Rights of the Colonists is a document passed by the citizens of Boston
in their efforts against Great Britain. Late in 1772, Samuel Adams
proposed to the citizens of Boston that they
form a Committee of Correspondence to coordinate efforts between
themselves and other colonists to challenge the unjust acts of Great
Britain. The citizens agreed and gave the Committee several tasks, one
of which was to create a statement of the rights of the colonists as
men, as Christians and as subjects of England. Samuel Adams was given
this responsibility.
In this document, notice how Adams insists that all human rights are
given by God as expressed in the New Testament. He also argues that it
is the job of government officials to protect the lives, liberties and
property of their constituents and not to just make any laws they want
to please themselves. Rights of the Colonists was accepted and published by the citizens
of Boston.
I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to
life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the
right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are
evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of
self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.
All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they
please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to
leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.
When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have
a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions
and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.
Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a
social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.
All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the
law of natural reason and equity.
As neither reason requires nor religion permits the contrary, every man
living in or out of a state of civil society has a right peaceably and
quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.
"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters
spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to
by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well
as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which
must have their foundation in the former.
In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions
thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever
practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And
it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of
toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil
society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch
that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of
contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be
extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only
sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are
excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive
of the civil government under which they live. The Roman Catholics or
Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes
excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be
destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so
absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far
as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life,
liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio,
leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord,
war, and bloodshed.
The natural liberty of man, by entering into society, is abridged or
restrained, so far only as is necessary for the great end of society,
the best good of the whole.
In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of
his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society
he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his
neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a
cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to
referees or indifferent arbitrators.
In the last case, he must pay the referees for time and trouble. He
should also be willing to pay his just quota for the support of
government, the law, and the constitution; the end of which is to
furnish indifferent and impartial judges in all cases that may happen,
whether civil, ecclesiastical, marine, or military.
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on
earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man,
but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
In the state of nature men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired
servants for the defence of their lives, liberties, and property; and
they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for
the purposes of common defence, and those who hold the reins of
government have an equitable, natural right to an honorable support
from the same principle that " the laborer is worthy of his hire." But
then the same community which they serve ought to be the assessors of
their pay. Governors have no right to seek and take what they please;
by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that
of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute
masters, despots, and tyrants. Hence, as a private man has a right to
say what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a community
to determine what they will give and grant of their substance for the
administration of public affairs. And, in both cases, more are ready to
offer their service at the proposed and stipulated price than are able
and willing to perform their duty.
In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of
one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce
their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those
rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of
its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those
very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life,
Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should
in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal
law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such
renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it
is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become
a slave.
II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.
These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the
institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church,
which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New
Testament.
By the act of the British Parliament, commonly called the Toleration
Act, every subject in England, except Papists, &c., was
restored to, and re-established in, his natural right to worship God
according to the dictates of his own conscience. And, by the charter of
this Province, it is granted, ordained, and established (that is,
declared as an original right) that there shall be liberty of
conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except
Papists, inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within, such
Province or Territory. Magna Charta itself is in substance but a
constrained declaration or proclamation and promulgation in the name of
the King, Lords, and Commons, of the sense the latter had of their
original, inherent, indefeasible natural rights, as also those of free
citizens equally perdurable with the other. That great author, that
great jurist, and even that court writer, Mr. Justice Blackstone, holds
that this recognition was justly obtained of King John, sword in hand.
And peradventure it must be one day, sword in hand, again rescued and
preserved from total destruction and oblivion.
III. The Rights of the Colonists as Subjects.
A commonwealth or state is a body politic, or civil society of men,
united together to promote their mutual safety and prosperity by means
of their union.
The absolute rights of Englishmen and all freemen, in or out of civil
society, are principally personal security, personal liberty, and
private property.
All persons born in the British American Colonies are, by the laws of
God and nature and by the common law of England, exclusive of all
charters from the Crown, well entitled, and by acts of the British
Parliament are declared to be entitled, to all the natural, essential,
inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and privileges of subjects
born in Great Britain or within the realm. Among those rights are the
following, which no man, or body of men, consistently with their own
rights as men and citizens, or members of society, can for themselves
give up or take away from others.
First, "The first fundamental, positive law of all common wealths or
states is the establishing the legislative power. As the first
fundamental natural law, also, which is to govern even the legislative
power itself, is the preservation of the society."
Secondly, The Legislative has no right to absolute, arbitrary power
over the lives and fortunes of the people; nor can mortals assume a
prerogative not only too high for men, but for angels, and therefore
reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone.
"The Legislative cannot justly assume to itself a power to rule by
extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that justice is
dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided by
promulgated, standing, and known laws, and authorized independent
judges"; that is, independent, as far as possible, of Prince and
people. "There should be one rule of justice for rich and poor, for the
favorite at court, and the countryman at the plough."
Thirdly, The supreme power cannot justly take from any man any part of
his property, without his consent in person or by his representative.
These are some of the first principles of natural law and justice, and
the great barriers of all free states and of the British Constitution
in particular. It is utterly irreconcilable to these principles and to
many other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense, and
reason that a British House of Commons should have a right at pleasure
to give and grant the property of the Colonists. (That the Colonists
are well entitled to all the essential rights, liberties, and
privileges of men and freemen born in Britain is manifest not only from
the Colony charters in general, but acts of the British Parliament.)
The statute of the 13th of Geo. 2, C. 7, naturalizes even foreigners
after seven years' residence. The words of the Massachusetts charter
are these: "And further, our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby for
us, our heirs, and successors, grant, establish, and ordain, that all
and every of the subjects of us, our heirs, and successors, which shall
go to, and inhabit within our said Province or Territory, and every of
their children, which shall happen to be born there or on the seas in
going thither or returning from thence, shall have and enjoy all
liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects within any of the
dominions of us, our heirs, and successors, to all intents,
constructions, and purposes whatsoever as if they and every one of them
were born within this our realm of England."
Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without
consent? Can it be said with any color of truth and justice, that this
continent of three thousand miles in length, and of a breadth as yet
unexplored, in which, however, it is supposed there are five millions
of people, has the least voice, vote, or influence in the British
Parliament? Have they all together any more weight or power to return a
single member to that House of Commons who have not inadvertently, but
deliberately, assumed a power to dispose of their lives, liberties, and
properties, than to choose an Emperor of China? Had the Colonists a
right to return members to the British Parliament, it would only be
hurtful; as, from their local situation and circumstances, it is
impossible they should ever be truly and properly represented there.
The inhabitants of this country, in all probability, in a few years,
will be more numerous than those of Great Britain and Ireland together;
yet it is absurdly expected by the promoters of the present measures
that these, with their posterity to all generations, should be easy,
while their property shall be disposed of by a House of Commons at
three thousand miles' distance from them, and who cannot be supposed to
have the least care or concern for their real interest; who have not
only no natural care for their interest, but must be in effect bribed
against it, as every burden they lay on the Colonists is so much saved
or gained to themselves. Hitherto, many of the Colonists have been free
from quit rents; but if the breath of a British House of Commons can
originate an act for taking away all our money, our lands will go next,
or be subject to rack rents from haughty and relentless landlords, who
will ride at ease, while we are trodden in the dirt. The Colonists have
been branded with the odious names of traitors and rebels only for
complaining of their grievances. How long such treatment will or ought
to be borne, is submitted.
© 2008 - 2022 Revolutionary-War-and-Beyond.com Dan & Jax Bubis
Facebook Comments