« PreviousContinue »
And in pages 72 and 73 of the same pamphlet, there is another paffage, beginning with the words, “ I cannot close this subject, &c." down to the words, " found principles of the English constitution,” p. 73. 1. 11, that is worthy of the reader's attention. And the late Mr. Andrew Oliver, (who was, first, Secretary, and afterwards Lieutenant-governour, of ihe province of the Massachusets Bay,) in one of his letters to the late Mr. Thomas Whately, (who had been secretary to ile treasury under the late Mr. George Grenville,) dated Feb. 13, 1769, writes as follows.
"6 You observe upon “ two defects in our constitution, the popular election of so the Council, and the return of Juries by the towns. The 66 first of these arises from the charter itself; the latter from “ our provincial laws. As to the appointment of the “ Council, I am of opinion that neither the popular elec. « tions in this province, nor their appointinent (in what
are called the royal governments) by the King's man, “ damus, are free from exceptions; especially if the Council, " as a legislative body, is intended to answer the idea of " the House of Lords in the British legislature. There they " are supposed to be a free and independant body; and on ” their being such, the strength and firmnessof the Constitu, po tion does very much depend: whereas the election, or ap$6 pointment of the Councils in the manner before mention"ed, renders them altogether dependant on their constitu
ents. The King is the Fountain of Honour; and, as such, 56 the Peers of the realm derive their honours from him. But " then they hold them by a surer tenure than the Pro66 vincial Counsellors, who are appointed by mandamus. « On the other hand, our popular elections very often expose " them to contempt : for nothing is more common than for " the Representatives, when they find the Council a little bo untractable at the close of the year, to remind them that “ May is at hand. It is not requisite, that I know of, that a Counsellor should be a frecholder. Accord
“ ing to the charter, his residence is a sufficient qualification : " for that provides only that he be an inhabitant of, or “ proprietor of lands within, the diftri&t for which he is 6 chosen : whereas the peers of the realm fit in the House of « Lords, (as I take it,) in virtue of their baronies. If “ there should be a reform of any of the colony.charters, or with a view to keep-up the resemblance of the three « estates in England, the legiNative Council should consist s6 of men of landed estates. But, as our landed estates 66 here are small at prelent, the yearly value of £. 100 “ sterling per annum might, in some of them at least, be a “ fufficient qualification. As our estates are partible after “ the decease of the proprietor, the honour could not be
continued in families, as in England. It might, however, ¢ be continued in the person appointed quamdiù fe bene “ gefferit, and proof might be required of some mal-prac“ tice before a suspension, or removal. Bankruptcy, also, “ might be another ground for removal.”_" The King
might have the immediate appointinent (of these coun“ sellors] by mandamus, as at present in the royal govern“ ments." _“ Besides this legislative council, a privy coun« cil might be established.” These authorities are surely very respectable, and of prodigious weight in favour of such an amendment of the constitutions of the King's Councils in North-America. Alterations of those governments in favour of liberty, that are suggested and recommended by such friends to Great-Britain as the authors of the foregoing passages, feem to be indisputably reasonable, and expedient, and fit to be adopted by Great-Britain.
Eleventhly. To declare, by resolutions in both Houses of Parliament, that it is not expedient to require the American colonies to contribute any thing toward the discharge of the national debt already contracted, in any mode whatsoever, either by taxes to be imposed by the British
Parliament or by grants in their own afsemblies, or in any other manner whatsoever ; but only that it is just that they should contribute in a reasonable proportion, suited to their several abilities, to the future expences of the British empire, that are of a general nature, and relate to all the dominions of the Crown, and of which they reap the benefit, as well as the inhabitants of Great-Britain.
TWELFTHLY.-To offer an act of pardon, indemnity, and oblivion to all the Americans who have offended the laws, upon their laying down their arms, and returning to the obedience of the Crown within a limited time: withput making any exceptions whatsoever, not even of Mr. Samuel Adams and Mr. Hancock.
By such a plan the principal causes of uneasiness and difcontent amongst the Americans would, as I conceiye, be taken-away; and, consequently, if they are fincere in their declarations of a desire to continue connected with Great, Britain, (as it seems highly probable that all the Colonies, except those of New-England, are; and, perhaps, even in those colonies, there may be many persons of the fame dispofition ;) it seems reasonable to hope that it would be generally approved and accepted by them; and yet the supreme aythority of the Parliament of Great-Britain would not be given-up.
F.M. ON THE INEXPEDIENCY OF ESTABLISHING BISHOPS
IN NORTH AMERICA.
To the Printer of the PUBLIC ADVERTISER.
March 24, 1778. I some days ago observed that it seemed to be necessary, in the present happy disposition of the ministry to measures of Conciliation, to remove the apprehenfions of the Americans concerning the establishment of Bishops amongst them by the authority of the Crown, or of the Parliament. This measure I recommended, as being effential to the success of the intended treaty with America; there being no reason to expect that the Americans will ever return to the allegiance of the Crown without a full security in this important article. As a proof of their anxiety upon this subject, I will now cite a passage from one of their publick papers, written so long ago as the year 1768, when few persons, either there or in this country, could imagine that the diffenfions then subsisting between the two ccuntries would in so short a time have risen to their present dreadful height. And we may well suppose, that what they then were anxious to obtain, they will not now receed-from. In the publick letter of the House of Representatives of the province of Massachusetts Bay, in the month of January, 1768, to Mr. Dennis De Berdt, who was at that time their agent in England, (which is, indeed, a most able performance, and well worthy every gentleman's perusal; see Almon's Remembrancer, number 34, page 167, and leq) there is the following paffae :
• The establishment of a Protestant Episcopate in !" America is also very zealously contended-for. And it “ is very alarming to a people, whose fathers, from the
“ hardships $6 hardships they fuffered under such an establishment, “ were obliged to fly from their native country into a $s wilderness, in order peaceably to enjoy their privileges, “ civil and religious. Their being threatened with the • loss of both at once must throw them into a very disaŚr greeable situation. We hope in God such an establish
ment will never take place in America; and we defire
you will strenuously oppose it. The revenue raised in “ America, for aught we can tell, may be as constituti“ onally applied towards the fupport of Prelacy as of soldi. “ers and pensioners. If the property of the subject is s taken from him without his consent, it is immaterial “ whether it be done by one man or five hundred, or " whether it be applied for the support of Ecclefiaftical or
Military power, or both. It may be well worth the " consideration of the best politician in Great-Britain or “ America, what the natural tendency is of a vigorous “ pursuit of these measures.” This passage, I presume, is a sufficient proof of the dread and averfion the Americans entertain for the establishment of Episcopacy amongst them.
Nor were they apprehensive without reason that such a measure was in agitation. For, in the first place, when the British parliament passed the act for imposing a stamp-duty in America, in the year 1765, they enumerated, amongst the written inßruments that were made liable to pay that duty, the several instruments of Ecclefiaftical law which are used in the courts of Ecclesiastical, or Episcopal, jurisdiction here in England, as Citations, Monitories, sentences of Excommunication, and the like: and it is reported with confidence, that, when the late Mr. George Grenville, (who was, soe Canadicom at that time, first Lord of the Treasury, and Chancellor of Irąhotelava the Exchequer) was told that the Enumeration of these instruments was unnecessary, as no such courts were known in America, he replied, that, though such courts were not as yet established in America, yet it was very possible that they