should take the oath required of him, faithfully to do and perform all matters and things enjoined him by the acts of trade." But does this, may it please your excellency, show their explicit acknowledgment of the authority of parliament? Does it not rather show directly the contrary? For, what could there be for their vote, or authority, to require him to take the oath already required of him by the act of parliament, unless both he and they judged that an act of parliament was not of force sufficient to bind him to take such an oath? We do not deny, but, on the contrary, are fully persuaded, that your excellency's principles in government are still of the same with what they appear to be in the history; for you there say, that "the passing this law, plainly shows the wrong sense they had of the relation they stood unto England." But we are from hence convinced, that your excellency, when you wrote the history, was of our mind in this respect, that our ancestors, in passing the law, discovered their opinion, that they were without the jurisdiction of parliament; for it was upon this principle alone, they shewed the wrong sense they had, in your excellency's opinion, of the relation they stood unto England.

extracts we have made from your excellency's | ity of parliament, and voted that their governor history of the colony, it appears evidently that, under both charters, it hath been the sense of the people and of the government, that they were not under the jurisdiction of parliament. We pray you again to turn to those quotations, and our observations upon them; and we wish | to have your excellency's judicious remarks. When we adduced that history, to prove that the sentiments of private persons of influence, four or five years after the restoration, were very different from what your excellency apprehended them to be, when you delivered your speech, you seem to concede to it, by telling us, "it was, as you take it, from the principles imbibed in those times of anarchy, (preceding the restoration,) that they disputed the authority of parliament;" but, you add, "the government would not venture to dispute it." We find, in the same history, a quotation from a letter of Mr. Stoughton, dated seventeen years after the restoration, mentioning "the country's not taking notice of the acts of navigation, to observe them." And it was, as we take it, after that time that the government declared, in a letter to their agents, that they had not submitted to them; and they ventured to "dispute" the jurisdiction, asserting that they apprehended the acts to be an invasion of the rights, liberties, and properties of the subjects of his majesty in the colony, they not being represented in parliament, and that “the laws of England did not reach America." It very little avails in proof, that they conceded to the supreme authority of parliament, their telling the commissioners, “that the act of navigation had for some years before been observed here; that they knew not of its being greatly violated; and that such laws as appeared to be against it, were repealed." It may as truly be said now, that the revenue acts are observed by some of the people of this province; but it cannot be said that the government and people of this province have conceded that the parliament had authority to make such acts to be observed here. Neither does their declaration to the commissioners, that such laws as appeared to be against the act of navigation, were repealed, prove their concession of the authority of parliament, by any means, so much as their making provision for giving force to an act of parliament within this province, by a deliberate and solemn act or law of their own, proves the contrary.

You tell us, that "the government, four or five years before the charter was vacated, more explicitly," that is, than by a conversation with the commissioners, “acknowledged the author

Your excellency, in your second speech, condescends to point out to us the acts and doings of the general assembly, which relates to acts of parliament, which, you think, "demonstrates that they have been acknowledged by the assembly, or submitted to by the people," neither of which, in our opinion, shows that it was the sense of the nation, and our predecessors, when they first took possession of this plantation, or colony, by a grant and charter from the crown, that they were to remain subject to the supreme authority of the English parlia

ment.

Your excellency seems chiefly to rely upon our ancestors, after the revolution, "proclaiming king William and queen Mary, in the room of king James," and taking the oaths to them, "the alteration of the form of oaths, from time to time," and finally, the establishment of the form, which every one of us has complied with, as the charter, in express terms, requires and makes our duty." We do not know that it has ever been a point in dispute, whether the kings of England were ipso facto kings in, and over, this colony, or province. The compact was made between king Charles the I. his heirs and successors, and the governor and company, their heirs and successors. It is easy, upon this principle, to account for the acknowledgment of, and submission to, king William and

own act.

