be every where decreased, if not annihilated, and prohibitions
multiplied. Every branch of trade, that hurts a community, should be
prohibited for the same reason, that a private gentleman would break
off commerce with a sharper, or an extensive usurer. It is to no
purpose to higgle with such people; you are sure to loose by them. It
is exactly so with a nation, if the balance is against them; and they
can possibly subsist without the commodities as they generally can
in such cases, a prohibition is the only remedy; for a duty in such
a case, is like a composition with a thief, that for five shillings
in the pound returned, he shall rob you at pleasure; when, if the
thing is examined to the bottom, you are at five shillings expense
in travelling to get back your five shillings; and he is at the same
expense in coming to pay it. So he robs you of but ten shillings
in the pound, that you thus wisely compound for. To apply this to
trade, I believe every duty, that was ever imposed on commerce, or
in the nature of things can be, will be found to be divided between
the state imposing the duty, and the country exported from. This,
if between the several parts of the same kingdom or dominions of
the same prince, can only tend to embarrass trade, and raise the
price of labour above other states, which is of very pernicious
consequence to the husbandman, manufacturer, mariner and merchant,
the four tribes that support the whole hive. If your duty is upon a
commodity of a foreign state, it is either upon the whole useful and
gainful; and therefore necessary for the husbandman, manufacturer,
mariner or merchant, as finally bringing a profit to the state, by a
balance against your state. There is no medium that we know of. If
the commodity is of the former kind, it should be prohibited; but if
the latter, imported duty free, unless you would raise the price of
labour by a duty on necessaries, or make the above wise composition
for the importation of commodities, you are sure to lose by it.
"The only test of a useful commodity is the gain upon the whole
to the state; such should be free; the only test of a pernicious
trade is the loss upon the whole or to the community; this should
be prohibited. If therefore it can be demonstrated, that the sugar
and molasses trade from the northern colonies to the foreign
plantations, is, upon the whole, a loss to the community, by which
term is here meant, the three kingdoms and the British dominions
taken collectively, then, and not till then, should this trade be
prohibited. This never has been proved, nor can be; the contrary
being certain, to wit: that the nation upon the whole hath been
a vast gainer by this trade, in the vend of and pay for its
manufactures; and a great loss by a study upon this trade will
finally fall on the British husbandman, manufacturer, mariner and
merchant; and consequently the trade of the nation be wounded, and in
constant danger of being eat out by those who can undersell her.
"The art of underselling, or rather of finding means to undersell, is
the grand secret of thrift among commercial states, as well as among
individuals of the same state. Should the British sugar islands ever
be able to supply Great Britain, and her northern colonies with those
articles, it will be time enough to think of a total prohibition;
but until that time, both prohibition and duty will be found to be
diametrically opposite to the first principles of policy. Such is the
extent of this continent, and the increase of its inhabitants, that
if every inch of the British sugar islands was as well cultivated
as any part of Jamaica or Barbadoes, they would not now be able
to supply Great Britain, and the colonies on this continent. But
before such further improvements can be supposed to take place in our
islands, the demands will be proportionably increased by the increase
of the inhabitants on the continent. Hence the reason is plain, why
the British sugar planters are growing rich, and demands on them,
ever will be greater than they can possibly supply, so long as the
English hold this continent, and are unrivalled in the fishery.
"We have every thing good and great to hope from our gracious
sovereign, his ministry and his parliament; and trust, that when the
services and sufferings of the British American colonies are fully
known to the mother country, and the nature and importance of the
plantation trade more perfectly understood at home, that the most
effectual measures will be taken for perpetuating the British empire
in all parts of the world. An empire built upon the principles of
justice, moderation and equity, the only principles that can make a
state flourishing, and enable it to elude the machinations of its
secret and inveterate enemies."
Excuse errors, for I cannot revise and correct. I hope your patience
will never be put to the trial of another letter so long and dry.
One or two more, much shorter, will close the subject of writs of
assistance, and relieve you from _ennui_, as well as your friend,
JOHN ADAMS.
TO THE HON. WM. TUDOR.
_Quincy_, _September_ 10, 1818.
