born as a politician, in the year 1764, I knew [Errata: know] not: but he often writes as if he know [Errata: knew] nothing of that period. In his attempt to trace the denial of the supreme authority of the parliament, he commits such mistakes, as a man of age, at that time, ought to blush at. He says, that "when the stamp act was made, the authority of parliament to impose external taxes, or, in other words, to lay duties upon goods and merchandize was admitted," and that when the tea act was made, "a new distinction was set up, that parliament had a right to lay duties upon merchandize, for the purpose of regulating trade, but not for the purpose of raising a revenue." This is a total misapprehension of the declared opinions of people at those times. The authority of parliament to lay taxes for a revenue has been always generally denied. And their right to lay duties to regulate trade, has been denied by many, who have ever contended that trade should be regulated only by prohibitions.

The act of parliament of the 4th George 3d, passed in the year 1764, was the first act of the British parliament that ever was passed, in which the design of raising a revenue was expressed. Let Massachusettensis name any statute before that, in which the word revenue is used, or the thought of raising a revenue is expressed. This act is entitled, "an act for granting certain duties in the British colonies, and plantations in America," &c. The word revenue, in the preamble of this act, instantly ran through the colonies, and rang an alarm, almost as much as if the design of forging chains for the colonists had been expressed in words. I have now before me a pamphlet, written and printed in the year 1764, entitled, "The sentiments of a British American," upon this act. How the idea of a revenue, though from an acknowledged external tax, was relished in that time, may be read in the frontispiece of that pamphlet.

_Ergo quid refert mea
Cui serviam? clitellas dum portem meas._ PHAEDRUS.

The first objection to this act, which was made in that pamphlet, by its worthy author, OXENBRIDGE THACHER, Esq. who died a martyr to that amity [Errata: anxiety] for his country, which the conduct of the junto gave him, is this, "The first objection is, that a tax is thereby laid on several commodities, to be raised and levied in the plantations, and to be remitted home to England. This is esteemed a grievance, inasmuch as the same are laid, without the consent of the representatives of the colonists. It is esteemed an essential British right, that no person shall be subject to any tax; but what in person, or by his representative, he hath a voice in laying." Here is a tax unquestionably external, in the sense in which that word is used, in the distinction that is made by some between external and internal taxes, and unquestionably laid in part for the regulation of trade; yet called a grievance, and a violation of an essential British right, in the year 1764, by one who was then at the head of the popular branch of our constitution, and as well acquainted with the sense of his constituents, as any man living. And it is indisputable, that in those words he wrote the almost universal sense of this colony.

There are so many egregious errors in point of fact, and respecting the opinions of the people in this writer, which it is difficult to impute to wilful misrepresentation, that I sometimes think he is some smart young gentleman, come up into life since this great controversy was opened; if not, he must have conversed wholly with the junto, and they must have deceived him, respecting their own sentiments.

This writer sneers at the distinction between a right to lay the former duty of a shilling on the pound of tea, and the right to lay the three pence. But is there not a real difference between laying a duty to be paid in England upon exportation, and to be paid in America upon importation? Is there not a difference between parliament's laying on duties within their own realm, where they have undoubtedly jurisdiction, and laying them out of their realm, nay laying them on in our realm, where we say they have no jurisdiction? Let them lay on what duties they please in England, we have nothing to say against that.

"Our patriots most heroically resolved to become independent states, and flatly denied that parliament had a right to make any laws whatever that should be binding upon the colonies."

Our scribbler, more heroically still, is determined to shew the world, that he has courage superior to all regard to modesty, justice, or truth. Our patriots have never determined, or desired to be independent states, if a voluntary cession of a right to regulate their trade can make them dependent even on parliament, though they are clear in theory, that by the common law, and the English constitution, parliament has no authority over them. None of the patriots of this province, of the present age, have ever denied that parliament has a right, from our voluntary cession, to make laws which shall bind the colonies, as far as their commerce extends.

"There is no possible medium between absolute independence and subjection to the authority of parliament." If this is true, it may be depended upon, that all North America are as fully convinced of their independence, their absolute independence, as they are of their own existence, and as fully determined to defend it at all hazards, as Great Britain is to defend her independence against foreign nations. But it is not true. An absolute independence of parliament, in all internal concerns and cases of taxation, is very compatible with an absolute dependence on it, in all cases of external commerce.