queen Mary, as successors of Charles the I. in | consequently, without our consent; and, as it the room of king James; besides, it is to be may probably happen, destructive of the first considered, that the people in the colony, as law of society, the good of the whole. You tell well as in England, had suffered under the us that, "after the assumption of all the powers tyrant James, by which he had alike forfeited of government, by virtue of the new charter, his right to reign over both. There had been a an act passed for the reviving, for a limited revolution here, as well as in England. The time, all the local laws of the Massachusetts eyes of the people here were upon William and Bay and New Plymouth, respectively, not Mary; and the news of their being proclaimed repugnant to the laws of England. And, at in England was, as your excellency's history the same session, an act passed establishing tells us, the most joyful news ever received naval officers, that all undue trading, contrary in New England." And, if they were not pro- to an act of parliament, may be prevented." claimed here, “by virtue of an act of the Among the acts that were then revived, we colony," it was, as we think may be concluded may reasonably suppose was that, whereby from the tenor of your history, with the general provision was made to give force to this act of or universal consent of the people, as apparent- parliament in the province. The establishly as if" such act had passed." It is consentment, therefore, of the naval officers, was to alone that makes any human laws binding; | aid the execution of an act of parliament, for and, as a learned author observes, a purely the observance of which, within the colony, the voluntary submission to an act, because it is assembly had before made provision, after free highly in our favor and for our benefit, is in all debates, with their own consent, and by their equity and justice, to be deemed as not at all proceeding from the right we include in the legislators, that they thereby obtain an authority over us, and that ever hereafter, we must obey them of duty. We would observe, that one of the first acts of the general assembly of this province, since the present charter, was an act requiring the taking the oaths mentioned in an act of parliament, to which you refer us. For what purpose was this act of the assembly passed, if it was the sense of the legislators that the act of parliament was in force in the province? And, at the same time, another act was made for the establishment of other oaths necessary to be taken, both which acts have the royal sanction, and are now in force. Your excellency says, that when the colony applied to king William for a second charter, they knew the oath the king had taken, which was to govern them according to the statutes in parliament, and (which your excellency here omits,) the laws and customs of the same. By the laws and customs of parliament, the people of England freely debate and consent to such statutes as are made by themselves or their chosen representatives. This is a law or custom, which all mankind may justly challenge as their inherent right. According to this law, the king has an undoubted right to govern us. Your excellency, upon recollection, surely will not infer from hence, that it was the sense of our predecessors that there was to remain a supremacy in the English parliament, or a full power and authority to make laws binding upon us, in all cases whatever, in that parliament, where we cannot debate and deliberate upon the necessity or expediency of any law, and,

The act of parliament, passed in 1741, for putting an end to several unwarrantable schemes, mentioned by your excellency, was designed for the general good; and, if the validity of it was not disputed, it cannot be urged as a concession of the supreme authority, to make laws binding on us in all cases whatever. But, if the design of it was for the general benefit of the province, it was, in one respect, at least greatly complained of by the persons more immediately affected by it; and to remedy the inconvenience, the legislature of this province passed an act, directly militating with it; which is the strongest evidence that, although they may have submitted, sub silentio, to some acts of parliament, that they conceived might operate for their benefit, they did not conceive themselves bound by any of its acts which, they judged, would operate to the injury even of individuals.

Your excellency has not thought proper to attempt to confute the reasoning of a learned writer on the laws of nature and nations, quoted by us, on this occasion, to shew that the authority of the legislature does not extend so far as the fundamentals of the constitution. We are unhappy in not having your remarks upon the reasoning of that great man; and, until it is confuted, we shall remain of the opinion, that the fundamentals of the constitution being excepted from the commission of the legislators, none of the acts or doings of the general assembly, however deliberate and solemn, could avail to change them, if the people have not, in very express terms, given them the power to do it; and that, much less ought

their acts and doings, however numerous, which barely refer to acts of parliament made expressly to relate to us, to be taken as an acknowledgment that we are subject to the supreme authority of parliament.

