« PreviousContinue »
of the revolution. Having given a brief statement of the grievances complained of, be proceeds thus:
“These high proceedings could not fail of giving a general alarm. Every sensible man sāw, that the same power that seized private property in one colony might do it in another: that the same power that altered one charter might alter or take away another: that the same power that took from the subject the right of trial by jury in one colony, might take it from the subject in every colony: that the same power that established popery and tyranny in one place might establish it in anoteer. Which weighty and important considerations excited every colony from New-Hampshire to Georgia to oppose these unrighteous proceedings. They evidently saw that it was a common cause, in which every American was deeply interested, and were sensible of the necessity of being united to a man. The mode of opposition they adopted was the best, the most pacific, their circumstances would adunit of. It was calculated to bring about an accommodation without the effusion of human blood.
6Sbould our king attempt to extend the royal prerogative beyond its proper limits, and thereby deprive us of our liberties, we should not eren in that case be bound by the oaths we have taken to submit. The compact between the king and the people would then be broken; he would cease to be our king; resistance would not only be lawful, but an indispensable duty; it would be resisting a tyrant, not a.king. And he who maintains the opposite doctrine, except through ignorance, is a traitor
at heart; he is a Jacobite in principle, unfriendly to the English constitution, an enemy to his king and his country. Should the Pretender again attempt the throne of Britain, this doctrive would be universally received by every loyal subject: the doctrine is as sound vow as it would be in that case: it is upon this principle of the lawfulness of resistance that king George III. sits upon the British throne.
"But this is not the case. His Majesty, as I know of, has made no attempt to extend the prerogative, but has rather suffered a diminution of it. The dispute is not between us and the king, but between us and the parliament. The king has the same authority here he has in Great Britain: the Americans never denied it, they always submitted to it; and have, particularly in the late war with France, and are still willing to hazard fortunes in its support.
“The question is this: Has the parliament of Great Britain authority to make laws to bind the Americans in all cases whatsoever? or in other words, have they a right to take our money out of our pockets without our consent, and apply it to what purposes they please? They assert they have; we maintain they have not."
"All the rights of free born British subjects bave been made over to us, ratified and confirmed by royal charter, and can never be taken from us bat by a flagrat breach of faith. And what we are now contending for is an undoubted, an indisputable right of a Brit:
ish subject. We have then as good a patent for this as we have for our lands; and if this can be taken from us, by the same authority and with equal justice may our lands and all we possess be taken. This assumed right of taxation is contrary to every idea of civil liberty, and to the spirit of the English constitution of government, according to which no man can be bound by any law but those of his own making; he cannot be obliged to pay any tax but by his own consent. It is a blow at the root of the English constitution, it saps the foundation of English government.
“The house of Stewart attempted to destroy these constitutional rights of the people; for wbich one lost his head and another his crown. The Revolution succeed. ed, and the present royal family were placed on the throne on the principles of liberty; in the principles of liberty their title is founded: destroy these, and you destroy the clairn of the house of Hanover to the crown."
The closing paragraph is in these words:
“I do not, gentlemen, exhort you to rebellion: rebel Jion is opposition to lawful authority and our rightful sovereign. The king and not the parliament is our soveTeign; the power we resist is not lawful but usurped; it is an attempt of part of his Majesty's subjects to tyran. ize over the rest, in violation of the most sacred rights
"I acknowledge the power of Great Britain: she has deets and armies at her command, she has skilful gener. als; but she has not justice on her side. Her forces
• Cannot act againstus without anexpensive voyage of near three thousand miles: when here, they are in a strange land. We are at home, in our own land, a woodland country, with which we are well acquainted, and of which we know how to make an advantage. We have provisions in our own houses, and we have justice on our side. We contend for our estates, for our liberties, for our lives, for our posterity, for the rights of our king and our country; they to gratify the ambition and avarice of a few. They are destroying their country; we are endeavouring to save it from ruin. This some in Great Britain already see; and I hope a vigorous and manlv opposition on our part will soon open the eyes of others, rouse up the ancient generous spirit of Britain, bring just vengeance on the authors of these wicked counsels, and restore the chartered rights of America: should not this be the case, I fear the glory and prosperity of Britain is at an eod, which may God of his great goodness forbid,"
These were Mr. Rice's political principles from the beginning, and to the close of his life he acted upon them. Hence, when the Declaration of Independence was made, it met with his bearty approbation and support, and though he never was, so far as it is known, in the field of battle, yet the services which be rendered in his sphere of action were by no means without their influence on the final result.
He was, in 1792, a member of the convention which formed the first constitution for the state of Kentucky, and from the same principles which made him a decident friend to the political independence of his country, he exerted himself on that occasion, both before the meeting of the convention and in his place as a member, that an article in the constitution should have provided for the gradual abolition of slavery. · He was born and raised in a slave state. He lived, and laboured, and died, in a slave state. Yet he never was reconciled to slavery. He uniformly considered it as a great moral and political evil, and he was also decidedly of opinion that a remedy for this evil might bave been obtained at the formation of the different state constitutions.
Mr. Rice was very active, and succeeded against considerable opposition in obtaining the establishment of Hampden and Sidney college, Virginia, and was the means of bringing the two first distinguished Presidents, Rev. Samuel S. Smith, and his brother John Blair Smith, who succeeded on his removal to the college of New Jersey The late Hon. Caleb Wallace was the
before Mr. Rice's removal to Kentucky, but after his determination to remove, the representative from Lincoln county in the legislature of Virginia. On his application he obtained the grant of certain escheated lands within the district of Kentucky for the purpose of establishing a a public school, and a charter for the establishment of a college to be called "The Transylvania Seminary," Mr. Rice was one of the first appointed Trustees, and upon the organization of the Board, was appointed chairman. The tirst meeting of the Board was at Lincola, Nov. 10, 1783. Mr. Rice continued chairman till July 1787, when he begged leave to resign, and Harry Innis, whe