The Massachusetts spy, or, Thomas's Boston journal (Boston [Mass.]), 1773-03-04 00:00:00

THE Massachusetts Spy
Or, Thomas's Boston Journal.
A Weekly, Political, and Commercial PAPER:--Open to ALL Parties, but Influenced by None.
DO THOU GREAT LIBERTY INSPIRE our Souls,--And make our Lives in THY Possession happy,--Or, our Deaths glorious in THY JUST Defence.
VOL. III.]
THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1773.
[NUMB. 109.
FRIDAY, February 26. LONDON.
The humble ADDRESS of the right honourable the Lords spiritual and temporal, in parliament assembled, to the King.
Die Jovis, 25 o Novembris, 1772.
MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN, B, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords spiritual and temporal, in parliament assembled, return our humble and most unfeigned thanks to your Majesty, for your most gracious speech from the throne.
"We gratefully acknowledge your Majesty's goodness, in the gracious assurances we have received, that your Majesty would have consulted our private convenience, if some very interesting public concerns had not required the early meeting of parliament.
"Your Majesty may be assured, that we will apply ourselves diligently to whatever may concern the commerce or revenue of the kingdom, or the rights and interest of any part of your Majesty's subjects: That we are thoroughly convinced the affairs of the East India company deserve and require our most serious consideration; and that we will not neglect an object of such national importance.
"Permit us, Sir, to express the happiness we feel, at having reason to hope, from the communication your Majesty has been pleased to make to us, that the war, which has so long prevailed in one part of Europe, is drawing to a conclusion: A happiness that is greatly increased, by the additional prospect it affords of the duration of peace; which, we trust, the alterations that have happened in Europe will not, in their consequences affect; being ever firmly persuaded, that your Majesty's uniform endeavours to preserve the general tranquility will be directed, on all occasions, by a due regard to the honour of your crown, and the interests of your people.
"With hearts deeply affected, we learn that the produce of the late harvest has not given the relief so essentially necessary to the poorer sort of your Majesty's subjects: And, conscious that we can do no act so acceptable to your Majesty, as exerting our utmost efforts to contribute to the ease and comfort of all your people; we beg leave to assure your Majesty, that this object, which your paternal care and tenderness have so particularly pointed out, shall engage our utmost attention."
HIS MAJESTY's most gracious ANSWER.
"MY LORDS, "I THANK you for this dutiful and affectionate address.
"Your zeal you express in it for the honour of my crown, and the rights and interests of my people, gives me the highest satisfaction.
"I firmly rely, that all your deliberations will tend to such measures as shall be most conducive to the great object you have before you. Among these I am sure, you will not forget to provide for the distresses of the poor, as far as it is in the power of human wisdom to alleviate them."
The humble ADDRESS of the House of Commons to the KING.
"MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
"WE, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, beg leave to return your Majesty our humble thanks, for your most gracious speech from the throne.
"We acknowledge, with the warmest gratitude your Majesty's great goodness, in your constant attention to whatever concerns either the commerce and revenue of your kingdom at large, or the private rights and interests of considerable numbers among your people. And we return our most dutiful thanks to your Majesty for having given us an early opportunity of informing ourselves fully of the true state of the affairs of the East India company: And assure your Majesty, that, impressed with a due sense of the great importance of the business, we will, without delay, proceed to the consideration of it; and endeavour to provide in the most effectual manner that the nature of the case will admit, for the common benefit and security of all the great and weighty interests recommended to our care by your Majesty.
"Your faithful commons cannot but rejoice, to hear that your Majesty has reason to hope,
that the war which has so long unhappily prevailed in one part of Europe, is now drawing to a conclusion; and that the favourable prospect of the duration of peace, which the probability of this event affords us, will not be affected by the alterations which have lately happened: And we feel the highest satisfaction, at the assurances, which your Majesty continues to receive from foreign powers, of their pacific dispositions towards this country; and at the same time we most gratefully acknowledge your Majesty's gracious declaration, that it will be your constant endeavour to preserve the general tranquility, as far as is consistent with the honour of your crown, and the interests of your people.
"Your Majesty may be assured, that your faithful commons will cheerfully grant such supplies as the services of the ensuing year shall require: And although we are convinced, that it must ever be for the interest and reputation of this country, to have a considerable strength at sea; yet we learn with much satisfaction, that your Majesty has been enabled, during the course of this year, to proceed in the reduction of your naval establishment.
"Permit us to offer to your Majesty our most humble and unfeigned thanks, for the paternal and affectionate concern, which your Majesty has expressed, for the distresses which the poor continue to suffer, from the dearness of corn. And we assure your Majesty, that a diligent attention shall not be wanting, on our part, to consider of the most proper means for preventing the increase of the evil; and for alleviating the present distresses, as far as they are in the nature capable of relief; being persuaded, that we cannot render any service more acceptable to your Majesty, than by contributing to the happiness of all your people."
HIS MAJESTY's most gracious ANSWER to the Address of the House of Commons:
"GENTLEMEN,
"I RETURN you my hearty thanks for this very dutiful address.
"The assurances you give me of your resolution to enter into the immediate consideration of the important affairs which I have recommended to you, afford me great satisfaction; and I have the fullest confidence, that you will endeavour, as far as lies in your power, to alleviate the distresses of my people, who are the constant objects of my care and affection.
MR. THOMAS, You are desired to publish the following from the New-York Journal.
AMONG the London news writers there are some whose publications have a tendency to sap the foundations of the English constitution, and by insensible degrees to prepare the minds of the people for the reception of arbitrary government. Every occurrence is so represented as to promote such a design, sometimes, to degrade the constitution, it is represented as a mere chimera, an empty name or notion; and that all other nations though, under the most arbitrary governments, are equally fond of their respective constitutions as we are of ours; so that there is no preference among them, but what is founded in national prejudice; at other times, the constitution itself is charged with the evils we suffer in consequence of its violation, such as riots and disorders, and the licentious freedom of the press, &c. occasioned by oppressions; also the disorders at elections, the inequality in parliamentary representation, the bribery and corrupt practices in the election of members, their continuance in office independent on the will of their constituents and numerous other cases that might be mentioned. At other times, in order to silence our complaints against those who are making daily encroachments upon our rights, the freedom and advantages we still enjoy, are compared with the oppression and misery of those nations which have long since yielded up their rights, and become the absolute slaves of tyrannical power; as if that power, if once completely established over us, would not have the same direful effects it has had in the other nations, once as free as we are.
At other times the most arbitrary and unconstitutional exertions of power, are represented as legal and right, and the most laudable efforts for the preservation of the most sacred rights of humanity are branded with the most odious epithets and represented a faction, rebellion, &c. It would be highly beneficial to the public if some gentlemen of leisure and ability would make it their business to detect and expose the mischievous writers, in order to counteract their malignity.
I was led into these reflections by reading some paragraphs in the London General Evening Post of the 5 th of September last, which I here with send, and desire you will insert them in your next paper together with the remarks subjoined, which will oblige your constant reader,
A Friend to Great Britain and her colonies.
"LONDON, September 5. It is exceedingly whimsical that though the English consider themselves as the only free nation in Europe, every other is equally captivated with its constitution. The Russians, whom we represent as miserable slaves, deplored their place to maintain their rights; and the Poles are at this moment glorying in the possession of their liberty, though three different armies belonging to different princes are contending for the subjection and death through a unfortunate country.