DEAR SIR,
The charters were quoted or alluded to by Mr. Otis frequently in the
whole course of his argument: but he made them also a more destined
and more solemn head of his discourse. And here, these charters ought
to be copied verbatim. But an immense verbiage renders it impossible.
Bishop Butler somewhere complains of this enormous abuse of words
in public transactions, and John Reed and Theophilus Parsons of
Massachusetts have attempted to reform it. So did James Otis; all
with little success. I hope, however, that their examples will be
followed, and that common sense in common language will, in time,
become fashionable. But the hope must be faint as long as clerks are
paid by the line and the number of syllables in a line.
Some passages of these charters must however, be quoted; and I will
endeavour to strip them as well as I can, of their useless words.
They are recited in the charter of king William and queen Mary, dated
the seventh day of October, in the third year of their reign, _i. e._
in 1691.
"Whereas king James the first, in the 18th year of his reign, did
grant to the council at Plymouth, for the planting and governing New
England, all that part of America, from the 40th to the 48th degree
of latitude, and from sea to sea, together with all sands, waters,
fishings, and all and singular other commodities, _jurisdictions_,
royalties, privileges, franchises and pre-eminences, both within the
said tract of land upon the main, and also within the islands and
seas adjoining: to have and hold, all, unto the said council, their
heirs and successors and assigns forever: to be holden of his said
majesty as of his manor of East Greenwich, in free and common socage,
and not in capite, or by knights' service.--Yielding to the king a
fifth part of the ore of gold and silver. _For and in respect of all
and all manner of duties, demands and services whatsoever._"
But I cannot pursue to the end this infinite series of words.--You
must read the charter again. For although you and I have read it
fifty times, I believe you will find it, as I do, much stronger in
favour of Mr. Otis's argument than I expected or you will expect. I
doubt whether you will take the pains to read it again; but your son
will, and to him I recommend it.
The council of Plymouth, on the 19th of March, in the 3d year of the
reign of Charles the first, granted to sir Henry Roswell and others,
part of New England by certain boundaries, with all the prerogatives
and privileges.
King Charles the first, on the 4th of March, in the fourth year of
his reign confirmed to sir Henry Roswell and others, all those lands
before granted to them by the council of Plymouth. King Charles the
first, created sir Henry Roswell and others, a body corporate and
politick. And said body politick, did settle a colony which became
very populous.
In 1684, in the 36th year of king William and queen Mary's _dearest
uncle_, Charles the second, a judgment was given in the court of
chancery, that the letters patent of Charles the first, should be
cancelled, vacated and annihilated.
The agents petitioned to be re-incorporated; I can easily conceive
their perplexity, their timidity, their uncertainty, their choice of
difficulties, their necessary preference of the least of a multitude
of evils: for I have felt them all, as keenly as they did.
William and Mary unite Massachusetts, New Plymouth, the Province of
Maine and Nova Scotia, into one province, to be holden in fee of the
manor of East Greenwich, paying one fifth of gold and silver ore.
Liberty of conscience to be granted to all Christians, except
papists. Good God! A grant from a king of liberty of conscience. Is
it not a grant of the King of Kings, which no puppet or royalist upon
earth can give or take away?
The general court impowered to erect judicatories and courts of
record. The general court impowered to make laws, "_not repugnant to
the laws of England_." Here was an unfathomable gulf of controversy.
The grant itself, _of liberty of conscience_, was repugnant to the
laws of England. Every thing was repugnant to the laws of England.
The whole system of colonization was beyond the limits of the laws of
England, and beyond the jurisdiction of their national legislature.
The general court is authorized to impose fines, &c. and taxes.
But the fell paragraph of all, is the proviso in these
words:--"Provided always, and it is hereby declared that nothing
herein shall extend or be taken to erect or grant, or allow the
exercise of any admiralty court jurisdiction, power, or authority,
but that the same shall be, and is hereby reserved to us and our
successors, and shall from time to time, be erected, granted and
exercised by virtue of commissions to be issued under the great
seal of England, or under the seal of the high admiral, or the
commissioners for executing the office of high admiral of England."
The history of this court of admiralty would require volumes.
