fcss 
 
Glass. 
 Book. 
 
 £|a 
 
 W355 
 
S3 
 
 
"THE AFFAIRS OF RHODE ISLAND/' 
 
 A REVIEW OF PRESIDENT WAYLAND'S 
 
 "DISCOURSE;" '''^ 
 
 VINDICATION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF 
 
 THE PEOPLE, 
 
 AND A 
 
 Refutation of the Doctrines and Doctors of Despotism. 
 
 MEMBER OF THE BOSTON BAR. 
 
 " In our Governments the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in 
 the People." — Judge tVilson's Works, I'o/. 3, p. 292. 
 
 BOSTON : 
 
 PUBLISHED BY BENJAMIN B. MUSSEY. 
 1842. 
 

 " If, therefore, at any time our ancestors have, through ne- 
 glect, lost anything that was their right, why should that preju- 
 dice us their posterity ? If they would promise for themselves 
 to become slaves, they could make no such promise for us ! " 
 John Milton : Answer to Salmasius. 
 
 Entered according^ to act of Congress, in the year 1842, by B. B. Ml-sset, in 
 the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 
 
 Printed ty I. R. Butts, 
 2 Sclwul Street, Boston. 
 
REVIEW, &c 
 
 The events which gave rise to this "Discourse" upon the 
 affairs of Rhode Island, have excited throughout our land the 
 liveliest curiosity, and the anxious hopes and fears of the true 
 friends of republican principles. 
 
 The people of Rhode Island, who have, for more than forty 
 years, been quietly endeavoring, by petition and appeal to the Leg- 
 islature of that State, to procure for themselves, what every other 
 member of our federal Republic has long possessed, — a Con- 
 stitution ; and whose prayers have, for nearly half a century, 
 been alternately refused and insulted; — a people whose plainest 
 political rights have always been denied and withheld by a legis- 
 lative body under the absolute control of a landed oligarchy, and 
 who have never been allowed any voice, or influence, in the 
 government, though that government has compelled them to sup- 
 ply its revenues, and bear its burdens ; — wearied at last of vain 
 entreaty, and provoked by oppression and contumely, into the 
 exercise of their own unquestionable sovereignty, — have, in 
 their sovereign capacity, instituted for themselves a form of Con- 
 stitution, and frame of government, such as they believed adapted 
 to the protection of the public welfare, such as all sister States 
 enjoy, and such as Rhode Island ought to have instituted the 
 moment British domination expired in America, — and have de- 
 clared this their Constitution, by a large and indisputable ma- 
 jority, to be the supreme law of their community. 
 
 Having thus exercised, in a wise and prudent manner, their 
 inalienable right of creating a Constitution, and having promul- 
 gated that Constitution, they had every every reason that past 
 history, — the experience of sister republics, — could supply, for 
 expecting that this frame of government would be universally 
 
respected, and be allowed, by the minority, to go into peaceful 
 operation. But this expectation was most signally and surpris- 
 ingly disappointed. The minority, composed of a set of men 
 who had long claimed the exclusive right to govern, refused to 
 submit or obey; and set themselves in deadly hostility against 
 the People and their Constitution. The government de facto 
 refused to become obedient to the government dejure; disdain- 
 ing even to inquire, in their legislative ..apacity, whether or not 
 the Constitution was the act of the people, and denying totally 
 the right of the people to reform or establish a government, ex- 
 cept by the consent of the pre-existing Legislature, and in modes, 
 and upon principles, by that Legislature to be dictated and pre- 
 scribed. 
 
 Never before, in the history of free government, has a specta- 
 cle so sadly disgraceful, been presented to the consideration of 
 the world. Never before, was it seen, or imagined, that a gov- 
 ernment claiming to be republican, and to be founded on popu- 
 lar principles, — on the consent of the governed, — could rise 
 in rebellion against the clearly expressed will of the people, and 
 the plainest principles of right, and persist in sustaining itself 
 without and against the will and consent of the people. 
 
 Well might an exhibition of weakness and political sin so 
 monstrous, awaken universal astonishment, and cause the friends 
 of freedom, everywhere, to express in the strongest terms, their 
 wonder and abhorrence. 
 
 In this condition and crisis of affairs, what remained to be 
 done ? Could the people abandon their rights, and tamely sub- 
 mit to be despoiled of their sovereignty ? or should they go de- 
 liberately forward in the administration of their new frame of 
 government, and, if needful, remove from their path, by the 
 strong arm of power, the usurping and rebellious aristocracy? 
 