"He must be blind indeed that cannot see our dearest interest in the latter, (that is in an absolute subjection to the authority of parliament,) notwithstanding many pant after the former" (that is absolute independence.) The man who is capable of writing, in cool blood, that our interest lies in an absolute subjection to parliament, is capable of writing, or saying any thing for the sake of his pension: a legislature that has so often discovered a want of information concerning us and our country; a legislature interested to lay burdens upon us; a legislature, two branches of which, I mean the lords and commons, neither love nor fear us! Every American of fortune and common sense, must look upon his property to be sunk downright one half of its value, the moment such an absolute subjection to parliament is established.

That there are any who pant after "independence," (meaning by this word a new plan of government over all America, unconnected with the crown of England, or meaning by it an exemption from the power of parliament to regulate trade) is as great a slander upon the province as ever was committed to writing. The patriots of this province desire nothing new; they wish only to keep their old privileges. They were for 150 years allowed to tax themselves, and govern their internal concerns, as they thought best. Parliament governed their trade as they thought fit. This plan, they wish may continue forever. But it is honestly confessed, rather than become subject to the absolute authority of parliament, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, they will be driven to throw off that of regulating trade.

"To deny the supreme authority of the state, is a high misdemeanor; to oppose it by force, an overt act of treason." True: and therefore Massachusettensis, who denies the king represented by his governor, his majesty's council, by charter, and house of representatives, to be the supreme authority of this province, has been guilty of a high misdemeanour: and those ministers, governors, and their instruments, who have brought a military force here, and employed it against that supreme authority, are guilty of ----, and ought to be punished with ----. I will be more mannerly than Massachusettensis.

"The realm of England is an appropriate term for the ancient realm of England, in contradistinction to Wales and other territories, that have been annexed to it."

There are so many particulars in the case of Wales analogous to the case of America, that I must beg leave to enlarge upon it.

Wales was a little portion of the island of Great Britain, which the Saxons were never able to conquer. The Britons had reserved this tract of land to themselves, and subsisted wholly by pasturage, among their mountains. Their princes, however, during the Norman period, and until the reign of king Edward the first, did homage to the crown of England, as their feudal sovereign, in the same manner as the prince of one independent state in Europe frequently did to the sovereign of another. This little principality of shepherds and cowherds, had however maintained their independence, through long and bloody wars against the omnipotence of England, for 800 years. It is needless to enumerate the causes of the war between Lewellyn and Edward the first. It is sufficient to say that the Welch prince refused to go to England to do homage, and Edward obtained a new aid of a fifteenth from his parliament, to march with a strong force into Wales. Edward was joined by David and Roderic, two brothers of Lewellyn, who made a strong party among the Welch themselves, to assist and second the attempts to enslave their native country. The English monarch, however, with all these advantages, was afraid to put the valor of his enemies to a trial, and trusted to the _slow effects of famine_ to subdue them. Their pasturage, with such an enemy in their country, could not subsist them, and Lewellyn, Nov. 19, 1277, at last submitted, and bound himself to pay a reparation of damages, to do homage to the crown of England, and almost to surrender his independence as a prince, by permitting all the other Barons of Wales, excepting four, to swear fealty to the same crown. But fresh complaints soon arose. The English grew insolent on their bloodless victory, and oppressed the inhabitants; many insults were offered, which at last raised the indignation of the Welch, so that they determined again to take arms, rather than bear any longer the oppression of the haughty victors. The war raged sometime, until Edward summoned all his military tenants, and advanced with an army too powerful for the Welch to resist. Lewellyn was at last surprized, by Edward's general Mortimer, and fighting at a great disadvantage, was slain, with two thousand of his men. David, who succeeded in the principality, maintained the war for some time, but at last was betrayed to the enemy, sent in chains to Shrewsbury, brought to a formal trial before the peers of England, and although a sovereign prince, ordered by Edward to be hanged, drawn and quartered, as a traitor, for defending by arms the liberties of his native country! All the Welch nobility submitted to the conqueror. The laws of England, sheriffs, and other ministers of justice, were established in that principality, which had maintained its liberties and independency, 800 years.

Now Wales was always part of the dominions of England. "Wales was always feudatory to the kingdom of England." It was always held of the crown of England, or the kingdom of England: that is, whoever was king of England, had a right to homage, &c. from the prince of Wales. But yet Wales was not parcel of the realm or kingdom, nor bound by the laws of England. I mention, and insist upon this, because it shews, that although the colonies are bound to the crown of England, or, in other words, owe allegiance to whomsoever is king of England; yet it does not follow that the colonies are parcel of the realm or kingdom, and bound by its laws. As this is a point of great importance, I must beg pardon, however unentertaining it may be, to produce my authorities.