Where are its records and its files? Its libels and answers? Its
interrogatories and cross interrogatories? All hurried away to
England, as I suppose never to be seen again in America, nor probably
to be inspected in Europe.
The records and files of the court of probate in Boston were
transported to Halifax. Judge Foster Hutchinson had the honour to
return them after the peace of 1783. But admiralty records have never
been restored as I have heard.
The subject may be pursued hereafter by your servant,
JOHN ADAMS.
TO THE HON. WM. TUDOR.
_Quincy_, _September_ 13, 1818.
DEAR SIR,
It is some consolation to find in the paragraph of the charter,
next following the court of admiralty, that nothing in it "shall
in any manner enure, or be taken to abridge, bar, or hinder any of
our loving subjects whatsoever, to use and exercise the trade of
fishing upon the coasts of New England, but that they and every of
them shall have full and free power and liberty to continue and use
their said trade of fishing upon the said coast, in any of the seas
thereunto adjoining, or any arms of the said seas, or salt water
rivers, where they have been wont to fish; and to build and sett,
upon the lands within our said province or colony, lying waste, and
not then possessed by particular proprietors, such wharfs, stages,
and work-houses, as shall be necessary for the salting, drying,
keeping and packing of their fish, to be taken and gotten upon that
coast; and to cut down and take such trees and other materials there
growing or being upon any parts or places lying waste, and not then
in possession of particular proprietors, as shall be needful for that
purpose, and for all other necessary easments, helps and advantages,
concerning the trade of fishing there, in such manner and form, as
they have been heretofore at any time accustomed to do, without
making any willful waste or spoil, any thing in these presents to the
contrary notwithstanding."
Fellow citizens! Recollect that "This our province or colony"
contained the whole of Nova Scotia as well as the "Province of
Maine, Massachusetts bay and New Plymouth." Will you ever surrender
one particle, one iota of this sacred charter right, and still
more sacred right of nature, purchase, acquisition, possession,
usage, habit and conquest? Let the thunder of British cannon say
what it will, I know you will not. I know you cannot. And if you
could be base enough to surrender it, which I know you cannot and
never will be, your sons will reclaim it, and redemand it, at the
price of whatever blood or treasure it may cost, and will obtain
it, secure it, and command it, forever. This pretended _grant_ is
but an acknowledgment of your antecedent right by nature, and by
English liberty. You have no power or authority to alienate it. It
was granted, or rather acknowledged to your successors and posterity
as well as to you, and any cessions you could make would be null and
void in the sight of God and all reasonable men.
Mr. Otis descanted largely on these charters. His observations
carried irresistible conviction to the minds and hearts of many
others as well as to mine, that every one of those statutes from the
navigation act, to the last act of trade, was a violation of all the
charters and compacts between the two countries, was a fundamental
invasion of our essential rights, and was consequently null and
void; that the legislatures of the colonies, and especially of
Massachusetts, had the sole and exclusive authority of legislation
and especially of taxation in America.
The indecision and inconsistency which appear in some of Mr. Otis's
subsequent writings is greatly to be regretted and lamented. They
resemble those of colonel Bland, as represented by Mr. Wirt. I wish I
had Col. Bland's pamphlet, that I might compare it with some of Mr.
Otis's.
I have too many daily proofs of the infirmity of my memory to pretend
to recollect Mr. Otis's reasoning in detail. If, indeed, I had a
general recollection of any of his positions, I could not express
them in that close, concise, nervous and energetic language, which
was peculiar to him, and which I never possessed.
I must leave you, sir, to make your own observations and reflections
upon these charters. But you may indulge me in throwing out a few
hints, rather as queries or topicks of speculation, than as positive
opinions. And here, though I see a wide field, I must make it narrow.
1. Mr. Bollan was a kind of learned man, and of indefatigable
research, and a faithful friend to America; though he lost all his
influence when his father-in-law governor and general Shirley went
out of circulation. This Mr. Bollan, printed a book very early on
the "rights of the colonies." I scarcely ever knew a book so deeply
despised. The English reviews would not allow it to be the production
of a rational creature. In America itself it was held in no esteem.