The state of that Polish gentry, who are at this moment scattered in a miserable exile through the principal cities of the continent is truly deplorable; their long civil dissensions have entirely exhausted all their ready money, and no returns are now to be expected from their estates. Their country is almost--in the hands of strangers, and they ice, though to late, that it is better even to have a despotic prince of their own, than to be under the government of a despotic enemy. The scarcity of money we hear, is so excessive, even in the neighbourhood of the great cities in Poland, that a fine horse is cheerfully sold for a ducat; the edible animals, however, are in a manner eaten up by various enemies. The grounds, likewise, remain uncultivated and all the horrors of a speedy famine threaten with the calamities of civil war to complete the destruction of the wretched inhabitants *
* Whether this writer was himself deceived or intended to deceive others, I know not, but he certainly misrepresents the matter in hand. Every nation is naturally fond of their own customs and manners so far as they are just and reasonable, and have contributed to their profit or pleasure: and are content to bear many inconveniences and hardships rather than to change their situation, not knowing perhaps that any other is more desirable, or that a change might not be for the worse. But no nation was ever fond of any custom or thing merely because it gave them pain or uneasiness, though sometimes they would chuse to endure those evils for the sake of some real or imaginary good connected with it. But none chuses evil, that is pain or uneasiness, merely for its own sake: nor do any refuse good (that is pleasure or happiness) but on account of the real or imaginary pain that is to precede or follow it. Thus the Russians accustomed to the yoke of slavery, and by a tyrannical power kept in ignorance of many of their natural rights, are sensible however of some, and enjoy them perhaps with a higher relish in proportion to the smallness of their number; and therefore would resent and punish an attempt to violate them as severely as if they were in every respect a free people. As to the Poles they may thank themselves for all the distress and misery of their unhappy country, they have brought it to destruction, and are at last involved in it themselves, and all by the very same tyrannical principles, which this writer endeavours to inculcate, and which the generality of the nobility and gentry of Great Britain are at this time acting upon, and pur-
The Boston patriots are again amusing themselves in fomenting a quarrel with the mother country; the crown has it seems lately judiciously made its Governor independent on the American assemblies. That has greatly nettled the Fabii and Decii of Massachusetts Bay; they insist that the King's maintaining the Governor's establishment, is an inversion of their constitution, and they have spiritedly voted the English ministers, who gave that advice, little less than traitors to the crown, and enemies, to the people.
One would imagine, at a first glance, that the Boston patriots ought to rejoice at their being exonerated from the expence of the Governor's establishment; but the truth is, while the Governor was dependant upon them, they actually were governors themselves. If he refused to pass such bills as they ordered, they refuse to allow him any salary; so that he was generally starved into compliance, and the officer of the crown obliged, in most things, to counteract the very views of his master †
† Upon the same principles, this writer next endeavours to entertain the public at the expence of the people of Boston, whom he sneeringly calls the Boston patriots, and says are again amusing themselves in fomenting a quarrel with their mother country. If the Boston people in the contention with their mother country aim at nothing but the preservation of their just rights, and proceed in the most prudent and peaceable methods they can devise, they undoubtedly deserve to be honoured and esteemed as real patriots by every true friend to England and its excellent constitution. If the most important rights of the people of Boston are unjustly invaded, and they in their own defence, are only endeavouring to maintain them in the most peaceable manner possible, it is most injurious to represent them as sowers of a quarrel with their mother country.
He says the crown has judiciously made its Governors independent of the American assemblies, &c. the event will shew whether this was judiciously done or not; at present I think the people in America who are most deeply and immediately concerned are more likely to judge rightly of the measure, than either this writer or the ministry. Let any man of common understanding judge whether a Governor whose interest depends upon and is united with that of the people over whom he presides, or one who is unconnected with them in interest and wholly independent of them, is most likely to use his endeavours to promote their interest and happiness? Would the people of Great Britain be pleased to be governed by a King thus unconnected with and independent of them? If not, why should they imagine that their brethren in America, entitled to the very same rights and privileges, should be satisfied with such a Governor? Or that forcing such a one upon them is not an inversion of their constitution or that the ministers who advised the measure, were not guilty of a high breach of duty to the crown and to the people?
He says, at first glance one would imagine the Boston patriots ought to rejoice at being exonerated from the expence of the Governor's establishment, &c. It must be a very
[For the remainder see the last page.]

THURSDAY, March 4. BOSTON.
On Tuesday last the House of Representatives ordered the following MESSAGE to the Governor, and yesterday the same was delivered to his Excellency, in the Council-Chamber, by Mr. Hancock, Mr. Gorham, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Greenleaf, Mr. Heath, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Nye, Mr. Brown of Watertown, and Mr. Gardner.
May it please your Excellency,
IN your speech at the opening of the present session, your Excellency expressed your displeasure at some late proceedings of the town of Boston and other principal towns in the province. And in another speech to both houses, we have your repeated exceptions at the same proceedings as being "unwarrantable," and of "a dangerous nature and tendency," against which you thought yourself bound to call upon us to join with you in bearing a proper testimony." This house have not discovered any principles advanced by the town of Boston that are unwarrantable by the constitution; nor does it appear to us that they have "invited every other town and district in the province to adopt" their principles. We are fully convinced that it is our duty to bear our testimony against "innovations of a dangerous nature and tendency." But it is clearly our opinion that it is the indisputable right of all, or any of his Majesty's subjects, in this province regularly and orderly to meet together to state the grievances they labour under, and to propose and unite in such constitutional measures as they shall judge necessary or proper to obtain redress. This right has been frequently exercised by his Majesty's subjects within the realm; and we do not recollect an instance, since the happy revolution, when the two houses of parliament have been called upon to discountenance or bear their testimony against it, in a speech from the throne.
Your Excellency is pleased to take notice of some things which we "allege" in our answer to your first speech; and the observation you make, we must confess, is as natural and as undeniably true, as any one that could have been made; that "if our foundation should fail us in every part of it, the fabric we have raised upon it, must certainly fall." You think this foundation will fail us; but we wish your Excellency had condescended to a consideration of what we have "adduced in support of our principles." We might then perhaps have had some things offered for our conviction more than bare affirmations; which, we must beg to be excused if we say, are far from being sufficient, though they come with your Excellency's authority, for which however we have a due regard.
Your Excellency says, that "as English subjects, and agreeable to the doctrine of the feudal tenure all our lands are held immediately or immediately of the crown." We trust your Excellency does not mean to introduce the feudal system in its perfection; which to use the words of one of our greatest historians, was "a state of perpetual war, anarchy and confusion; calculated solely for defence against the assaults of any foreign power, but in its provision for the interior order and tranquility of society extremely defective." "A constitution so contradictory to all the principles that govern mankind could never be brought about but by foreign conquest or native usurpation." And a very celebrated writer calls it "that most iniquitous and absurd form of government by which human nature was so shamefully degraded." This system of iniquity, by a strange kind of fatality, "though originally formed for an encampment and for military purposes only, spread over a great part of Europe;" and to serve the purposes of oppression and tyranny "was adopted by princes and wrought into their civil constitutions;" and aided by the canon law, calculated by the Roman Pontiff, to exalt himself above all that is called God, it prevailed to the almost utter extinction of knowledge, virtue, religion and liberty from that part of the earth. But from the time of the reformation, in proportion as knowledge which then darted its rays upon the benighted world, increased and spread among the people, they grew impatient under this heavy yoke; and the most virtuous and sensible among them, to whose steadfastness we in this distant age and climate are greatly indebted, were determined to get rid of it; and though they have in a great measure subdued its power and influence in England, they have never yet totally eradicated its principles.
Upon these principles the King claimed an absolute right to and a perfect estate in all the lands within his dominions; but how he came by this absolute right and perfect estate is a mystery which we have never seen unravelled, nor is it our business or design at present to enquire. He granted parts or parcels of it to his friends the great men, and they granted lesser parcels to their tenants: All therefore derived their right and held their lands upon these principles, immediately or immediately of the King; which Mr. Blackstone, however calls "in reality a mere fiction of our English tenures."