We shall sum up our own sentiments in the words of that learned writer, Mr. Hooker, in his ecclesiastical policy, as quoted by Mr. Locke." The lawful power of making laws to command whole political societies of men, belonging so properly to the same entire societies that for any prince or potentate of what kind soever, to exercise the same of himself, and not from express commission, immediately and personally received from God, is no better than mere tyranny. Laws, therefore, they are not, which public approbation hath not made so; for laws human, of what kind soever, are available by consent. Since men, naturally, have no full and perfect power to command whole politic multitudes of men, therefore, utterly without our consent, we could in such sort, be at no man's commandment living. And to be commanded, we do not consent, when that society, whereof we be a party, hath at any time before consented." We think your excellency has not proved, either that the colony is a part of the politic society of England, or that it has ever consented that the parliament of England or Great Britain, should make laws binding upon us, in all cases, whether made expressly to refer to us or not.

children in understanding, as to please themselves with the imagination, that they were blessed with the same rights and liberties which natural born subjects in England enjoyed, when at the same time, they had fully consented to be ruled and ordered by a legislature, a thousand leagues distant from them, which cannot be supposed to be sufficiently acquainted with their circumstances, if concerned for their interest, and in which they cannot be in any sense represented ?

[The committee who reported the above, were Mr. Cushing, (the speaker), Mr. S. Adams, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Philips, Major Foster, Col. Bowers, Mr. Hobson, Col. Thayer, and Mr. Denny.]

RESOLUTIONS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

On motion of Mr. S. Adams, the following resolutions were adopted, 110 to 4, May 28, 1773.

Whereas, the speaker hath communicated to this house, a letter from the truly respectable house of Burgesses, in his majesty's ancient colony of Virginia, enclosing a copy of the resolves entered into by them, on the 12th of March last, and requesting that a committee of this house may be appointed to communicate, from time to time, with a corresponding committee, then appointed by the said house of Burgesses in Virginia :

And, whereas this house is fully sensible of the necessity and importance of a union of the several colonies in America, at a time when it clearly appears, that the rights and liberties of all are systematically invaded; in order that the joint wisdom of the whole may be em

We cannot help, before we conclude, expressing our great concern, that your excellency has thus repeatedly, in a manner, insisted upon our free sentiments on matters of so delicate a nature and weighty importance. The question appears to us to be no other, than whether we are the subjects of absolute unlimited power, or of a free government, formed on the principles of the English constitution. If your excel-ployed in consulting their common safety : lency's doctrine be true, the people of this province hold their lands of the crown and people of England; and their lives, liberties, and properties, are at their disposal; and that, even by compact and their own consent, they were subject to the king, as the head alterius populi of another people, in whose legislature they have no voice or interest. They are, indeed, said to have a constitution and a legislature of their own; but your excellency has explained it into a mere phantom; limited, controled, superseded, and nullified at the will of another. Is this the constitution which so charmed our ancestors, that, as your excellency has imormed us, they kept a day of solemn thanksgiving to Almighty God when they received it? And were they men of so little discernment, such

Resolved, That this house have a very grateful sense of the obligations they are under to the house of Burgesses, in Virginia, for the vigilance, firmness and wisdom, which they have discovered, at all times, in support of the rights and liberties of the American colonies; and do heartily concur with their said judicious and spirited resolves.

Resolved, That a standing committee of correspondence and enquiry be appointed, to consist of fifteen members, any eight of whom to be a quorum; whose business it shall be, to obtain the most early and authentic intelligence of all such acts and resolutions of the British parliament, or proceedings of administrations as may relate to, or affect the British colonies in America, and to keep up and maintain a

correspondence and communication with our | nent, on the other, greatly militates, and is sister colonies, respecting these important considerations; and the result of such their proceedings, from time to time, to lay before the house.