Otis himself, expressed in the house of representatives, in a public
speech, his contempt of it in these words: "Mr. Bollan's book is the
strangest thing I ever read; under the title of 'Rights of Colonies,'
he has employed one third of his work to prove that the world is
round; and another, that it turns round; and the last, that the pope
was a devil for pretending to give it to whom he pleased."
All this I regretted. I wished that Bollan had not only been
permitted, but encouraged to proceed. There was no doubt he would
have produced much in illustration of the ecclesiastical and
political superstition and despotism of the ages when colonization
commenced and proceeded. But Bollan was discouraged and ceased from
his labours.
What is the idea, Mr. Tudor, of British allegiance? And of European
allegiance? Can you, or rather will you analize it? At present, I
have demands upon me, which compel me to close abruptly, with the
usual regard of your friend,
JOHN ADAMS.
TO THE HON. WM. TUDOR.
_Quincy_, _September_ 18, 1818.
DEAR SIR,
The English doctrine of allegiance is so mysterious, fabulous and
enigmatical, that it is difficult to decompose the elements of which
it is compounded. The priests, under the Hebrew economy, especially
the sovereign pontiffs, were anointed with consecrated oil, which
was poured upon their heads in such profusion, that it ran down
their beards, and they were thence called "the Lord's anointed."
When kings were permitted to be introduced, they were anointed in
the same manner by the sovereign pontiff; and they too were called
"the Lord's anointed." When the pontiffs of Rome assumed the customs,
pomps and ceremonies of the Jewish priesthood, they assumed the
power of consecrating things, by the same ceremony of "holy oil."
The pope, who, as vicar of God, possessed the whole globe of earth
in supreme dominion and absolute property, possessed also the power
of sending the holy ghost wherever he pleased. To France it pleased
his holiness to send him in a phial of oil; to Rheims in the beak
of a dove. I have not heard, that my friend, Louis 18th. has been
consecrated at Rheims by the pouring on of this holy oil; but his
worthy elder brother, Louis 16th. was so consecrated at a vast
expense of treasure and ridicule. How the holy bottle was conveyed
to England, is worth inquiry. But there it is, and is used at every
coronation; and is demurely, if not devoutly shewn to every traveller
who visits the tower. These ideas were once as firmly established in
England, as they were in Rome; and no small quantity of the _relicks_
of them remain to this day. Hence the doctrines of the divine right
of kings, and the duties in subjects of unlimited submission,
passive obedience and non-resistance, on pain (Oh, how can I write
it) of eternal damnation. These doctrines have been openly and boldly
asserted and defended, since my memory, in the town of Boston, and
in the town of Quincy, by persons of no small consideration in the
world, whom I could name, but I will not, because their posterity are
much softened from this severity.
This indelible character of sovereignty in kings, and obedience
in subjects, still remains. The rights and duties are inherent,
unalienable, indefeasible, indestructible and immortal. Hence the
right of a lieutenant or midshipman of a British man of war, to
search all American ships, impress every seaman his judgeship shall
decree by law, and in fact to be a subject of his king, and compel
him to fight, though it may be against his father, brother or son.
My countrymen! will you submit to these miserable remnants of
priestcraft and despotism?
There is no principle of law or government, that has been more
deliberately or more solemnly adjudged in Great Britain, than that
allegiance is not due to the king in his official capacity or
political capacity, but merely to his personal capacity. Allegiance
to parliament is no where found in English, Scottish or British laws.
What, then, had our ancestors to do with parliament? Nothing more
than with the Jewish Sanhedrim, or Napoleon's literary and scientific
Institute at Grand Cairo. They owed no allegiance to parliament as
a whole, or in part. None to the house of lords, as a branch of the
legislature, nor to any individual peer or number of individuals.
None to the house of commons, as another branch, nor to any
individual commoner or group of commoners. They owed no allegiance
to the nation, any more than the nation owed to them; and they had
as good and clear a right to make laws for England, as the people of
England had to make laws for them.