By what right in nature and reason the christian princes in Europe claimed the lands of heathen people, upon a discovery made by any of their subjects, is equally mysterious: Such however was the doctrine universally prevailing when the lands in America were discovered; but as the people of England upon those principles held all the lands they possessed by grants from the King, and the King had never granted the lands in America to them, it is certain they could have no sort of claim to them: Upon the principles advanced, the lordship and dominion, like that of the lands in England, was in the King solely; and a right from thence accrued to him of disposing such territories, under such tenure and for such services to be performed, as the King or Lord thought proper. But how the grantees become subjects of England, that is the supreme authority of the parliament, your Excellency has not explained to us. We conceive that upon the feudal principles all power is in the King; they afford us no idea of parliament. "The Lord was in early times the legislator and judge over all his feudatories," says judge Blackstone. By the struggles for liberty in England from the days of King John to the last happy revolution, the constitution has gradually been changing for the better; and upon the more rational principles that all men by nature are in a state of equality in respect of jurisdiction and dominion, power in England has been more equally divided. And thus also in America, though we hold our lands agreeable to the feudal principles of the King, yet our predecessors wisely took care to enter into compact with the King, that power here should also be equally divided; agreeable to the original fundamental principles of the English constitution, declared in Magna Charta, and other laws and statutes of England, made to confirm them.
Your Excellency says, "you can by no means concede to us that it is now or was when the plantations were first granted the prerogative of the Kings of England to constitute a number of new governments altogether independent of the sovereign authority of the English Empire." By the feudal principles upon which you say "all the grants which have been made of America are founded" "the constitutions of the Emperor have the force of law." If our government be considered as merely feudal, we are subject to the King's absolute will, and there is no room for the authority of parliament, as the sovereign authority of the British empire. Upon these principles, what could hinder the King's constituting a number of independent governments in America? That King Charles the first did actually set up a government in this colony, conceding to it, powers of making and executing laws, without any reservation to the English parliament, of authority to make future laws, binding therein, is a fact, which your Excellency has not disproved if you have denied it. Nor have you shown that the parliament or nation objected to it; from whence we have inferred that it was an acknowledged right. And we cannot conceive, why the King has not the same right to alienate and dispose of countries acquired by the discovery of his subjects, as he has to "restore upon a treaty of peace, countries which have been acquired in war," carried on at the charge of the nation; or to "sell or deliver up any part of his dominions to a foreign prince or state, against the general sense of the nation;" which is "an act of power," or prerogative which your Excellency allows. You tell us that, "when any new countries are discovered by English subjects, according to the general law and usage of nations, they become part of the state." The law of nations is, or ought to be founded on the law of reason. It was a saying of Sir Edwin Sandys, in the great case of the union of the realm of Scotland with England, which is applicable to our present purpose, that "there being no precedent for this case in the law, the law is deficient; and the law being deficient, recourse is to be had to custom; and custom being insufficient we must recur to natural reason," the greatest of all authorities, which he adds, "is the law of nations." The opinions
therefore and determinations of the greatest sages and judges of the law, in the Exchequer chamber ought not to be considered as decisive or binding in our present controversy with your Excellency, any further than they are consonant to natural reason. If however we were to recur to such opinions and determinations we should find many great authorities in our favour, to show that the statutes of England are not binding on those who are not represented in Parliament there. The opinion of Lord Coke that Ireland was bound by statutes of England wherein they were named, if compared with his other writings appears manifestly to be grounded upon a supposition that Ireland had by an act of their own, in the reign of King John consented to be thus bound; and upon any other supposition this opinion would be against reason; for consent only gives human laws their force. We beg leave upon what your Excellency has observed of the colony becoming a part of the state, to subjoin the opinions of several learned civilians, as quoted by a very able lawyer in this country. "Colonies, says Puffendorf, are settled in different methods. For either the colony continues a part of the common wealth it was sent out from; or else is obliged to pay a dutiful regard to the mother common wealth, and to be in readiness to defend and vindicate its honour and so is united by a sort of unequal confederacy; or lastly, is erected into a separate common-wealth and assumes the same rights with the state it descended from." And King Tullius, as quoted by the same learned author from Grotius says "we look upon it to be neither truth nor justice that mother cities ought of necessity and by the law of nature to rule over the colonies."
Your Excellency has misinterpreted what we have said, that no "country by the common law, was subject to the laws or the parliament but the realm of England," and are pleased to tell us that we have expressed ourselves "incautiously." We beg leave to recite the words of the judges of England, in the before mentioned case to our purpose. "If a King go out of England with a company of his servants, allegiance remaineth among his subjects and servants, although he be out of his realm ubera et his laws are confined ." We did not mean to say, as your Excellency would suppose, that "the common law prescribes limits to the extent of the legislative power," though we shall always affirm it to be true of the law of reason and natural equity. Your Excellency thinks you have made it appear, "that the colony of Massachusetts Bay is holden as feudatory of the imperial crown of England" and therefore you say "to use the words of a very great authority in a case in some respects analogous to it" "being feudatory it necessarily follows that it is under the government of the king's laws." Your Excellency has not named this authority, but we conceive his meaning must be, that being feudatory, it is under the government of the King's laws absolutely; for as we have before said the feudal system admits of no idea of the authority of parliament: And this would have been the case of the colony but for the compact with the King in the charter.
Your Excellency says, that "Persons thus holding under the Crown of England, remain or become subjects of England;" by which we suppose your Excellency to mean, subject to the supreme authority of parliament "to all intents and purposes as fully as if any of the royal manors, &c. within the realm had been granted to them upon the like tenure." We apprehend, with submission, your Excellency is mistaken in supposing that our allegiance is due to the crown of England. Every man swears allegiance for himself, to his own king in his natural person. "Every subject is presumed by law to be sworn to the King, which is to his natural person," says Lord Coke. Rep. on Caluin's Case "The allegiance is due to his natural body." And he says, "In the reign of Edward II. the Spencers the father and the son, to cover the treason hatched in their hearts, invented this damnable and damned opinion, that Homage and oath of allegiance was more by reason of the King's crown, that is of his politic capacity, than by reason of the person of the King; upon which opinion they inferred execrable and detestable consequences." The judges of England, all but one, in the case of the union between Scotland and England, declared that "allegiance followeth the natural person not the politic," and "to prove the allegiance to be tied to the body natural of the King and not to the body politic, the Lord Coke cited the phrases of divers statutes, mentioning our natural liege sovereign ." If then the homage and allegiance is not to the body politic of the King, then it is not to him as the head or any part of that legislative authority which your Excellency says, "is equally extensive with the authority of the crown throughout every part of the dominions," and your Excellency's observation thereupon must fail. The same judges mention the allegiance of a subject to the Kings
of England; which is perfectly reconcilable with the principles of our ancestors, quoted before from your Excellency's History, but upon your Excellency's principles appears to us to be an absurdity. The judges, speaking of a subject, say, "Although his birth were out of the bounds of the kingdom of England, and out of the reach and extent of the laws of England, yet if it were within the allegiance of the King of England, &c. Normandy, Aquitain, Gascoyne, and other places within the limits of France, and consequently out of the realm or bounds of the Kingdom of England, were in subjection to the Kings of England. And the judges say " Ratio Regni be not so relatives, as a king can be king but of one kingdom, which clearly holdeth not but that his kingly power extending to diverse nations and kingdoms, all owe him equal subjection and are equally born to the benefit of his protection and although he is to govern them by their distinct laws, yet any one of the people coming into the other is to have the benefit of the laws where soever he cometh." So they are not to be deemed aliens, as your Excellency in your first speech supposes, in any of the dominions; all which accords with the principles our ancestors held. "And he is to bear the burdens and taxes of the place where he cometh; but living in one, or for his livelihood in one, he is not to be taxed in the other, because laws or drain taxes, impositions and charges as a discipline of subjection particularized to every particular nation." Nothing we think can be more clear to our purpose than this decision, of judges, perhaps as learned as ever adorned the English nation; or in favour of America in her present controversy with the mother state.