Comyns digest, v. 5. page 626. Wales was always feudatory to the kingdom of England.

Held of the crown, but not parcel. Per Cook. 1 Roll. 247. 2 Roll. 29. And therefore the kings of Wales did homage, and swore fealty to H. 2. and John and H. 3.

And 11 Ed. 1. Upon the conquest of Lewellyn, prince or king of Wales, that principality became a part of the dominion of the realm of England. And by the statute Walliae 12 Ed. 1. It was annexed and united to the crown of England, _tanquam partem corporis ejusdem, &c._ Yet if the statute Walliae, made at Rutland 12 Ed. 1. was not an act of parliament (as it seems that it was not) the incorporation made thereby was only an union "_jure feudali, et non jure proprietatis_."

"Wales, before the union with England, was governed by its proper laws," &c.

By these authorities it appears, that Wales was subject, by the feudal law, to the crown of England, before the conquest of Lewellyn; but not subject to the laws of England; and indeed after this conquest, Edward and his nobles, did not seem to think it subject to the English parliament, but to the will of the king as a conqueror of it in war. Accordingly that instrument which is called _Statutum Walliae_, and to be found in the appendix to the statutes p. 3, although it was made by the advice of the peers, or officers of the army more properly, yet it never was passed as an act of parliament, but as an edict of the king. It begins not in the stile of an act of parliament. _Edwardus Dei gratia Rex Angliae, Dominus Hyberniae, et Dux Aquitaniae, omnibus fidelibus suis, &c. in Wallia. Divina providentia, quae in sui dispositione_, says he, _non fallitur, inter alia dispensationis suae munera, quibus nos et Regnum nostrum Angliae decorare dignata est, terram Walliae, cum, incolis suis, prius, nobis_, jure feudali _subjectam, jam sui gratia_, in proprietatis nostrae dominium, _obstaculis quibuscumque cessantibus, totaliter, et cum integritate convertit_, et coronae regni praedicti, tanquam partem corporis ejusdem annexuit et univit.

Here is the most certain evidence that Wales was subject to the kings of England by the feudal law before the conquest, though not bound by any laws but their own. 2d. That the conquest was considered, in that day, as conferring the property, as well as jurisdiction of Wales to the English crown. 3. The conquest was considered as annexing and uniting Wales to the English crown, both in point of property and jurisdiction, as a part of one body. Yet notwithstanding all this, parliament was not considered as acquiring any share in the government of Wales by this conquest. If, then, it should be admitted that the colonies are all annexed and united to the crown of England, it will not follow that lords and commons have any authority over them.

This statutum Walliae, as well as the whole case and history of that principality, is well worthy of the attention and study of Americans, because it abounds with evidence, that a country may be subject to the crown of England, without being subject to the lords and commons of that realm, which entirely overthrows the whole argument of Gov. Hutchinson, and of Massachusettensis, in support of the supreme authority of parliament, over all the dominions of the imperial crown. "_Nos itaque_, &c. says King Edward 1. "_volentes predictam terram, &c. sicut et caeteras ditioni nostrae subjectas, &c. subdebito regimine gubernari, et incolas seu habitatores terrarum illaram, qui alto et basso_, se submiserunt voluntati nostrae, _et quos sic ad nostram recepimus voluntatem, certis legibus et consuetudinibus, &c. tractari leges, et consuetudines, partum illarum hactenus usitatas coram nobis et proceribus regni nostri fecimus recitari, quibus diligenter auditis, et plenus intellectis, quasdam ipsarum de concilio procerum predictorum delevimus, quasdam permisimus, et quasdam correximus, et etiam quasdam alias adjungendas et statuendas decrevimus, et eas, &c. observari volumus in forma subscripta._"

And then goes on to prescribe and establish a whole code of laws for the principality, in the style of a sole legislature, and concludes,

_Et ideo vobis mandamus, quod premissa de cetero in omnibus firmiter observatis. Ita tamen quod quotiescunque, et quandocunque, et ubicunque, nobis placuerit, possimus predicta statuta et coram partes singulas declarare, interpretari, addere sive diminuere, pro nostro libito voluntatis, et prout securitati nostrae et terrae nostrae predictae viderimus expedire._

Here is then a conquered people submitting to a system of laws framed by the mere will of the conqueror, and agreeing to be forever governed by his mere will. This absolute monarch, then, might afterwards govern this country, with or without the advice of his English lords and commons.