What right, then, had king James 1st. to the sovereignty, dominion,
or property of North America? No more than king George 3d. has to
the Georgium Sidus, because Mr. Herschell discovered that planet
in his reign. His only colour, pretension or pretext is this. The
pope, as head of the church, was sovereign of the world. Henry 8th.
deposed him, became head of the church in England; and consequently
became sovereign master and proprietor of as much of the globe as
he could grasp. A group of his nobles hungered for immense landed
estates in America, and obtained from his _quasi holiness_ a large
tract. But it was useless and unprofitable to them. They must have
planters and settlers. The sincere and conscientious protestants
had been driven from England into Holland, Germany, Switzerland,
&c. by the terrors of stocks, pillories, croppings, scourges,
imprisonments, roastings and burnings, under Henry 8th. Elizabeth,
Mary, James 1st. and Charles 1st. The noblemen and gentlemen of the
council of Plymouth wanted settlers for their lands in America, and
set on foot a negotiation with the persecuted fugitive religionists
abroad, promised them liberty of conscience, exemption from all
jurisdiction, ecclesiastical, civil and political, except allegiance
to the king, and the tribute, moderate surely, of one fifth of gold
and silver ore. This charter was procured by the council at Plymouth,
and displayed off as a lure to the persecuted, fugitive Englishmen
abroad; and they were completely taken into the snare, as Charles 2d.
convinced them in the first year of his actual, and the twelfth of
his imaginary reign. Sir Josiah Child, enemy as he was, has stated,
in the paragraphs quoted from him in a former letter fairly and
candidly the substance of these facts.
Our ancestors had been so long abroad, that they had acquired
comfortable establishments, especially in Holland, that singular
region of toleration, that glorious asylum for persecuted Hugunots
and Puritans; that country where priests have been enternally
worrying one another; and alternately teazing the government to
persecute their antagonists, but where enlightened statesmen have
constantly and intrepidly resisted their wild fanaticism.
The first charter, the charter of James 1st. is more like a treaty
between independent sovereigns, than like a charter of grant of
privileges from a sovereign to his subjects. Our ancestors were
tempted by the prospect and promise of a government of their own,
independent in religion, government, commerce, manufactures,
and every thing else, excepting one or two articles of trifling
importance.
Independence of English church and state, was the fundamental
principle of the first colonization, has been its general principle
for two hundred years, and now I hope is past dispute.
Who then was the author, inventor, discoverer of independence? The
only true answer must be the first emigrants; and the proof of it
is the charter of James 1st. When we say, that Otis, Adams, Mayhew,
Henry, Lee, Jefferson, &c. were authors of independence, we ought to
say they were only awakeners and revivers of the original fundamental
principle of colonization.
I hope soon to relieve you from the trouble of this tedious
correspondence with your humble servant,
JOHN ADAMS.
TO THE HON. WM. TUDOR.
_Quincy_, _September_ 23, 1818.
DEAR SIR,
If, in our search of principles, we have not been able to investigate
any moral, philosophical or rational foundation for any claim of
dominion or property in America, in the English nation, their
parliament or even of their king; if the whole appears a mere
usurpation of fiction, fancy and superstition; what was the right to
dominion or property in the native Indians?
Shall we say, that a few handfulls of scattering tribes of savages
have a right to dominion and property over a quarter of the globe,
capable of nourishing hundreds of happy human beings? Why had not
Europeans a right to come and hunt and fish with them?
The Indians had a right to life, liberty and property in common with
all men; but what right to dominion or property beyond these? Every
Indian had a right to his wigwam, his armour, his utensils; when he
had burned the woods about him, and planted his corn and beans, his
squashes and pompions, all these were his undoubted right: but will
you infer from this, that he had right of exclusive dominion and
property, over immense regions of uncultivated wilderness, that he
never saw, that he might have the exclusive privilege of hunting and
fishing in them, which he himself never expected or hoped to enjoy?
These reflections appear to have occurred to our ancestors; and their
general conduct was regulated by them. They do not seem to have had
any confidence in their charter, as conveying any right, except
against the king, who signed it. They considered the right to be in
the native Indians. And in truth all the right there was in the case,
lay there. They accordingly respected the Indian wigwams and poor
plantations; their clambanks and musclebanks and oysterbanks, and all
their property.