Your Excellency says, that "by our not distinguishing between the crown of England and the Kings and Queens of England in their personal or natural capacities, we have been led into a fundamental error." Upon this very distinction we have availed ourselves. We have said that our ancestors considered the land which they took possession of in America, as out of the bounds of the kingdom of England, and out of the reach and extent of the laws of England; and that the King also, even in the act of granting the charter, considered the territory as not within the realm; that the King had an absolute right in himself to dispose of the lands, and that this was not disputed by the nation, nor could the lands on any solid grounds be claimed by the nations and therefore our ancestors received the lands by grant from the King, and at the same time compacted with him and promised him homage and allegiance, not in his public or politic, but natural capacity only. It is difficult for us to show how the King acquired a title to this country in his natural capacity, or separate from his relation to his subjects, which we confess, yet we conceive it will be equally difficult for your Excellency to show how the body politic and nation of England acquired it. Our ancestors supposed it was acquired by neither: And therefore they declared as we have before quoted from your History, that saving their actual purchase from the natives of the soil, the dominion, the lordship and sovereignty, they had in the right of God and man, no right or title to what they possessed. How much clearer then in natural reason and equity must our title be, who hold estates duly purchased at the expence of our own as well as our ancestors labour, and defended by them with treasure and blood!
Your Excellency has been pleased to confirm rather than deny or confute a piece of history which you say we took from an anonymous pamphlet, and by which you fear we have been too easily misled. It may be gathered from your own declaration and other authorities before the anonymous pamphlet, that the House of Commons took exception, not at the King's having made an absolute grant of the territory, but at the claim of an exclusive right to the fishery on the banks and sea coasts, by virtue of the patent. At this you say "the House of Commons was alarmed, and a bill was brought in for allowing a free fishery." And upon this occasion your Excellency allows, that "one of the Secretaries of State declared that the plantations were not annexed to the crown, and so were not within the jurisdiction of parliament." If we should concede to what your Excellency supposes might possibly, or "perhaps" be the case, that the Secretary made this declaration "as his own opinion," the event showed that it was the opinion of the King too; for it is not to be accounted for upon any other principle, that he would have denied his royal assent to a bill so med for no other purpose but to grant his subjects in England the privilege of fishing on the sea coasts in America. The account published by Sir Ferdinando Gorges himself, of the proceedings of parliament on this occasion, your Excellency thinks "will remove all doubt of the sense of the nation and of the patentees of this patent or charter in 1620." This narrative you say has all the appearance of truth and sincerity, which we do not deny: And to us it "carries this conviction with it," that "what was objected" in parliament was, the exclusive claim of fishing only: His "imagining that he had satisfied the house, after diverse attendances, that the planting a colony was of much more consequence than a simple disorderly course of fishing, is sufficient for our conviction. We know that the nation was at that time alarmed with apprehensions of monopolies; and if the patent of New England was presented by the two houses as a grievance, it did not show, as your Excellency supposes, "the sense they then had of their authority over this new acquired territory," but only their sense of the grievance of a monopoly of the sea.

We are happy to hear your Excellency say, that "our remarks upon and construction of the words not repugnant to the laws of England are much the same with those of the council." It serves to confirm us in our opinion, and in what we take to be the most important matter of difference between your Excellency and the two houses. After saying that the statute of 7th and 8th of William and Mary favours the construction of the words as intending such laws of England as are made more immediately to affect us, you tell us that "the province Agent Mr. Dummer, in his much applauded defence says, that then a law of the plantation may be said to be repugnant to a law made in Great Britain when it flatly contradicts it so far as the law made there mentions and relates to the plantation." This is plain and obvious to common sense; and therefore cannot be denied. But if your Excellency will read a page or two further in that excellent defence you will see that he mentions this as the sense of the phrase as taken from an act of parliament, rather than as the sense he would chuse himself to put upon it; and he expressly designs to shew in vindication of the charter that in that sense of the words, there never was a law made in the plantations repugnant to the laws of Great Britain. He gives another construction much more likely to be the true intent of the words, namely, "that the patentees shall not presume under colour of their particular charters to make any Laws inconsistent with the great charter and other laws of England by which the lives liberties and properties of Englishmen are secured." This is the sense in which our ancestors understood the words and therefore they were unwilling to conform to the acts of trade, and disregarded them till they made provision to give them force in the colony by a law of their own; saying that "the laws of England did not reach America," and "those acts were an invasion of their rights, liberties and properties" because they were not "represented in parliament." The right of being governed only by laws which were made by persons in whose election they had a voice, they looked upon as the foundation of English liberties. By the compact with the King in the charter they were to be as free in America, as they would have been if they had remained within the realm, and therefore they freely asserted that they "were to be governed by laws made by themselves and by officers chosen by themselves." Mr. Dummer says "it seems reasonable enough to think that the crown," and he might have added our ancestors, "intended by this injunction to provide for all its subjects that they might not be oppressed by arbitrary power—but—being still subjects, they should be protected by the same mild laws, and enjoy the same happy government as if they continued within the realm." And considering the words of the charter in this light he looks upon them as designed to be a fence against oppression and despotick power. But the construction which your Excellency puts upon the words reduces us to a state of vassalage, and exposes us to oppression and despotick power whenever a parliament shall see fit to make laws for that purpose and put them in execution.
We flatter ourselves that from the large extracts we have made from your Excellency's 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 recur 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 been for some years before 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 declaring 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 the giving force to an act of parliament within this province, by
a 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 authority of parliament, and voted that their Governor 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, shew their explicit acknowledgment of the authority of parliament? Does it not rather show directly the contrary? For what need 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 oath? We do not deny, but on the contrary are fully persuaded that your Excellency's principles in government are still 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 in to 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 that they shewed the wrong sense they had, in your Excellency's opinion, of the relation they stood in to England. Your Excellency in your second speech condescends to point out to us the acts and doings of the general assembly which relate 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 shews that it was the sense of the nation and our predecessors, when they first took possession of this plantation or colony by a grant or charter from the crown, that they were to remain subject to the supreme authority of the English parliament.
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 first, 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 Queen Mary as successors of Charles the first, in the room of King James. Besides it is to be considered, that the people in the colony as well as in England had suffered under the TYRANT James, by which he had alike forfeited his right to reign over both. There had been a revolution here as well as in England. The eyes of the people here were upon William and Mary and the news of their being proclaimed in England was, as your Excellency's history tells us, "the most joyful news ever received in New England." And if they were not proclaimed here "by virtue of an act of the colony," it was, as we think may be concluded from the tenor of your history, with the general or universal consent of the people as apparently as if "such act had passed." It is consent alone that makes any human laws binding, and as a learned author observes a purely voluntary submission to an act, because it is highly in our favour and for our benefit is in all equity and justice to be deemed as not at all proceeding from the right we include in the legislature, 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 the 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 legislature, 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 consequently without our consent, and as it
may probably happen destructive of the first law of society, the good of the whole. You tell us, that "after the assumption of all the powers of government, by virtue of the new charter, an act passed for reviving for a limited time, all the local laws of the Massachusetts-Bay and New-Plymouth, respectively, not repugnant to the laws of England." And at the same session an act passed establishing naval officers, that all undue trading contrary to an act of parliament may be prevented." Among the acts that were then revived, we may reasonably suppose, was that whereby provision was made to give force to this act of parliament in the province. The establishment therefore of naval officers was to aid the execution of an act of parliament, for the observance of which, within the colony, the assembly had before made provision after free debates, with their own consent and by their own acts.
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 and 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 the 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 politic societies of men, belonging so properly to the same intire 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 consent, when that society whereof we be a part hath at any time before consented." We think your Excellency has not proved, either that this 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 whatever, whether made expressly to refer to us or not.
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 Excellency'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 are subject to the king as the head alterius populi , of another people, in whose legislative they have no voice or interest. They are indeed said to have a constitution and a legislation of their own, but your Excellency has explained it into a mere phantom, limited, controuled, superceded and nullified at the will of another. Is this the constitution which so charmed our ancestors, that as your Excellency has informed us, they kept a day of solemn thanksgiving to almighty God when they received it? And were they men of so little discernment, such 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 legislative at 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.
Last Wednesday the following RESOLVES passed the house of Representatives.
Resolved , That the admitting any authority to make laws binding on the people of this province in all cases whatever, lying the Great and General Court or Assembly, is inconsistent with the spirit of our free constitution; and repugnant to one of the most essential clauses in our charter, whereby the inhabitants are intitled to all the liberties of free and natural born subjects to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever, as if they had been born within the realm of England. It reduces the people to the absolute will and disposal of a legislative, in which they can have no voice, and who may make it their interest to oppress and enslave them.
