|
A Letter From "Freeman"* of South Carolina to the Deputies of North America, Assembled in the High Court of Congress at Philadelphia. (Note: *Doctor Ramsay, in his second volume of his History of South Carolina, page 455, in the life which he has written of William Henry Drayton, says, "In the year 1774 he wrote a pamphlet under the signature of 'Freeman,' which was addressed to the American Congress. In this he stated the grievances of America, and drew up a Bill of American Rights. This was well received. It substantially chalked out the line of conduct adopted by Congress then in session.") To the Deputies of North America in General Congress: Gentlemen,When the people of England, in the early part of the last century were oppressed by illegal taxes, violation of property, billeting soldiers and martial law, there was reason to apprehend some insurrection, from the discontents which prevailed. They believed their liberties were on the point of being ravished from them, and Charles the First, found himself under an absolute necessity to summon a Parliament, to meet early in the year 1628. On the first day of their meeting, to deliberate upon a subject of no less importance than to reinstate a good correspondence between the Crown and Peopleand before the Commons had entered into any debatesan anonymous letter to them, touching the inconveniences and grievances of the State, was communicated to the Members, and it was called a speech without doors. Upon subjects of grievance similar with, yet infinitely more serious than those of that periodnow, at a time threatening, not insurrection from discontent, but a civil war from despairand by the same mode of address as was used to that House of Commons, I thus have the honor, publicly, to make known my sentiments to the Deputies of North Americadeputies elected to meet in General Congress, to deliberate upon a subject, of at least as high import to the British crown and people of America, as that Parliament had to discuss, relative to the Crown and people of England. I here religiously wish, that the claims of this Congress may be as favorably admitted as were the claims of that Parliamentand that the similitude between the two periods may then finally end. For we know the subsequent years of Charles' administration encreased the public discontents to that degree that at length the people in their might arose and took up arms against the sovereign! Hitherto charactered by my countrymen as most zealous for the prerogative in opposition to the liberty of the subject, I am conscious my principle of conduct has been misunderstood. As far as my small abilities enabled me as an independent and honest middle branch of Legislature ought to act, so, in private and in public stations have I endeavored at one time to oppose the exuberances of popular liberty, and at another, the stretches of the government party, when I thought either advanced beyond the constitutional line of propriety. In short, I wish to form a political character, by the picture Junius gave of a virtuous Duke of Bedford: "Willing to support the just measures of government, but determined to observe the conduct of the Minister with suspicion, he would oppose the violence of faction with as much firmness, as the encroachments of prerogative." And before Junius was known, I had established it as a first principle, not to proceed any farther with any party, than I thought they travelled in the Constitutional highway. Hitherto I have opposed the local popular policy of this colony. I thought the principles of action were unconstitutionalI am of the same opinionI may be wrong, my judgment is my guide. But now! the tragedy of five acts, composed in the last session of Parliament, in my opinion, violates all the rules of the political drama, and incapacitates me from saying one word in favor of administration. Nay, the same spirit of indignation which animated me to condemn popular measures in the year 1769, because although avowedly in defence of liberty, they absolutely violated the freedom of society, by demanding men, under pain of being stigmatized, and of sustaining detriment in property, to accede to resolutions, which, however well meant, could not, from the apparent constraint they held out, but be grating, very grating to a freeman, so, the same spirit of indignation, yet incapable of bending to measures violating liberty, actuates me in like manner, now to assert my freedom against the malignant nature of the late five Acts of Parliament. As then, a certainty of sustaining a heavy loss of property, and of acquiring a heavy load of public odium, did not intimidate me from persevering in a conduct I thought right; so, now that the liberty and property of the American is at the pleasure of a despotic power, an idea of a risk of life itself in defence of my hereditary rights, cannot appal me, or make me shrink from my purpose, when perhaps those rights can be maintained only by a temporary suspension of the rules of constitutional proceedings. Tenacious and jealous of my liberty, I do not change my ground, because I in turn face opposite quarters making the attack. Thus, from one and the same centre of action and principle of conduct, I opposed succeeding violations of my rights, then, by a temporary democracy, now, by an established monarchy. If I did not act thus confidently, it might well be asked, why did I with so much spirit oppose my countrymen in the year 