To shew that Wales was held before the conquest of Lewellyn, of the king of England, although governed by its own laws, hear lord Coke, Inst. 194, in his commentary on the statute of Westminster. "At this time, viz. in 3 Ed. 1. Lewellyn was a prince or king of Wales, who held the _same of the king of England, as his superior lord, and owed him liege homage and fealty_; and this is proved by our act, viz: that the king of England was _superior dominus_, i. e. sovereign lord of the kingdom, or principality of Wales."

Lord Coke, in 4 Inst. 239, says "Wales was sometime a realm, or kingdom, (realm from the French word royaume, and both a regno) and governed _per suas regulas_," and afterwards, "but _jure feudali_, the kingdom of Wales was holden of the _crown of England_, and thereby, as Bracton saith, was _sub potestate regis_. And so it continued until the 11th year of king Edward 1st. when he subdued the prince of Wales, rising against him, and executed him for treason." "The next year, viz. in the 12th year of king Edward 1. by authority of parliament, it is declared thus, speaking in the person of the king, as ancient statutes were wont to do, _divina providentia_," &c. as in the statute _Walliae_, before recited. But here is an inaccuracy, for the _statutum Walliae_ was not an act of parliament, but made by the king with the advice of his officers of the army, by his sole authority, as the statute itself sufficiently shews. "Note," says lord Coke, "diverse monarchs hold their kingdoms of others _jure feudali_, as the duke of Lombardy, Cicill, Naples, and Bohemia of the empire, Granado, Leons of Aragon, Navarre, Portugal of Castile; and so others."

After this the Welch seem to have been fond of the English laws, and desirous of being incorporated into the realm, to be represented in parliament, and enjoy all the rights of Englishmen, as well as to be bound by the English laws. But kings were so fond of governing this principality by their discretion alone, that they never could obtain these blessings until the reign of Henry 8th. and then they only could obtain a statute, which enabled the king to alter their laws at his pleasure. They did indeed obtain in the 15 Ed. 2. a writ to call twenty-four members to the parliament at York from South Wales, and twenty-four from North Wales; and again in the 20 Ed. 2. the like number of forty-eight members for Wales, at the parliament of Westminster. But lord Coke tells us "that this wise and warlike nation was long after the _statutum Walliae_ not satisfied nor contented, and especially, for that they truly and constantly took part with their rightful sovereign and liege lord, king Richard 2d.; in revenge whereof they had many severe and invective laws made against them in the reigns of Henry 4th. Henry 5th. &c. all which as unjust are repealed and abrogated. And to say the truth, this nation was never in quiet, until king Henry 7th. their own countryman, obtained the crown. And yet not so really reduced in his time, as in the reign of his son, Henry 8th. in whose time certain just laws, made at the humble suit of the subjects of Wales, the principality and dominion of Wales was incorporated and united to the realm of England; and enacted that every one born in Wales should enjoy the liberties, rights and laws of this realm, as any subjects naturally born within this realm should have and inherit, and that they should have knights of shires, and burgesses of parliament." Yet we see they could not obtain any security for their liberties, for lord Coke tells us, "in the act of 34 Henry 8th. it was enacted, that the king's most royal majesty should, from time to time change, &c. all manner of things in that act rehearsed, as to his most excellent wisdom and discretion should be thought convenient, and also to make laws and ordinances for the commonwealth of his said dominion of Wales at his majesty's pleasure. But for that, the subjects of the dominion of Wales, &c. had lived in all dutiful subjection to the crown of England, &c. the said branch of the said statute of 34 Henry 8th. is repealed, and made void by 21 Jac. c. 10."

But if we look into the statute itself of 27, Henry 8th. c. 26, we shall find the clearest proof, that being subject to the imperial crown of England, did not entitle Welchmen to the liberties of England, nor make them subject to the laws of England. "Albeit the dominion, principality and country of Wales, _justly and righteously is, and ever hath been incorporated, annexed, united, and subject to and under the imperial crown of this realm, as a very member and joint of the same_; wherefore, the king's most royal majesty of mere droit, and very right, is very head, king, lord and ruler; yet notwithstanding, because that, in the same country, principality and dominion, diverse _rights_, _usages_, _laws_ and customs be far discrepant from the laws and customs of this realm, &c. Wherefore it is enacted, by king, lords and commons, "that his" (i. e. the king's) said country or dominion of Wales shall be, stand and continue forever from henceforth, incorporated, united, and annexed to and with this, his realm of England; and that all and singular person and persons, born or to be born, in the said principality, country, or dominion of Wales, shall have, enjoy, and inherit, all and singular freedoms, liberties, rights, privileges, and laws within this his realm, and other the king's dominions, as other the king's subjects naturally born within the same, have, enjoy, and inherit." § 2. Enacts that the laws of England shall be introduced and established in Wales: and that the laws, ordinances and statutes of this realm of England forever, and none other shall be used and practised forever thereafter, in the said dominion of Wales. The 27th § of this long statute enacts, that commissioners shall inquire into the laws and customs of Wales, and report to the king, who with his privy council, are empowered to establish such of them as they should think proper. § 28 Enacts that in all future parliaments _for this realm_, two knights for the shire of Monmouth, and one burgess for the town, shall be chosen and allowed such fees as other knights and burgesses of parliament were allowed. § 29 Enacts that one knight shall be elected for every shire within the country or dominion of Wales, and one burgess for every shire town, to serve in that and every future parliament to be holden for this realm. But by § 36 the king is empowered to revoke, repeal and abrogate that whole act, or any part of it, at any time within three years.

