Novanglus, and Massachusettensis / or, Political Essays, Published in the Years 1774 and 1775, on the Principal Points of Controversy, between Great Britain and Her Colonies

by John Adams; Daniel Leonard

What then was the "sense" of the parent country, and the ancestors of Maryland? But if by "our ancestors," he confines his idea to New England or this province, let us consider. The first planters of Plymouth were our ancestors in the strictest sense. They had no charter or patent for the land they took possession of, and derived no authority from the English parliament or crown, to set up their government. They purchased land of the Indians, and set up a government of their own, on the simple principle of nature, and afterwards purchased a patent for the land of the council at Plymouth, but never purchased any charter for government of the crown, or the king, and continued to exercise all the powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, upon the plain ground of an original contract among independent individuals for 68 years, i.e. until their incorporation with Massachusetts by our present charter. The same may be said of the colonies which emigrated to Say-Brook, New-Haven, and other parts of Connecticut. They seem to have had no idea of dependence on parliament, any more than on the conclave. The secretary of Connecticut has now in his possession, an original letter from Charles 2d. to that colony, in which he considers them rather as friendly allies, than as subjects to his English parliament, and even requests them to pass a law in their assembly relative to piracy.

The sentiments of your ancestors in the Massachusetts, may be learned from almost every ancient paper and record. It would be endless to recite all the passages, in which it appears that they thought themselves exempt from the authority of parliament, not only in the point of taxation, but in all cases whatsoever. Let me mention one. Randolph, one of the predecessors of Massachusettensis, in a representation to Charles 2d. dated 20th September, 1676, says, "I went to visit the governor at his house, and among other discourse, I told him I took notice of several ships that were arrived at Boston, some since my being there, from Spain, France, Streights, Canaries, and other parts of Europe, contrary to your majesty's laws for encouraging navigation and regulating the trade of the plantations." He freely declared to me, that the law made by your majesty and your parliament, obligeth them in nothing but what consists with the interest of that colony, that the legislative power is and abides in them solely to act and make laws by virtue of a charter from your majesty's royal father. Here is a positive assertion of an exemption from the authority of parliament, even in the case of the regulation of trade.

Afterwards in 1677, the general court passed a law, which shews the sense of our ancestors in a very strong light. It is in these words. "This court being informed, by letters received this day from our messengers, of his majesty's expectation that the acts of Trade and Navigation be exactly and punctually observed by this his majesty's colony, his pleasure therein not having before now, signified unto us, either by express from his majesty, or any of his ministers of state; It is therefore hereby ordered, and by the authority of this court enacted, that henceforth, all masters of ships, ketches, or other vessels, of greater or lesser burthen, arriving in, or sailing from any of the ports in this jurisdiction, do, without coven, or fraud, yield faithful and constant obedience unto, and observation of all the said acts, of navigation and trade, on penalty of suffering such forfeitures, loss and damage as in the said acts are particularly expressed. And the governor and council, and all officers commissionated and authorised by them, are hereby ordered and required to see to the strict observation of the said acts." As soon as they had passed this law, they wrote a letter to their agent, in which they acknowledge they had not conformed to the acts of trade; and they say, they "apprehended them 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 according to the usual sayings of the learned in the law, the laws of England were bounded within the four seas, and did not reach America. However, as his majesty had signified his pleasure, that these acts should be observed in the Massachusetts, they had made provision by a law of the colony, that they should be strictly attended to, from time to time, although it greatly discouraged trade, and was a great damage to his majesty's plantation."

Thus it appears, that the ancient Massachusettensians and Virginians, had precisely the same sense of the authority of parliament viz. that it had none at all: and the same sense of the necessity, that by the voluntary act of the colonies, their free cheerful consent, it should be allowed the power of regulating trade: and this is precisely the idea of the late congress at Philadelphia, expressed in the fourth proposition in their Bill of Rights.

But this was the sense of the parent country too, at that time; for king Charles II. in a letter to the Massachusetts, after this law, had been laid before him, has these words; "We are informed that you have lately made some good provision for observing the acts of trade and navigation, which is well pleasing unto us." Had he, or his ministers an idea that parliament was the sovereign legislative over the colony? If he had, would he not have censured this law, as an insult to that legislature?

I sincerely hope, we shall see no more such round affirmations, that it was the sense of the parent country and our ancestors, that they were to remain subject to parliament.

So far from thinking themselves subject to parliament, that during the Interregnum, it was their desire and design to have been a free commonwealth, an independent republic; and after the restoration, it was with the utmost reluctance, that in the course of 16 or 17 years, they were brought to take the oaths of allegiance: and for some time after this, they insisted upon taking an oath of fidelity to the country, before that of allegiance to the king.

That "it is evident from the charter itself," that they were to remain subject to parliament, is very unaccountable, when there is not one word in either charter concerning parliament.

That the authority of parliament has been exercised almost ever since the settlement of the country, is a mistake; for there is no instance, until the first Navigation Act, which was in 1660, more than 40 years after the first settlement. This act was never executed or regarded, until 17 years afterwards, and then it was not executed as an act of parliament, but as a law of the colony, to which the king agreed.

"This has been expressly acknowledged by our provincial legislatures." There is too much truth in this. It has been twice acknowledged by our house of Representatives, that parliament was the supreme legislative; but this was directly repugnant to a multitude of other votes by which it was denied. This was in conformity to the distinction between taxation and legislation, which has since been found to be a distinction without a difference.