Resolved , That by the royal charter aforesaid, the General Court or Assembly hath full power and authority to impose and levy proportionable and reasonable assessments, rates and taxes upon the estates and persons of all and every the proprietors and inhabitants of the province, to be issued and disposed of by warrant under the hand of the Governor with the advice and consent of the council, for his Majesty's service, in the necessary defence and support of the government of the province and the protection and preservation of the inhabitants there; according to such acts as are or shall be of force within the province. And the making provision for the support of the Governor and the judges, otherwise than by the grants and acts of the General Court or Assembly, is a violent breach of the aforesaid most important clause in the charter. The support of government, in which their support is included being one of their principal purposes, for which the clause was instituted.
Whereas the independence as well as the uprightness of the judges of the land, is essential to the impartial administration of justice, and one of the best securities of the rights, liberties and properties of the people.
Resolved therefore , That, the making the judges of the land independent of the grants of the people, and altogether on the crown, as they will be, if while they hold their commissions during pleasure they accept of salaries from the crown, is unconstitutional; and destructive of that security which every good member of civil society has a just right to be assured of under the due exertion of the laws: And is directly the reverse of the constitution and appointment of the judges in G. Britain.
Resolved , That the dependence of the judges of the land on the crown for their support, tends at all times, and especially while they hold their commission during pleasure to the subversion of justice and equity, and to introduce oppression and despotic power.
Resolved , as the opinion of this House that while the Justices of the Superior Court hold their commissions during pleasure, any one of them who shall accept of and depend on the pleasure of the crown for his support, independent of the grants and acts of the General Assembly, will discover to the world, that he has not a due sense of the importance of an impartial administration of justice, that he is an enemy to the constitution, and has it in his heart to promote the establishment of an arbitrary government in the province.
The above RESOLVES were passed by a division of sixty-three to nineteen.
A worthy and patriotick member of the B—d, having yesterday made a motion for postponing to the next day, the consideration of a publication in Edes & Gill's paper of last Monday, brought on by the G—d. That great lawyer, who has lately made so respectable a figure in his public controversy with John Adams, Esq. the polite, the undismaying, the steady, the valorous and redoubtable G—d B—d had the courage at that time to risk his nose, by declaring to the honourable member, that if he himself had issued such a motion, he might well be deemed an enemy to the Governor and to the King.
We hear the oration in commemoration of the horrid massacre in Boston March 5th 1770, by a party of the 29th regiment under the command of Capt. Preston, will be delivered on the morrow by Dr. Church, agreeable to a vote of the town, notwithstanding the late efforts of the Governor to prevent it.
Many articles of Intelligence, Deaths, &c. with E. LUDLOW, and several other political pieces and a number of NEW Advertisements, we are obliged to omit.
To Mr. HUTCHINSON.
IT is no doubt a fore trial to one in your situation to see the commemoration of that bloody cruel and tragical scene of the fifth of March annually revived; whatever reason you have to think it "tends to disturb administration, or inflame the minds of the people"; be it known to you and your infamous junto, that no thing has a greater tendency to inflame the minds of the good people of this province than the fears and horrors of slavery: You may rest assured, that the friends of liberty are determined, in despite of your endeavours, or ministerial instructions to keep up the memory of that bloody scene to eternal shame, and disgrace of that ignominious administration and its abettors. And when you are pleased, on your part to show yourself disposed to seek the good, welfare and happiness of this people in practice, and not in profession only, you will find the people on their part disposed to yield obedience to a wise and just government, that protects them in the security of their lives, and uninterrupted enjoyment of their liberties.
The PEOPLE.

The people of Boston lay great stress on their charters, derived from the crown, as a British parliament had not a legal right to annul all charters prejudicial to the interests of England. If the King's acts are to bind this nation, the pope may lay a claim with as much propriety to the crown of England, for it was solemnly surrendered to him by our John, and received again as the gracious donative only of the papacy.
The people of the Massachusetts-Bay should consider, that it is the obvious interest of the colonies to be subject to the crown of Great-Britain, and to the person of the King; for in the last case they will have a sovereign without a protector, and be, like Hanover at present obliged to stand upon their own bottom against all the attacks of their enemies: whereas in the first, the British nation will be their guardian, and defend them in the just possession of their liberties.
The C—mission Court, appointed to try the act of rebellion lately committed in New-England, by the burning his Majesty's schooner the Gaspée, gives great offence to the friends of Boston in this country; and we may therefore imagine, that when the news of it reaches the faints of that city, they will immediately enter into resolutions declaring their privileges absolutely superior to the royal prerogative. [Are they not at least equal to it?]
Superficial glance of thought indeed that could form so unreasonable a conclusion, as that the want of the only bond of connection between the Governor and his people should to them be a desirable circumstance; but even if this saving of the expence, should be so, would this writer pretend that the people will have even that saving to console them? Does he not know or does he think the people do not know, that all the money is unconstitutionally extorted from them for the payment of the governor and all the dependants on the crown in America? So that the people pay not only as much, but a great deal more than before, with the additional mortification of having it forced from their hands, to support their oppressors whom they consider as enemies to the interest and constitution of their country, who riot on their spoils and return them insults instead of thanks for the plunder of their property.
† Every British colony with respect to this matter, is in the same situation as the province of Massachusetts-Bay. The King, as invested with authority by the whole nation, which gave a sanction to his action, gave a charter, that is made a contract with the colonists, on the faith of which they trusted the lives and fortunes of themselves and their posterity. This charter warrants to the settlers in America, and their posterity, all the rights and privileges of natural born subjects of England, residing within the realm. The colonists performed the contract on their parts, nor have they done any thing since to forfeit their rights. (if it was possible to forfeit them which I do not admit) With what colour of right or justice then, could the parliament of Great Britain have a legal power to dissolve the charter? The whole people of Great-Britain in the King, are parties to the charter, and have no more right to dissolve it, than one of the parties to any other obligation has to dissolve such obligation. A natural born subject of Great Britain, residing within the realm, has a right to the sole disposal of his property, nor can it be legally taken from him without his own consent or his representative (freely chosen by himself for that purpose) in parliament. Several other rights equally important are possessed by such a subject residing in England, and therefore the same belong to every British American, and they neither contend for nor desire any think more; nor can the full enjoyment of all those rights be at all prejudicial to the interest of England.
But though I have mentioned only the charter rights of the British colonies, their rights really stand upon a much more solid and permanent foundation, even the law of God himself, inseparably connected with, and inherent in the nature he has given us. However it is not necessary now to discuss this point.
† If the colonies enjoy their just and full rights, they will consider themselves as a part of the British empire, as beneficial to the rest, as one part of England is to another, and therefore for the joint benefit of the whole, entitled to protection from the whole, though not as an inferior, at all dependent upon any other part, and in this relation, and this alone, the colonies stand to the mother country.
PROCEEDINGS of the town of KITTERY. To the respectable town of Boston.
KITTERY, January 7th. 1773.
GENTLEMEN,
THE inhabitants of the town of Kittery in town meeting regularly assembled this day, having duly considered your letter of November 29, 1772, containing your sentiments, upon the many publick grievances that we in this province labour under, and upon the communication thereof to this town, find the same opinion, prevailing here, as indeed they must be manifest to every one who is not blinded by interest of some kind or another; and without going into any other particular at this time, but that which has lately took place, namely the independency of the judges of the Superior Court, in reply to which we are constrained to say, is very alarming, and cannot from the best acquaintance we have of our constitutional rights, but think it a dangerous and threatening symptom, and from all the information we can obtain are led to suspect that this appointment took its rise more from party spirit and opposition than the welfare of the province.
We shall be ready to stand by the respectable town of Boston, in every lawful undertaking, for the recovery of many ancient privileges which seem to be wrested from us, and are willing to offer even our lives as a sacrifice in the glorious cause of liberty, if there should be even an occasion.