1769, and remained silent now, that injuries of a much more alarming nature, are threatened from another quarter? I consider myself thus fully obliged to anticipate, any uncandid and unworthy reflections, that might possibly be made of my being fickle and unsteady, or influenced by disgust,* as I have written against popular measures, and now write against those of Administration. (Note: *The full intention of Parliament respecting America became known here by the arrival of the Acts at the same time when accounts were received that Administration had nominated an Assistant Judge, regularly bred to the Bar, in the room of Mr. Justice Murray, deceased, and a change of conduct taking place in the author at this crisis, some imputed it to disgust rather than to principle. The author was aware of such a construction, but he was incapable of being intimidated from a system he thought right. The following extract will show, that the late appointment from home was expected, and therefore could have no influence upon his present conduct. "On Tuesday last a Commission passed the Great Seal of this province, appointing the Honorable William Henry Drayton, Esquire, to the office of Assistant Judge, in the room of John Murray, Esquire, deceased. We hear that when his honor the Lieutenant-Governor, and his Majesty's Council were in deliberation to nominate a gentleman of proper rank and character to the office of Assistant Judge, it was allowed that no such person at the bar would, for such a consideration, be induced to quit his practice, and that as no other person of rank and character would choose to run the risk of being superseded by the appointment of a Barrister from England; so it would be highly indelicate to offer the post to any such. The case seemed difficult, yet of necessity a Judge must be appointed. After some time spent in agitating this subject, Mr. Drayton offered his service in that station, until a Barrister should be appointed by the King; which public spirited behavior was very readily and unanimously approved by the Lieutenant-Governor and Council."General Gazette, No. 301. January 28, 1774. When Mr. D. was pro tempore appointed Post Master General, in the year 1771, and made application at home to be confirmed, Lords Sandwich and Hillsborough did him the honor to acquaint him, that they personally applied on his behalf to Lord Le Despencer, one of the Post Masters General, who acquainted them, the office had been for some time previously engaged. Mr. D. was not disgusted here, although he made applicationin the present case he has never made the least solicitation, and engaged in the station exactly in the manner related in the Gazette.) Each of the five late acts of Parliament relating to America, increased my alarms, in a progressive degreethey all run counter to my ideas of the constitutional power of Parliament. Either they are utterly illegal, as the Acts of a whole session,* of the second Richard, and two Acts,? in particular, of Henry the eighth, were deemed to be, and therefore done away by subsequent Parliaments, or, I am utterly ignorant of the nature of the English constitution of Parliament. Let this alternative be as it may, every man has feelings, and must act by them. (Notes: *Anne XI. ? 23 Henry 3. To enable Kings by their letters Patent to repeal laws during their minority. 31 Henry. To give the King's proclamations the force of an Act of Parliament.) The question now, is not whether Great Britain has a right to Tax America against her consent, but whether she has a constitutional right to exercise despotism over America! What can be more despotic in any government than, in one colony* to revoke charter rightsto alter the lawto annihilate an essential branch of the Legislature in favor of the people, and in its room to place an establishment existing but at the will of the Sovereign! In another? in effect to annihilate the ancient code of law, as well of the vanquished as of the conquerors, subjecting the existence of the common law, to the pleasure of the Crown; to declare the people, English people! shall not have representation, and to empower the Governor and Council to make laws for them. What is this, but to enable the Crown, by an instruction, to give law to the people! What is this, but the same power that Henry the Eighth, had by a proclamation, to give law to the people of England! And what greater power has the Sovereign at Constantinople, over a province in the East, than the Sovereign at London now has over a province in the west! At a stroke to annihilate the right of representation, and the common law from among English subjects, nay, English people!to empower Bashaws, in their little Divans, to promulgate such laws to people of English blood, as, from time to time, under the form of instructions, shall be penned by the English Reis Effendi! Such powers cannot legally exist in Britain. Than, that such powers should be exercised over us, it will be better, O! Americans! that we should not be. The highest despotism is now exercised over Quebec, and remember! it is true to a proverb, multis miniatur, uni qui injuriam facit. (Notes: *Massachusetts Bay. ? Quebec) (From Documentary History of the American Revolution, by Gibbes, Volume 1, pp. 11-39) Doc ID: Gibbes, v. 1, p. 011a Date: 8/10/1774 |
Last modified: 7/13/01/PLW.
URL: http://www.southcarolinahistoricalsociety.org/displays/RevWar/archives-online/Gibbes__v__1__p__011a.html