Deeply impressed by the perilous and distressing aspect of our publick affairs, we assure Your Honour of "our best exertions for the general welfare."

We are happy to accord with you "that our enemies alone could have represented the New England states as prepared for opposition to the authority of the law, and ripening for a secession from the Union." We believe with Your Honour, that "such suggestions" in regard to New-England "are unfounded." "It cannot" indeed "be concealed that in this state existing difficulties, and apparent indications of greater ones," have, as in a former memorable period of our history, roused the spirit of our citizens; but wes trust with Your Honour" that their character is not marked with propensities to outrage, disorder and blood." On the contrary, that as they correctly understand their duties, they will steadily and resolutely maintain their rights.

The people of New England perfectly understand the distinction between the constitution and the administration. They are as sincerely attached to the former as any section of the United States. They may be put under the ban of the empire, but they have no intention of abandoning the Union. And we have the pleasure explicitly to declare our full concurrence with Your Honour, "that such suggestions are not less a libel upon the great body of the New England people, than on their patriotism."

As the government of the Union is a confederation of equal and independent states with limited powers, we agree with Your Honour "that it is not unbecoming any member of the Union with firmness and moderation to question the justness or policy of measures while they are pending and ripening for adoption ;" and we learn with concern from Your Honour, "that there are stages when questions"without even excepting questions involving unalienable rights" can be no longer open to controversy and opposition"-" stages when an end must be put to debate, and a decision thence resulting be respect

ed by its prompt and faithful execution, or government loses its existence, and the people are ruined."

Even if Your Honour's principle were correct, can it be imagined that "we are" (as Your Honour is pleased to intimate)" now in this stage, on the great questions of non-intercourse and national defence?" These measures are "still pending and ripening for adoption." Is it then "unbecoming" for this state to question their "justness or policy?"

But with great deference to Your Honour, we apprehend, that this principle, if carried into effect, would render our free government a despotism, and bring inevitable" ruin upon the people." If we apply it to one of the cases mentioned by Your Honour, the embargo, the principle will present itself in some of its deformity. It is well known that the act, imposing the embargo, passed the Senate of the United States in the space of a few hours, and passed all the forms of legislation in four days, after that measure was recommended by the President.

The people of this state, therefore, could not by any possibility have had an opportunity "to question its justness or policy," and even senators, in Congress, were not allowed the time they requested for that purpose.-And are the people of Massachusetts to understand, that " a decision" of this nature "must be respected by its prompt and faithful execution?" that it is too late for them to question its "justness or policy?" Are they to believe that the stage" has passed, and that indeed nothing re mains for them but quiet submission? We owe it to ourselves and to the people distinctly to deny this doctrine, at once novel and pernicious.

"

An administration may become corrupt, but the people will remain pure, We are therefore constrained with great respect to express our mingled regret and astonishment, that Your Honour should seem to doubt the capacity of the people to decide on questions involving their unalienable rights.Your Honour is pleased to ask "if citizens in the

streets-in town meetings, in multitudinous assemblies, pressed with deep personal interests, are capable of deciding on great, complicated and constitutional questions?" and to observe that from hence our peril.

May we be permitted to ask, who shall decide when the publick functionaries abuse their trust ?— We need not inform Your Honour, that the meetings to which you allude, have been attended by men second to none in the United States for their legal and political knowledge-for their love of order-and for their patriotism: many of whom have grown grey in the publick service and confidence-many of them now holding high and important offices in the state; and that these meetings have been conducted with great order and decorum.

Can such assemblies of the citizens mèrit censure in a republican government? but you will please to permit us to remark, that your animadversion upon these meetings, appears the more extraordinary, because in another part of your communication, Your Honour is pleased to observe, "that it had been the arduous task of our rulers to collect the diversified sentiments of their constituents, and to assimilate and concentrate them as far as possible to an according system predicated on the prevailing opinion”—a measure indeed very proper, but which could only be effectual, by the free interchange of opinion, and those very meetings of the citizens from which Your Honour seems afterwards to apprehend so much danger. Your Honour may be assured that we "question not the sincerity of the opinion" which you have been pleased to intimate, of the incapacity of the people-But you will permit us to declare, that upon their knowledge of their rights and duties, and their firmness and perseverance in maintaining them, our hope is placed. They will ultimately form a just decision. Hence our ark-not "our peril."

We beg leave to observe, that those rights, which the people have not chosen to part with, should be

D

exercised by them with delicacy-only in times of great danger-not with "distraction and confusion"-not to oppose the laws, but to prevent acts being respected as laws, which are unwarranted by the commission given to their rulers. On such occasions, passive submission would on the part of the people, be a breach of their allegiance, and on our part treachery and perjury. For the people are bound by their allegiance, and we are additionally bound by our oaths to support the constitution of the state-and we are responsible to the people, and to our God, for the faithful execution of the trust.

But Your Honour is pleased to observe, that "the Union have their favourite projects-states, towns and individuals have theirs ;" and to inquire whether, "thus jarring with augmented resentments, we are to rush together in ruinous collisions.'

Can it be necessary to remind Your Honour that the aggressor is responsible for all the consequences, which you have been pleased so pathetically to describe that the people have not sent us here to surrender their rights, but to maintain and defend them?-and, that we have no authority to dispense with the duties thus solemnly imposed? Your Honour has described "the calamities which introduced our federal constitution," with great truth. "Our government was humbled and inefficientour union a thread-our commerce unregulated and unprotected our revenue nothing-our faith perfidy-our credit bankruptcy-our privations the want of every thing-individuals were embarrassed," &c. "and our courts of justice stopped, &c."

Can it be necessary to remind Your Honour, that the administration of Washington produced precisely the reverse of the picture which you have been pleased to draw so much to the life?

And will you permit us to ask in our turn, but in Your Honour's words, "Whence then the causes of jealousy, distrust, altercations and bitter aspersion" of that great and good man, and upon all whe

were attached to his measures? "Whence the ever to be regretted indiscretions, suddenness and individual rashness which denounced" an administration, that safely guided the people to prosperity and glory, amidst great and impending dangers? Were these calumniators "more worthy of confidence," "better instructed," or did they "possess higher means of information"-were they less "blinded by their interest," less "actuated by prejudice, or stimulated by resentments," than the political saviour of his country and his compatriots? Whence then "the misrepresentations, groundless suspicions, violent and indiscriminate abuse," thrown upon men who had a right to call for "union" in support of their measures-upon men who had given to the publick the proof of their talents, zeal and labours to serve and render their country great and happy?"

But the present administration, although aware of the "effects of past arrangements," had not the wisdom or magnanimity to adopt them. They have ventured upon new expedients-and are responsible to their country for the distressing "results."

Your Honour is pleased to inquire "if we could not wait with magnanimous patience, and endure privations a few months longer, and give to government one fair, unimpeded experiment, upon foreign nations."

The administration has indeed been "pressed to the very wall," and we know not how much "further" they would "retreat" if they could.

6.

But, may it please Your Honour, we have seen as little of spirit" as of policy in the embargo system. We know that the emperour approves, if he did not dictate, the measure. We know that Great Britain receives immense advantage from the surrender to her of the whole trade of the world; and we cannot imagine why the people should be called upon to "endure privations" any longer, unless the administration, having failed to operate on the fears or interests of the "warring powers," expect ere long to obtain some relief from their compassion,