It is with gratitude we reflect upon the many struggles you have had for the common good, and rely upon your future vigilance and care of our publick rights; may Heaven direct and succeed your manly and virtuous attempts to save a sinking country, and that as we apprehend it is the cause of truth and justice, you are engaged in, may God grant that you finally prevail, &c.
In behalf and by order of said town, Voted nemine contradicente. WILLIAM LEIGHTON, Town Clerk.
For the MASSACHUSETTS SPY. Mr. THOMAS. You are desired to insert the following copy of a letter in your paper. County of Cumberland, in the province of New-York, Feb. 10th. 1773.
SIR,
HAVING but just time to write you a few lines, I think I cannot employ it to better purpose than acquainting you, that the designing and monopolizing land jobbers are again at work, and have another plan on foot. Because, as it is said, his Excellency Governor Tryon is restricted by his Majesty from granting any more of those lands, upon Connecticut river and contiguous thereto, which were heretofore granted by the late Governor Wentworth and which were lately ceded to New-York, they have been circulating a petition for the inhabitants of said lands to sign; therein praying his Excellency that he would use his influence to obtain, that his Majesty would graciously be pleased to give orders that all the above said land, that has not been; may be patented by New-York under the great seal thereof, upon half fees. * In consequence whereof a considerable number, three or four hundred (as it is said) have signed said petition, and it is now forwarded to New-York, and as it may perhaps be represented to his Excellency, as being a petition of the most reputable interested persons concerned in those lands, and that his Excellency may not be deceived in so important an affair, and that so unfair and unjust a proceeding, may prove abortive in the very embryo, it is absolutely necessary that it be made known to him, that many of said petitioners (if not the major part of them) consists of minors and persons who no ways at present are owners of any of said lands, and some who never knew the nature or consequence of said petition, but were totally ignorant thereof — and of some who have no interest or residence except in towns
* Whole fees, with contingent charges, is said to be about Fifteen Hundred dollars! per township, some say more, some less! — For those land jobbing gentry do not all agree in their stories, though the honest peasant is obliged to be obsequious to them, under pain of the highest displeasure, viz. losing all their lands, being from two to three hundred miles from the seat of JUSTICE.
already patented, and of others who signed from quite different views and ends, than those expressed in the petition. And as his Excellency Governor Tryon is represented to be a gentleman of candour, truth and justice—an opportunity now presents for him to support that character, by causing a fair and impartial enquiry to be made into the characters and interests of those petitioners, or whether it be the general voice of the people, or whether it will not upon examination, demonstratively appear that it is only a scheme, characteristical of the persons first mentioned. But if such a method of proceeding should not be deemed eligible, whether or no a suitable time ought not to be given to the people for a petition, counter to the first, to be circulated among them, that truth and justice may PREVAIL.
|| They were so assiduous in getting the petition signed, that it is said not one in ten, knew, could or can tell the import of it.
This Day was published, price 1s.
THE REVOLUTION IN NEW-ENGLAND, [In 1688] JUSTIFIED, AND THE PEOPLE THERE VINDICATED
From the aspersions cast upon them by Mr. JOHN PALMER, in his pretended answer to the declaration published by the inhabitants of Boston and the country adjacent, on the day when they secured their late oppressors, who acted by an illegal and arbitrary commission from the late King James.
To which is added, A NARRATIVE of the PROCEEDINGS
OF Sir EDMUND ANDROSSE And his complices. Who acted by an illegal and arbitrary commission from the late KING JAMES, during his government in New-England.
By several Gentlemen who were of his Council. Boston: Re-printed and sold by I. THOMAS. * * SUBSCRIBERS are desired to call or send for their books.
Just Imported in Capt Jarvis, from LONDON, and to be sold by
ANNA JOHNSON, At her head of Black-horse lane, near the Rev. Dr. Pemberton's Meeting house. A large assortment of Garden Seeds, Peas, Beans, &c. among which are,
EARLY charlton, early golden hotspur, Ormand hotspur, Spanish moratto, white rouncival, dwarf marowfat and bush pease, large Windsor, true early Lisbon, early yellow six weeks white kidney and fine toker beans, early Yorkshire, Dutch sugar loaf, battersea, savoy, red and broccoli cabbage seed, collyflower, cucumber, onion, carrot, turnip, radish and lettuce of all sorts, round spinach, endive, celery and asparagus, thyme, baum, sweet marjoram, broad clover, white Dutch clover, la lucerne, rape, canary, and an assortment of flower seeds and herds-grass seed: Also a variety of other seeds not mentioned; all which were imported from the seeds-men in London, and are warranted to be fresh and good and of the last years produce.
Imported in Capt. Jarvis from LONDON, and to be SOLD by SUSANNA RENKEN, At her shop near the Draw-Bridge, in Fore-street,
EARLY Charlton, early Hotspur, early golden Hotspur, large Marrowfat, dwarf ditto, Leadman's dwarf, crooked Sugar, blue and white Rouncival split and boiling PEAS; large Windsor, Toker, early Lisbon, early yellow, and Pole BEANS early Dutch, early Battersea, early Yorkshire, Red, and large Winter Cabbage, early and late Cabbage, green and yellow Savoy, marble, green, white, goss, cabbage and imperial Lettice, double and Hamborough Parsley, winter and summer Spinage, early Yellow, Scarlet and Orange Carrots, Celery, Endive, early and late Turnip, white Spanish, Strasburgh, and silver-skinned Onion, summer and winter Savoy, early, late, long, green and Turkey Cucumber, Thyme, Sweet Marjoram, Rosemary, Lavender, Sage, summer and winter Squash, Mulleyn, Hemp, Rape and Canary Seed, red and white Clover, Fowl Meadow and Herd-grass, Burnet, Lucerne, &c. new, and warranted of the last Year's growth.—Durham's best flower of Mustard in pound, half pound and quarter pound Bottles, Kippen's Snuff, Figs, a variety of China Bowls and Dishes.
Likewise, an Assortment of English and India GOODS.
ELIZABETH GREENLEAF, Informs her customers and others, that she has removed from her shop at the end of Union-street, to the second shop southward of the lane leading to Dr. Byles's meeting house where she continues to sell as usual.
EARLY charlton, omorods hotspur and golden hotspur peas, dwarf, green and large marowfat, Leadman's dwarf, rouncival and Spanish moratto peas, early yellow, large Windsor, early Lisbon and toker beans, red, silver skin, and white Spanish onion seeds, red, early golden and orange carrot ditto, early prickly cucumber, long prickly ditto, early and large colly flower, early Dutch, large winter sugar-loaf, battersea, green and yellow curled savoy, cabbage seeds, swelling parsnip, early Dutch and common turnip seeds, short topped salmon, white and pink radish seed, lettuce of all sorts, scarlet beet, curled and common parsley, curled and common pepper grass, summer and winter spinach, sweet marjoram, thyme, baum, summer-savory, endive, asparagus, celery, white mustard, white lavender, hemp, rape, and Canary birds seeds, &c. &c.
Just Imported by Capt. Jarvis from LONDON, And to be sold by LYDIA DYAR, Near the North battery, Boston.
A FRESH Assortment of Garden SEEDS, which she will warrant to be new and good, and of the last Year's produce, early charlton Peas, early golden hotspur, early omorod ditto, early marowfat ditto, dwarf ditto, blue and green ditto, large rouncival and Spanish and Moratto Leadman's dwarf ditto, large Windsor Beans, early Lisbon and early bush and pole Beans, early Yorkshire and Battersea Dutch and sugar loaf, large winter, red green and yellow Savoy, early and late Cabbage, early and late Turnip, early top, scarlet and salmon Radish, Cucumber and Squash, double Parsley, double Pepper-grass, round Spring, red Beets, Celery, Endive, white Spanish and silver skin Onions, red ditto, orange purple and yellow Carrot, Parsnip, Cabbage, Lettice, green and white Gowes, brown Dutch and marble Thyme, Baum, sweet Marjoram, Summer Savory, Sage, Hemp, Canary and Rape, Bird Seed.
Boston, February 13, 1773. TWO DOLLARS REWARD.