Upon this statute let it be observed, 1. That the language of Massachusettensis "imperial crown" is used in it: and Wales is affirmed to have _ever_ been annexed, and united to that imperial crown, as a very member and joint: which shews that being annexed to the imperial crown, does not annex a country to the realm, or make it subject to the authority of parliament: because Wales certainly, before the conquest of Lewellyn, never was pretended to be so subject, nor afterwards ever pretended to be annexed to the realm at all, nor subject to the authority of parliament, any otherwise than as the king claimed to be absolute in Wales, and therefore to make laws for it, by his mere will, either with the advice of his proceres, or without. 2. That Wales never was incorporated with the realm of England, until this statute was made, nor subject to any authority of English lords and commons. 3. That the king was so tenacious of his exclusive power over Wales, that he would not consent to this statute, without a clause in it, to retain the power in his own hands, of giving it what system of law he pleased. 4. That knights and burgesses, i. e. representatives, were considered as _essential_ and _fundamental_ in the constitution of the new legislature, which was to govern Wales. 5. That since this statute, the distinction between the realm of England and the realm of Wales, has been abolished, and the realm of England, now, and ever since, comprehends both; so that Massachusettensis is mistaken, when he says, that the realm of England is an appropriate term for the ancient realm of England, in contradistinction from Wales, &c. 6. That this union and incorporation was made by the consent, and upon the supplication of the people of Wales, as lord Coke and many other authors inform us, so that here was an express contract between the two bodies of people. To these observations let me add a few questions.

Was there ever any act of parliament, annexing, uniting, and consolidating any one of all the colonies to and with the realm of England or the kingdom of Great Britain? 2. If such an act of parliament should be made, would it upon any principles of English laws and government, have any validity, without the consent, petition, or supplication of the colonies? 3. Can such an union and incorporation, ever be made, upon any principles of English laws and government, without admitting representatives for the colonies in the house of commons, and American lords into the house of peers? 4. Would not representatives in the house of commons, unless they were numerous in proportion to the numbers of people in America, be a snare rather than a blessing? 5. Would Britain ever agree to a proportionable number of American members, and if she would, could America support the expense of them? 6. Could American representatives possibly know the sense, the exigencies, &c. of their constituents, at such a distance, so perfectly as it is absolutely necessary legislators should know? 7. Could Americans ever come to the knowledge of the behaviour of their members, so as to dismiss the unworthy? 8. Would Americans, in general, ever submit to septennial elections? 9. Have we not sufficient evidence, in the general frailty and depravity of human nature, and especially the experience we have had of Massachusettensis and the junto, that a deep, treacherous, plausible, corrupt minister, would be able to seduce our members to betray us, as fast as we could send them?

To return to Wales. In the statute of 34 and 35 of Henry 8th. c. 26. we find a more complete system of laws and regulations for Wales. But the king is still tenacious of his absolute authority over it. It begins, "our sovereign lord the king, of his tender zeal and affection, &c. to his obedient subjects, &c. of Wales, &c. _hath devised and made_ divers sundry good and necessary ordinances, which his majesty of his most abundant goodness, _at the humble suit and petition of his said subjects of Wales_, is pleased and contented to be enacted by the assent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons," &c.

Nevertheless, the king would not yet give up his unlimited power over Wales, for by the 119 § of this statute, the king, &c. may at all times, hereafter, from time to time, change, add, alter, order, minish, and reform all manner of things afore rehearsed, as to his most excellent wisdom and discretion, shall be thought convenient; and also to make laws and ordinances for the commonwealth and good quiet of his said dominion of Wales, and his subjects of the same, from time to time, at his majesty's pleasure.

And this last section was never repealed, until the 21 Jac. 1. c. 10. § 4.