the time, 342. There was a body meeting on this 16th of December, 1773. This matter of the tea was the occasion of the meeting. The meeting began at Faneuil Hall, but that place not being large enough it was adjourned to the Old South, and even that place could not contain all who came. Jonathan Williams was moderator. Among the spectators was John Rowe, who lived in Pond street where Mr. Prescott now lives; among other things, he said,"Who knows how tea will mingle with salt water"—and this suggestion was received with great applause. Governor Hutchinson was at this time at the house on Milton hill where Barney Smith, esqr. lives. A committee was sent from the meeting, to request him to order the ships to depart. While they were gone, speeches were made, for the purpose of keep

certain restrictions, namely, that the said let- | destroyed was, according to the newspapers of ters be neither printed nor copied, in whole, or in part," and he accordingly offered them for the consideration of the house. A vote then passed, that the letters be read; and they were | read accordingly; being signed, Thomas Hutchinson, Andrew Oliver, Charles Paxton, Robert Auchmutty, etc. The whole house was then resolved into a committee, to take said letters into consideration, and the house adjourned to the afternoon. Mr. Hancock, from the committee of the whole house, reported, that the committee were of opinion, the tendency and design of the said letters, was to overthrow the constitution of this government, and to introduce arbitrary power into the province, and the report was accepted, 101 to 5. A committee of nine was, thereupon, chosen, to consider what was proper to be done, in reference to the letters aforesaid; and the speaker (Mr. Cush-ing the people together. The committee reing), Mr. Adams, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Gorham, Mr. Pickering, Maj. Hawley, Col. Warren, Mr. Payne and Major Foster, were chosen.]

DESTRUCTION OF TEA

IN BOSTON HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS, DE-
CEMBER 16, 1773.

turned about sunset with his answer, that he could not interfere. At this moment the Indian yell was heard from the street. Mr. Samuel Adams cried out that it was a trick of their enemies to disturb their meeting, and requested the people to keep their places-but the people rushed out, and accompanied the Indians to the ships. The number of persons disguised as Indians is variously stated-none put it lower than 60, none higher than 80. It is said by persons who were present, that nothing was destroyed but tea-and this was not done with noise and tumult, little or nothing being said either by the agents or the multitude,—who looked on. The impression was that of solemnity, rather than of riot and confusion. The destruction was effected by disguised persons, and some young men who volunteered; one of the latter collected the tea which fell into the shoes of himself and companions, and put it into a phial and sealed it up; which phial is now in his possession,-containing the same tea.-The contrivers of this measure, and those who carried it into effect, will never be known; some few persons have been mentioned as be

TEA.--There have been some doubts concerning the destruction of the tea on the 16th | of December, 1773. The number of the ships, and the place where they were situated is not quite certain. One gentleman, now living, over 70 years of age, thinks that they were at Hubbard's wharf, as it was then called, about half way between Griffin's (now Liverpool) and Foster's wharf, and that the number of ships was four or five. Another gentleman, who is 75 years of age, and who was one of the guard detached from the new grenadier company, says that he spent the night, but one, before the destruction of the tea, in company with gen. Knox, then a private in that company, on board of one of the tea ships; that this shiping among the disguised; but there are many lay on the south side of Russell's wharf; and that there were two more on the north side of the same wharf, and he thinks one or two at Griffin's wharf. A gentleman now living, who | came from England in one of the tea ships, thinks there were but two, but he is uncertain where they lay. A song, written soon after the time, tells of "Three ill-fated ships at Griffin's wharf." The whole evidence seems to result in this, that there were three ships-but whether at Russell's or Griffin's wharf, or one or more at each, is not certain. The number of chests

and obvious reasons why secrecy then, and concealment since, were necessary. None of those persons who were confidently said to have been of the party, (except some who were then minors or very young men), have ever admitted that they were so. The person who appeared to know more than any one, I ever spoke with, refused to mention names. Mr. Samuel Adams is thought to have been in the counselling of this exploit, and many other men who were leaders in the political affairs of the times;and the hall council is said to have been in the