TAKEN out of the House of the subscriber, at the head of long-wharf last evening, a silver can, mark-M. ed I. M. maker's name, Revere. If said can is returned to the owner again, two dollars reward will be given, and no questions asked. N. B. If it should be offered for sale, it is desired it may be stopped, and notice given to MARY MAVERICKE
A TAYLOR that is a good workman, being at present out of employ, would be glad to work at low wages by the day or week, in any gentleman's family. Enquire of the Printer.
INDIAN CORN, just imported and to be sold reasonable, if applied for immediately Enquire at JOHN WINTHROP's Store near the market, or on board the Schooner Diamond, now lying at the fourth side of the Long Wharf.
FEATHERS, CHOICE water fowl feathers, to be sold at ENO H BROWN's store, Boston neck which he will sell as he does every thing else, extremely cheap.
To be LET, A Building and parcel of land adjoining, in the center of the town of Boston fronting one street or high way, one hundred and fifty feet: The building will be altered to a dwelling, work-house, or shop, as may suit the business of any one wanting the same. Enquire at the ware house No. 14 on the Long Wharf.
This day were published, SEVEN Sermons, viz. I. Of the Unpardonable Sin against the Holy Ghost: Or, the Sin unto death. II. The Saint's Duty and Exercise: In two Parts. Being an Exhortation to, and Direction for, Prayer. III. The Accepted Time and Day of Salvation. IV. The End of Time and Beginning of Eternity. V. Joshua's Resolution to serve the Lord. VI. The Way to Heaven made plain. VII. The future State of Man: Or, A Treatise on the Resurrection.
By ROBERT RUSSEL, At Wardour in Sussex. Boston: Printed and sold by I. THOMAS near the Mill Bridge.
ADVERTISEMENTS, &c. omitted will be our next.
BOSTON: Printed by ISAIAH THOMAS,
At the South Corner of MARSHAL'S LANE, leading from the MILL-BRIDGE into UNION-STREET, where all Persons may be supplied with this Paper at Six and Eight Pence Lawful Money, per Annum, unsealed, and Eight Shillings sealed and directed; and where Articles of Intelligence, &c. are thankfully received. ADVERTISEMENTS taken in.—PRINTING in its various Branches, performed in a neat Manner, with the greatest Care and Dispatch, on the most reasonable Terms. HAND-BILLS at an Hour's Notice. SUBSCRIPTIONS for the SPY are also taken in by J. Larkin, Chairmaker, and Mr. W. Calder, Painter, in Charlestown, Mr. Watchmaker in Salem; Mr. B. Emerson, Bookseller, in Newbury-Port; and Mr. M. Belcher, in Bridgewater.

Postscript to the Massachusetts SPY.
VOL. III.
THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1773.
NUMB. 109.
On Friday the 19th ult. His Excellency the Governor was pleased to send the following Message to the honorable House of Representatives, Gentlemen of the House of Representatives,
THE Province House is in a much more ruinous State than when I recommended to you to make provision for the repair of it the last Session of the General Court.
The present inconveniencies which I submit to by having continued to reside in it, I hope will have some weight with you, but the dishonor which must reflect upon the Province from its appearing to be unfit for any Person to dwell in, I hope will have much greater weight with you and induce you to provide for its thorough repair.
I am well assured that his Majesty does not expect from me that any part of my support should be applied to the repairs of this House, and I have reason to think that if you shall continue in your refusal, which I hope you will not, provision will be made for the decent residence of the Governor; and I do not thus repeatedly press you to make this provision for the sake of my own future convenience, but from a real regard to the honor and the interest of the Province.
Council Chamber, 19th Feb. 1773.
T. HUTCHINSON.
Thursday last the following Message was presented to his Excellency the Governor, (in Answer to his Message to the House of the 19th ult.) by Capt. Derby, Col. Bowers, Col. Thaxter, Col. Thayer, and Capt. Morse, viz.
May it please your Excellency,
THE House have with great Attention considered your Excellency's Message of the Nineteenth Instant, and beg Leave to say, that they are not unacquainted with the present State of the Province House, and are sensible that it might be repaired at a less Expence now than in future.
The Governor of the Province when this Building was purchased by the Government for his Residence, was constitutionally dependent upon the free Grants of the Representatives of the People for his Support; but as the Connection between the Governor and the People in this Respect, is now to the great Grief of the Inhabitants of this Province so materially altered, this House conceive that they are not only not bound in Honor or Justice, but that they cannot consistent with the Duty they owe their Constituents, proceed to make the Repairs which your Excellency desires at this Time.
The House are so far from being influenced by any the least personal Disrespect, that they beg Leave to assure your Excellency, if the Time was come, as they wish it soon may, when your Excellency shall think best to receive your whole Support from this Province, it would give them great Pleasure to provide your Excellency a convenient and elegant House, such as should be honorable to the Province, and suitable to the Dignity of the chief Magistrate of this Province.
The Honorable House of Representatives, after His Excellency the Governor had consented to the Grants to the Judges of the Superior Court for their Services the Year past, Voted the same Sums to the Judges of the said Court for the Year ensuing to be paid Quarterly, which Vote was concurred by the Honorable His Majesty's Council; —On Tuesday last His Excellency was pleased to send the following Message to both Houses, viz.
Gentlemen of the Council, and of the House of Representatives,
THE Secretary has laid before me the Votes of the Two Houses for granting Salaries to the Justices of the Superior Court for the current
Year, commencing the first of January, to be paid Quarterly.
I have acquainted the House of Representatives with the Information I have received that His Majesty has been pleased to allow Salaries to the same Justices so long as they shall reside in the Province, or be absent with his Majesty's Leave, and I have no doubt that such Salaries were intended to commence before the first of January last.
As there has been no Instance since the Charter of an Allowance made to the Judges for their Services untill such Services have been actually performed, and as those Grants are made to look forward, and were passed in so short a Time after the Information I gave to the House; my Assent to them would carry with it the strongest Appearance of counteracting the King, whose Servant I am.
Whilst this Difficulty continues, you cannot reasonably expect I should give my Assent and I am obliged to decline it. I will however transmit your Votes, by the first Opportunity, to be laid before His Majesty that I may receive the earliest Signification of His Royal Pleasure.
Council-Chamber, 23d of February, 1773.
T. Hutchinson.
B O S T O N.
THE Committee on his Excellency's Speech of the 16th Instant beg Leave to report to the honorable Board the following Reply, which is humbly submitted. In the Name of the Committee, JAMES BOWDOIN. In COUNCIL, Feb. 25, 1773: Read and accepted, and Ordered, That Harrison Gray, James Russell, James Pitts, Stephen Hall, and James Humphrey, Esqrs, be a Committee to wait on his Excellency the Governor therewith. THO'S FLUCKER, Secr'y.
May it please your Excellency, A small Part only of your Excellency's last Speech to both Houses is addressed to the Board, there are but a few Clauses on which we shall remark.
With regard to the Disorders that have arisen; your Excellency and the Board have assigned different Causes. The Cause you are pleased to assign, together with the Disorders themselves, we suppose to be Effects arising from the Stamp-Act, and certain other Acts of Parliament. If we were not mistaken in this, which you do not assert, it so far seems to invalidate what is said in your Speech on that Head.