 There could be no hesitation among true-hearted American 
 men. The people must assert their right to rule, at all events 
 and at all hazards. 
 
 This was attempted. But still the usurping minority resisted, 
 and defied the people, and the real, rightful government, to a 
 contest of blood. On the side of the usurpation, was the pos- 
 session of the public purse and sword, — the actual control of 
 the public offices and property, and the promise of the countless 
 bayonets of a foreign power, — of the standing army of the 
 United States. 
 
 The first scene of the first act of the tragedy thus prepared 
 by the lawless, the traitorous minority, occurred in Providence, 
 on Monday and Tuesday, 10th and 17th of May, 1842, and the 
 result was, that usurpation, for that time, triumphed over right ; 
 — and a government, founded in wrong and outrage, succeeded 
 in crushing, for awhile, the hopes and the courage, the rights 
 and liberty, of the people. No blood was then spilled, and the 
 
quiet of submission has succeeded to the clangor of arms and the 
 confusion of conflict. 
 
 At tills juncture, grateful that the tempest has lulled, rejoicing 
 that actual warfare has not yet supervened, the learned President 
 of Brown University appears, on Sunday, 22d of May, in the 
 pulpit whilonie filled by Roger Williams, and delivers this ex- 
 traordinary discourse. 
 
 The sermon bears evident marks of the truth so candidly 
 avowed in its exordium, that it was hastily prepared, while the 
 author was under strong excitement, and in a condition which 
 might well lead him to self-distrust. Its composition is careless 
 in style, though full of fervor, — its doctrines are unsound, — its 
 arguments are inconsistent. We look in vain for the lucidus 
 ordo, the accurate analysis, and the polished periods, which 
 characterise the mature productions of the author of the " Dis- 
 course on the Moral Dignity of the Missionary Enterprise." 
 But more than this. We miss that clearness of judgment, and 
 that lofty tone of bold republicanism, which were so conspicuous 
 in the splendid sermons " on the Duties of an American Citizen," 
 and in the " Eulogy" of July, 11^20, on Adams and Jetferson. 
 
 The fact is beyond all question, that the author is here labor- 
 ing against the truth. Not that his motives are to be questioned, 
 or suspected; but he is enlisted against sound doctrine and the 
 righteous cause ; and this fact renders his labors far less success- 
 ful than is his wont. He describes the usurpation party as the 
 friends of law and order ; and speaks of those who were really 
 defending the constitution and the rights of the community, as " a 
 lawless soldiery." A blunder like this, so radical and complete, 
 destroys, of course, all foundation for fair reasoning and trust- 
 worthy argument. 
 
 The sermon may be described as composed of three distinct 
 portions. The first consists of a description of ilie perils from 
 which the good city of Providence, and the admirable government 
 of Rhode Island, liad just, by the Lord's help, been rescued. 
 The second purports to be a statement of the origin of these pe- 
 rils, and of the cause of the recent conflict. The third consists 
 of the author's politico-religious creed, and appropriate exhorta- 
 tions. 
 
 We shall be able to point out and correct the author's mis- 
 takes of fact and doctrine, without a very rigorous adhesion to 
 the foregoing analysis. 
 
 After describing in strong terms, the dangers which had 
 seemed to threaten Providence, and all which arose according to 
 his notions, not from the obstinate and treasonable resistance of 
 the Oligarchy, under the lead of Gov. King, (or as he has well 
 heen c?tUed, ^ the King Governor,') bnt from the earnest deter- 
 mination of the people to establish law and constitution. Doctor 
 Wayland thus proceeds to delineate and condemn the doctrines 
 
6 
 
 of the Suffrage party, as indicated by their adopting and endeav- 
 oring to maintain a constitution upon the common basis of popu- 
 lar sovereignty : " The principles that have been avowed, seem 
 to me as utterly subversive of all other governments, as they are 
 of our own. If an established government may be overturned 
 on the principles which have been advocated, and in the manner 
 which we have seen attempted, no constitution in the land is worth 
 the parchment on which it is written. All that would be neces- 
 sary in order to establish unlimited power over us, would be, 
 without the forms of law, to lay claim to a majority, and assem- 
 ble a sufficient number of armed men to carry its decisions into 
 effect. The same means by which the first usurpation was ac- 
 complished would be a good reasonfor perpetrating a second and 
 a third,* &c." (pp. 7, 8.) 
 
