|
Massachusetts State Papers
Show Summary
Hide Summary
Historical SummaryThe General Court of Massachusetts met Dec. 30, 1767. The address of Governor Bernard dealt with the question of the boundaries between Massachusetts and New York and New Hampshire and Maine, and did not mention the Townshend acts. The acts were, however, read in the House, and the consideration of them referred to a committee of nine on the state of the province. On the 12th of January the committee reported a draft of a letter to Dennis De Berdt, agent of the colony in England, reviewing the arguments against taxation by Great Britain, and protesting against the recent acts as unjust and unwarranted. Subsequently a petition to the King, and letters to Shelburne, Rockingham, Camden, Chatham, Conway, and the Commissioners of the Treasury, were adopted. On the 21st of January a motion "to appoint a time to consider the expediency of writing to the assemblies of the other colonies on this continent, with respect to the importance of their joining with them in petitioning his Majesty at this time," was rejected; but on Feb. 4 the motion was reconsidered, and a committee appointed "to prepare a letter to be sent to each of the Houses of Representatives and Burgesses on the continent, to inform them of the measures which this House has taken with regard to the difficulties arising from the acts of Parliament for levying duties and taxes on the American colonists." The letter, drawn up by Samuel Adams, was reported on the 11th and adopted. The letter was laid before the cabinet April 15, by Lord Hillsborough, secretary of state for the colonies. A letter from Hillsborough to the governors of the several colonies, April 21, called upon them to exert their "utmost influence" to prevent the various assemblies from taking action on the Massachusetts circular; while a communication to Governor Bernard, of the following day, instructed him to require the assembly to rescind the resolution under which the circular letter was issued, and, in case of refusal, to dissolve them. On the 30th of June, after adopting a letter to Hillsborough defending their action, the House by a vote of 92 to 17, refused to rescind. The next day the General Court was dissolved. REFERENCES. — Text in Bradford’s , 134–136; the same work gives the other Massachusetts letters and documents referred to above. Almon’s Prior Documents, 220, gives Hillsborough’s letter to the governors; 203–205, extracts from the letter to Bernard; 213–218, replies of other colonies to the circular letter.
No. 39.
Massachusetts Circular Letter
February 11, 1768
Province of Massachusetts Bay, February 11, 1768.
SIR,
The House of Representatives of this province, have taken into their serious consideration, the great difficulties that must accrue to themselves and their constituents, by the operation of several acts of Parliament, imposing duties and taxes on the American colonies.
As it is a subject in which every colony is deeply interested, they have no reason to doubt but your House is deeply impressed with its importance, and that such constitutional measures will be come into, as are proper. It seems to be necessary, that all possible care should be taken, that the representatives of the several assemblies, upon so delicate a point, should harmonize with each other. The House, therefore, hope that this letter will be candidly considered in no other light then as expressing a disposition freely to communicate their mind to a sister colony, upon a common concern, in the same manner as they would be glad to receive the sentiments of your or any other House of Assembly on the continent.
The House have humbly represented to the ministry, their own sentiments, that his Majesty’s high court of Parliament is the supreme legislative power over the whole empire; that in all free states the constitution is fixed, and as the supreme legislative derives its power and authority from the constitution, it cannot overleap the bounds of it, without destroying its own foundation; that the constitution ascertains and limits both sovereignty and allegiance, and, therefore, his Majesty’s American subjects, who acknowledge themselves bound by the ties of allegiance, have an equitable claim to the full enjoyment of the fundamental rules of the British constitution; that it is an essential, unalterable right, in nature, engrafted into the British constitution, as a fundamental law, and ever held sacred and irrevocable by the subjects within the realm, that what a man has honestly acquired is absolutely his own, which he may freely give, but cannot be taken from him without his consent; that the American subjects may, therefore, exclusive of any consideration of charter rights, with a decent firmness, adapted to the character of free men and subjects, assert this natural and constitutional right.
