LETTER ON SMITH'S HISTORY. COLDENGHAM, July 5th 1759 DEAR SON: We may clearly see the the pernicious effects of liberty turned to licentiousness in New York, at the time of the Revolution. All the Governors of New York, even supposing them as bad as Mr. Smith represents them, did not produce half the mischief, in all the time of their Government, which was produced in one year by the suppression of legal Government. Blood shed, Rapine, confiscations, Arbitrary & tyrannic acts & animosities, which could not be stifled in many years, were the consequence. It is evident that K William & his Ministers thought the Revolution could not be obstructed, by continueing K James his officers in the exercise of their authority. This appears by the orders given for that purpose, & that they thought it most prudent to do so. They must have been very weak indeed, who could imagine, that the power of New York, tho' it had been united, could in the least promote or obstruct the Revolution in Great Brittain : & therefor, in my opinion, none in New York could claim any Merit on that occasion. They only pursued their own disorderly passions, without any real concern for the good of their country. This is too generally the case in all popular commotions, under the plausible outcry for Liberty. How cautious then ought every one to be in contributing anything towards the weakning of the legal powers of Government, or to do any thing which may give power to a disorderly Mob. A Mob can never be directed by reason; but is hurried into the worst extremes, by prejudice and passion. The consequence generally turns to the destruction of those, who plumed them selves in their ability to incite the mob, which afterwards they are often no more able to govern, than to govern a whirl wind. Every attempt to put power in the mob ought to be crushed in the bud, especially in mixed governments. This was allwise don in the Roman republic, so long as they were able to preserve their liberty. Our Ennemies never fail to take advantage of intestine divisions & confusion. It is probable this induced he French at this time to attempt the Conquest of New fork. Mr. Smith has given an account of this, from Charlevoix; but he has omitted to inform us of an Instruction given to the Count de Frontinac, in case of success, which may be of use to the people to know. viz The French King ordered that all the Inhabitants should be driven out of the Country, Papists only excepted, who would swear allegiance to the King of France. Mr. Smith tells us that Coll Slaughter, the first Governor of New York after the Revolution, was utterly destitute of every qualification of government, licentious in his Morals, Avaritious & poor. Who can read this Character without thinking that it is greatly exaggerated? If this be true, & characters which you will find afterwards, New York gained little by the Revolution. Colonel Slaughter may well be thought weak, in having been prevailed on, while in liquor, to order the execution of a person whom he had resolved to have reprieved till their Majesty's pleasure should be known, as I have been told he was resolved; but this is no proof of licentiousness of his Morals. Nor is there any thing in the History of New York to prove his Avarice. That he was poor is no proof of it. By the first Act or Resolve of the first Assembly after the Revolution, a power is assumed of repealing Laws without the concurrence of the other branches of the Legislature, or a Judicial power of declaring them void. A Power which in no wise belonged to them: & which, if countenanced may be highly prejudicial both to the Crown & the Subject: & yet this usurped power has, in this instance, taken effect ever since. Do you think if a Governor had but attempted to usurp any such illegal power, that Mr. Smith would have passed it over without a note, as he does this in the Assembly. As to the Claim of the People of New York as an inherent right to be represented in assembly, of which Mr. Smith takes notice page 75 they seem often to forget their Subordination, in the manner they make this Claim. I shall mention one remarkable difference between the Claim of the People of England, and the claim of the People in the Colonies. It is impossible that the Supreme Legislature, that the King Lords & Commons can be guilty of High Treason; but it cannot be doubted, that a Governor Council & Assembly may be guilty. It is an illegal usurpation in a subordinate power to claim the same Rights & Privileges with the Supreme. The admitting of it would at least be a Solecism in Politicks. Mr. Smith's Character of Colonel Fletcher is that He was by Profession a Soldier, a man of Strong passions, & inconsiderable talents, very active, & very avaricious. I find several instances in the History of New York, which shew that Col. Fletcher pursued the Interest of his Country with zeal & activity: & I discover no want of talents, unless it be, that he seems not to have Studied much the art of cajoling an assembly; & this Mr. Smith might have excused, by his being bred a Soldier, had Mr. Smith any inclination to excuse any Governor. But I cannot discover the least instance of his Col. Fletcher avarice. Surely his thanking the Assembly & at the same time refuseing a present of £500 to himself & £500 more to be distributed among the officers & soldiers is not told as an instance of his Avarice: nor is his contributing largely to the building of Trinity Church an other instance. As the greatest part of the province consisted of |