網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

done, over, and affecting a people, against and without THEIR CONSENT, expressed by themselves, or by REPRESENTATIVES of their OWN ELECTION. Upon this only principle was grounded the complaints of the people of England-upon the same is grounded the complaints of the people of America. And hence it clearly follows, that if James II. violated the fundamental laws of England, George III. hath also violated the fundamental laws of America.

Again:-King James broke the original contract by not affording due protection to his subjects, although he was not charged with having seized their towns, or with having held them against the people-or, with having laid them in ruins, by his arms-or, with having seized their vessels-or, with having pursued the people with fire and sword-or, with having declared them rebels for resisting his arms, levelled to destroy their lives, liberties, and properties. But George III. hath done all these things against America; and, it is, therefore, undeniable that he hath not afforded due protection to the people. Wherefore, if James II. broke the original contract, it is undeniable that George III. has also broken the original contract between king and people; and that he made use of the most violent measures by which it could be done-violences of which James was GUILTLESS—— measures carrying conflagrations, massacre and open war amidst a people whose subjection to the king of Great Britain. the law holds to be due only as a return for protection. And so tenacious and clear is the law upon this very principle, that it is laid down, subjection is not due even to a king, de jure, or of right, unless he be also king de facto, or in possession of the executive powers dispensing protection.

Again, the third fact charged against James is, that he withdrew himself out of the kingdom-and we know that the people of this country have declared, that Lord William Campbell, the king of Great Britain's representative, "having used his utmost efforts to destroy the lives, liberties, and property of the good people here, whom by the duty of his station he was bound to protect, withdrew himself out of the colony." Hence it will appear, that George III. hath withdrawn himself out of this colony, provided it be established that exactly the same natural consequence resulted from the withdrawal in each case respectively-King James

personally out of England, and King George out of Carolina, by the agency of his substitute and representative, Lord William Campbell.

By King James' withdrawing, the executive magistrate was gone; thereby, in the eye of the law, the executive magistrate was dead, and of consequence, royal government actually ceased in England:-so by King George's representative withdrawing, the executive magistrate was gone; the death, in law, became apparent, and of consequence royal government actually ceased in this colony. Lord William withdrew as the king's representative, carrying off the great seal and royal instructions to governors; and acting for, and on the part of his principal, by every construction of law, that conduct became the conduct of his principal; and thus, James II. withdrew out of England, and George III. withdrew out of South Carolina; and by such a conduct, respectively, the people in each country were exactly in the same degree injured.

The three facts against King James being thus stated, and compared with similar proceedings by King George, we are now to ascertain the result of the injuries done by the first, and the law upon that point-which being ascertained, must naturally constitute the judgement in law, upon the result of the similar injuries done by the last; and I am happy that I can give you the best authority upon this important point.

Treating upon this great precedent in constitutional law, the learned Judge Blackstone declares, that the result of the facts "amounted to an abdication of the government, which abdication did not affect only the person of the king himself, but also, all his heirs; and rendered the throne absolutely and completely vacant." Thus it clearly appears that the government was not abdicated, and the throne vacated by the resolution of the Lords and Commons, but that the resolution was only declaratory of the law of Nature and reason, upon the result of the injuries proceeding from the three combined facts of mal-administration. And thus, as I have on the foot of the best authorities made it evident, that George III., king of Great Britain, has endeavored to subvert the constitution of this country, by breaking the original contract between king and country; by the advice of wicked persons,

has violated the fundamental laws, and has withdrawn himself, by withdrawing the constitutional benefits of the kingly office, and his protection out of this country; from such a result of injuries, from such a conjunction of circumstances, the law of the land authorizes me to declare, and it is my duty boldly to declare the law, that George III., king of Great Britain, has abdicated the government, and that the throne is thereby vacant-that is, he has no authority over us, and we owe no obedience to him. The British ministers already have presented a charge of mine to the notice of the Lords and Commons, in Parliament; and I am nothing loth that they take equal resentment against this charge. For, supported by the fundamental laws of the constitution, and engaged as I am in the cause of virtue, I fear no consequences from their machinations.

Thus having stated the principal causes of our last revolution, it is clear as the sun in meridian, that George III. injured the Americans, at least as grievously as James II. injured the people of England; but that James did not oppress these in so criminal a manner as George has oppressed the Americans.

CHAPTER XXXIII.

Townshend's scheme of Colonial Taxation-Repeal of the new taxes, except that on Tea-Local Affairs-Trade of the Colonies-Attempt to collect the Tax on Tea-Reminiscences of the Position of the Tea Ships at Boston-Destruction of the Tea in Boston Harbor.

In spite of the Parliamentary claim, of power to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever, the repeal of the Stamp Act produced throughout America a great burst of loyalty and gratitude. Virginia voted a statue to the king. New York voted statues to the king and to Pitt, both of which were presently erected. Maryland voted a statue to Pitt, and a portrait of Lord Camden. Faneuil Hall was adorned with full-length pictures of Barre and Conway. Pitt became more than ever a popular idol. Resolutions of thanks to him and others were agreed to by most of the colonial Assemblies.

A resolution of the House of Commons had demanded indemnity from the colonies for such crown officers as had suffered losses in the late Stamp Act riots. New York promptly complied. After much urging by the governor, Massachusetts passed a similar act; but a free pardon to the rioters, inserted in it, betrayed the state of public feeling, and gave great offense in England.

66

As the first burst of exultation died away, new discontents began to spring up. The Stamp Act was repealed, but the Sugar Act" remained in force, and, though modified by a still further reduction of the duties on molasses, to one penny per gallon, it continued to give great dissatisfaction, especially in the northern colonies. Another modification of that act prohibited all direct trade with France. But iron and lumber, lately placed in the list of "enumerated articles," were allowed to be exported to European ports south of Cape Finisterre.

The opponents of the Stamp Act, or some of them, especially Pitt, had taken a distinction between a direct tax levied on the colonies, and commercial imposts which might be supposed to fall under the admitted parliamentary right of regulating trade. Of this distinction Townshend took advantage in framing his new project-but in one respect his bill violated the established policy of the mother country. The royal negative had been repeatedly placed on colonial acts levying imposts on British goods. But this bill, along with tea, included paints, paper, glass, and lead-articles of British produce-as objects of custom-house taxation in the colonies. The exportation of tea to America was encouraged by another act, allowing for five years a drawback of the whole duty payable on the importation.

The impossibility of enforcing the Stamp Act, not any sense of right or justice, had produced its repeal. This new act of Townshend's, the immediate cause of all the subsequent troubles, was supposed to be of easier execution, and passed with very little opposition. By another act, reorganizing the colonial custom-house system, a Board of Revenue Commissioners for America was established, to have its seat at Boston. (June, 1767.)

The Massachusetts House of Representatives consisted at this time of upward of a hundred members, by far the most numerous Assembly in America. Its debates had begun to attract attention, and a gallery had lately been erected for the accommodation of spectators. The council, purged by dropping Hutchinson and several other officials, was now chiefly influenced by James Bowdoin. His grandfather, a French Huguenot, had migrated to New England shortly after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. His father, from very small beginnings, had acquired the largest fortune in Boston, all of which, being an only child, Bowdoin had inherited at the age of twenty-one. In the prime of life, of elevated character and a studious turn of mind, for several years past a member of the council, he acted in close concert with Adams, to whose impetuous ardor and restless activity his less excitable but not less firm temper served as a useful counterpoise. (1768.)

Meanwhile the merchants had been greatly irritated by new strictness in the collection of duties, and by suits even

« 上一頁繼續 »