It is, moreover, their humble opinion, which they express with the greatest deference to the wisdom of the Parliament, that the acts made there, imposing duties on the people of this province, with the sole and express purpose of raising a revenue, are infringements of their natural and constitutional rights; because, as they are not represented in the British Parliament, his Majesty’s Commons in Britain, by those acts, grant their property without their consent.
This House further are of opinion, that their constituents, considering their local circumstances, cannot, by any possibility, be represented in the Parliament; and that it will forever be impracticable, that they should be equally represented there, and consequently, not at all; being separated by an ocean of a thousand leagues. That his Majesty’s royal predecessors, for this reason, were graciously pleased to form a subordinate legislature here, that their subjects might enjoy the unalienable right of a representation: also, that considering the utter impracticability of their ever being fully and equally represented in Parliament, and the great expense that must unavoidably attend even a partial representation there, this House think that a taxation of their constituents, even without their consent, grievous as it is, would be preferable to any representation that could be admitted for them there.
Upon these principles, and also considering that were the right in Parliament ever so clear, yet, for obvious reasons, it would be beyond the rules of equity that their constituents should be taxed, on the manufactures of Great Britain here, in addition to the duties they pay for them in England, and other advantages arising to Great Britain, from the acts of trade, this House have preferred a humble, dutiful, and loyal petition, to our most gracious sovereign, and made such representations to his Majesty’s ministers, as they apprehended would tend to obtain redress.
They have also submitted to consideration, whether any people can be said to enjoy any degree of freedom, if the Crown, in addition to its undoubted authority of constituting a Governor, should appoint him such a stipend as it may judge proper, without the consent of the people, and at their expense; and whether, while the judges of the land, and other civil officers, hold not their commissions during good behaviour, their having salaries appointed for them by the Crown, independent of the people, hath not a tendency to subvert the principles of equity, and endanger the happiness and security of the subject.
In addition to these measures, the House have written a letter to their agent, which he is directed to lay before the ministry; wherein they take notice of the hardships of the act for preventing mutiny and desertion, which requires the Governor and Council to provide enumerated articles for the King’s marching troops, and the people to pay the expenses; and also, the commission of the gentlemen appointed commissioners of the customs, to reside in America, which authorizes them to make as many appointments as they think fit, and to pay the appointees what sum they please, for whose mal-conduct they are not accountable; from whence it may happen, that officers of the Crown may be multiplied to such a degree as to become dangerous to the liberty of the people, by virtue of a commission, which does not appear to this House to derive any such advantages to trade as many have supposed.
These are the sentiments and proceedings of this House; and as they have too much reason to believe that the enemies of the colonies have represented them to his Majesty’s ministers, and to the Parliament, as factious, disloyal, and having a disposition to make themselves independent of the mother country, they have taken occasion, in the most humble terms, to assure his Majesty, and his ministers, that, with regard to the people of this province, and, as they doubt not, of all the colonies, the charge is unjust. The House is fully satisfied, that your Assembly is too generous and liberal in sentiment, to believe that this letter proceeds from an ambition of taking the lead, or dictating to the other assemblies. They freely submit their opinions to the judgment of others; and shall take it kind in your House to point out to them any thing further, that may be thought necessary.
This House cannot conclude, without expressing their firm confidence in the King, our common head and father; that the united and dutiful supplications of his distressed American subjects, will meet with his royal and favorable acceptance.
Chicago: Bradford, ed., Massachusetts State Papers in Documentary Source Book of American History, 1606-1913, ed. William MacDonald (1863-1938) (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1916), 147–150. Original Sources, accessed April 11, 2025, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=7VTUXWINWIN7V4Z.
MLA: . Massachusetts State Papers, edited by Bradford, in Documentary Source Book of American History, 1606-1913, edited by William MacDonald (1863-1938), New York, The Macmillan Company, 1916, pp. 147–150. Original Sources. 11 Apr. 2025. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=7VTUXWINWIN7V4Z.
Harvard: (ed.), Massachusetts State Papers. cited in 1916, Documentary Source Book of American History, 1606-1913, ed. , The Macmillan Company, New York, pp.147–150. Original Sources, retrieved 11 April 2025, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=7VTUXWINWIN7V4Z.
|