We have taken notice of this, only because it stands connected with another Matter, on which we would make a few further Observations. What we refer to is the general Nature of Supreme Authority. We have already offered Reasons, in which your Excellency seems to acquiesce, to shew that, tho' the Term supreme sometimes carries with it the Idea of unlimited Authority , it cannot, is usually understood, and is limited in its Acts to the Objects that are properly or constitutionally cognizable by it. To illustrate our Meaning, we beg leave to quote a Passage from your Speech, at the Opening of this Session, where your Excellency says, "so much of the Spirit of Liberty breathes through all Parts of the English Constitution, that although from the Nature of Government there must be one Supreme Authority over the whole, yet this Constitution will admit of Subordinate Powers with legislative and executive Authority, greater or less, according to local and other Circumstances." —This is very true, and implies, that the legislative and executive Authority granted to the subordinate Power should extend and operate as far as the Grant allows; and that, if it does not exceed the Limits prescribed to it, and no forfeiture be incurred, the supreme Power has no rightful Authority to take away or diminish it, or to substitute its own Acts in Cases wherein the Acts of the subordinate Power can, according to its Constitution, operate. To suppose the contrary is to suppose, that it has no Property in the Privileges granted to it, for if it holds them at the Will of the supreme Power, which it must do by the above Supposition, it can have no Property in them: upon which Principle, which involves the Contradiction, that what is granted is in reality not granted, no subordinate Power can exist. But as in fact the two Powers are not incompatible, and do subsist together, each restraining its Acts to their Constitutional Objects, can we not from hence see how the supreme Power may supervise, regulate, and make general Laws for the Kingdom, without interfering with the Privileges of the sub-
...tenate or bled ... court to the cockpit---and from the ... is deeply skilled in the science of jostling, and would make a good rider of matches ... who will, they will not lose by him ... he's a man of all work, and has long used to hard services. Poo: foul!

ordinate Powers within it? And also see how it may extend its Care and Protection to its Colonies, without injuring their Constitutional Rights? What has been here said concerning supreme Authority has no reference to the manner in which it has been in fact exercised, but is wholly confined to its general Nature; and if it conveys any just Idea of it, the Inferences that have been at any time deduced from it, injurious to the Rights of the Colonists, are not well founded; and have probably arisen from a misconception of the nature of that Authority.
Your Excellency represents us as introducing a number of Authorities merely to shew, that "all Taxes upon English Subjects must be levied by Virtue of the Act, not of the King alone, but in conjunction with the Lords and Commons;" and are pleased to add, that "you should very readily have allowed it; and you should as readily have allowed, that all other Acts of Legislation must be passed by the same joint Authority, and not by the King alone." Your Excellency "would have saved us the Trouble of all those Authorities;" and on our Part we should have been as willing to have saved your Excellency the Trouble of dismembering our Argument, and from thence taking Occasion to represent it in a disadvantageous Light, or rather totally destroying it.
In Justice to ourselves it is necessary to recapitulate that Argument adduced to prove, that the Inhabitants of this Province are not constitutionally subject to Parliamentary Taxation. In order thereto we recurred to Magna Charta and other Authorities. And the Argument abridged stands thus—That from those Authorities it appears an essential Part of the English Constitution, "that no Tal-lage, or Aid, or Tax, shall be laid or levied, without the good-will and assent of the Freemen of the Commonality of the Realm." That from Common Law, and the Province Charter, the Inhabitants of this Province are clearly instituted to all the Rights of free and natural Subjects within the Realm: That among those Rights must be included the essential one just mentioned concerning Aids and Taxes; and therefore that no Aids or Taxes can be levied on us constitutionally without our own Consent signified by our Representatives. From whence the Conclusion is clear, that therefore the Inhabitants of this Province are not constitutionally subject to Parliamentary Taxation.
We did not bring those Authorities to shew that Tax Acts, or any other Acts of Parliament, in order to their Validity, must have the Concurrence of the King, Lords, and Commons; but to shew, that it has been, at least from the Time of Magna Charta, an essential Right of free Subjects within the Realm, to be free from all Taxes but such as were laid with their own Consent. And it was proper to shew this, as the Rights and Liberties, granted by the Province Charter, were to be equally extensive, to all Intents and Purposes, with those enjoyed by free and natural Subjects within the Realm. Therefore to shew our own Rights in relation to Taxes, it was necessary to shew the Rights of Freemen within the Realm, in Relation to them: and for this Purpose those Authorities were brought, and not impertinently, as we humbly apprehend. Nor have we seen Reason to change our Sentiments with respect to this Matter or any other contained in our Answer to your Excellency's Speech.
In the last Clause of your Speech, your Excellency informs the two Houses, "you are authorized to say, that his Majesty will most graciously approve of every Constitutional Measure, that may contribute to the Peace, the Happiness, and Prosperity of his Colony of Massachusetts;" which, as it includes his Approbation of the Constitutional Rights of his Subjects of this Colony, manifests his Inclination to protect them in those Rights; and to remove the Incroachments that have been made upon them. Of this Act of Royal Goodness they are not wholly unworthy, as in regard to Loyalty, Duty and Affection to his Majesty, they stand among the foremost of his faithful Subjects.
From the BOSTON GAZETTE. To Mr. HUTCHINSON.
SIR, THE Charter of this Province being the basis of its civil constitution, must be looked upon as a fundamental law of the society; whatever therefore is agreeable to charter is lawful, and whatever is repugnant, and beside its letter or spirit, is illegal and wrong. The design of the charter, at first blush appears to be a union of the contracting parties for mutual defence; and union for such purpose is correspondent to that supreme law, the welfare of the people.
The highest authority in this province having pronounced you such a governor as the charter knows not of, and your invariable conduct proving that no object appears less to influence your administration than their tranquility and security, it now becomes a serious question, how you should
of right be treated by this community? I conceive the alternative has long been in contemplation your reformation or renunciation; the former being now past all reasonable hope, the sole point to be discussed here is, whether you ought not, of right, to be forthwith renounced and discarded by this people, as an illegal, unconstitutional, and dangerous person to bear rule over them? That your present situation, as a pensioner and absolute dependent on the King's pleasure, both for continuance and support in office, is an alteration in your condition, as governor of this province, none will deny—that it is an alteration warranted by the charter, or agreed to by the people of this province, is not pretended; that it is an alteration for the benefit of the people, or that it can effect them but little, is equally void of foundation,--- the consequence then most certainly is, that submission to your authority for any longer time than may be reasonably accounted sufficient to rid ourselves of you in the safest and best manner, would be a criminal acquiescence in a lawless usurpation.
It was said of Cæsar, that tho' he waded to a throne thro' seas of blood, he behaved like a man when he obtained it. This with many, excuses or greatly paliates his usurpation. But the whole of your conduct displays as little of the man as of the rightful governor. To secure an interest with a late plundering and squandering administration, you urged a question even to its utmost extremity, which every Friend to the public tranquility would have been glad should have been past over in silence; and finding yourself sorely pressed to vindicate your conduct in this matter, like an abject vassal you descend to the meanest prevarication, and even torture the proceedings of your fellow-citizens, to find matter of accusation against them, to excuse yourself. Could any thing short of the worst and vilest intention have urged you to preface a solemn parliamentary reply with so base an insinuation, as that a junto of malecontents by some clandestine measure got into Faneuil-Hall, and there in a clandestine manner passed some resolves or votes, which they the said junto passed published and palm'd upon the world as the act of the town at a legal meeting? In what part of these votes and resolves is the supremacy of parliament denied in the most express terms; or where is the clause to be found inviting any one town to adopt any principle? For the origination of the meeting you refer to, there may be found a greater number of petitioners than ever appeared before on any occasion whatever. That a warrant was regularly issued and the inhabitants duly notified, the town records will evidence—The carplings of your tools, if not your own scribblies in news papers, have long since brought the fullness of the meeting at which the resolves originated to a publick examen, and you cannot have forgotten the testimony of the Selectmen in that behalf. Such unheard of management as this; such extraordinary violence offered to so glaring truths, must have been intended to answer some very extraordinary purpose. This purpose I presume is mysterious to no man! Should it then appear to the body of the good people of this province that your purposes towards them are inimical and very dangerous, can you suppose that the lullaby of peace and good order will for ever keep them quiet? They certainly love peace, as probably every civilized people do; but a peace productive of worse effects than the fellest war they ever were involved in, is hardly to be desired.
E. LUDLOW.
TO THE LETT. The House that Mr. William Henry Prentice now lives in, in Dunstable, and has kept a Tavern some Years, on the great Road on Merrimack River; there is every Recommendation of House and Stables for Travellers, and is much used.
Enquire of JOHN TYNG, Esq., of Dunstable, the Owner.
BOSTON: Printed by ISAIAH THOMAS.