 One feels half inclined to suspect here a lurking allusion by 
 the preacher, to the unjustifiable procedure, by which Gov. King 
 and his factious followers, though a minority, and possessing no 
 lawful authority, have usurped power, and claimed the possession 
 of right, and assembled " a sufficient number of armed men" to 
 carry into effect their unjustifiable opposition to the will of the 
 sovereign people of Rhode Island. But construing him seri- 
 ously, let us ask what are " the principles that have been advo- 
 cated " in Rhode Island by the framers and supporters of the 
 constitution adopted by the people of that State ; and what has 
 been "the manner" in which those men have conducted this 
 controversy. 
 
 The grand doctrine that " has been advocated •"' is, that the 
 people have, at all times, the unquestionable right, in such man- 
 ner as to them may seem fit, to institute, alter, reform or abolish 
 the government ; and that, more especially after a half century of 
 continual and incurable oppression, they have the right of abolish- 
 ing that form of government under which they have thus suffered. 
 
 Such is the "principle." Now as to " the manner" in which 
 the people of Rhode Island have attempted to exercise that prin- 
 ciple. They have, peacefully and quietly, framed a Constitution, 
 adopted it by a vote of more than three-fifths of all the adult 
 white male population of the State; chosen their Executive and 
 Legislative servants under it, and given notice to the old govern- 
 ment to stand aside. Meeting refusal, where they were entitled 
 to obedience, and opposition where concurrence was the unques- 
 tionable duty of the old regime, — they endeavored, as they of 
 right could, and should, do, to suppress this opposition, and 
 restore supremacy to the law. This is their manner. The dis- 
 course (p. 0.) speaking of the minority in their factious resist- 
 ance, contains one sentiment, which rightly applied, should find 
 
 *This last sentence seems to bear marks of liasty concoction. We do not 
 quite see how " the same means''' could become " a good reason." 
 
an echo in every generous mind ; it is this ; — " I believe that, 
 rather than submit to such a despotism, the despotism of lawless 
 force, every good citizen ivoiilel contend unto death!" We com- 
 mend this sentence to the hearty adoption of the suffrage party, — 
 the people, — as their watchword henceforth, and until the cause 
 of right and truth shall prevail. - - 
 
 And now let us return to the doctrine, ^ — " tJm frinciple ," — 
 which so alarms the preacher ; i. e. the sovereign right of the 
 people, to create, change, abolish gover^iment, as they may deem 
 their interest to require. ^' 
 
 One would suppose, that, in fhis country, " the principle" was 
 too well established, too famiJ^ar, too dearly loved, to be called 
 in question. But such, if "^e may judge by this discourse, is 
 not the fact ; and as, in free governments, a constant recurrence 
 to elementary principles is of unspeakable importance, we, per- 
 chance may find some advantage in considering the general doc- 
 trine of the American People, both now and in former times, 
 upon this question. 
 
 In the Declaratit),n of Independence, (which became the act of 
 the Rhode Island/Legislature, by their Revolution of July 12, 
 1776,) the»doctrine is proclaimed to the world, that all "govern- 
 ments deriv.e their just powers from the consent of the governed," 
 and that " whenever any form of government becomes destructive 
 of the ends for which it was instituted, it is the right of the peo- 
 yle to alter, or to abolish it, and to institute a new government." 
 
 An examination of the constitutions of those twenty-five States 
 of the Union, which have any recognised frame of government, 
 will show, that this doctrine is universally adopted and promul- 
 gated, and in terms clear, explicit, forcible and almost prophetic, 
 in their adaptation to this very Rhode Island emergency. 
 
 Thus the Constitution of Maine [Art. 1. §2.) declares that 
 " all power is, inherent in the people ; all free governments are 
 founded in their authority; they have, therefore, an unalienable 
 and indefeasible right to institute government, and to alter, re- 
 form or totally change the same, when their safety and happiness 
 require it." 
 
 The Bill of Rights of " the old Bay State," in its Preamble 
 and seventh article, repeatedly sets forth the same propositions. 
 
 The New Hampshire Constitution asserts not only the 7-ight, 
 but the duty of, the people to reform, or change the government 
 when " its ends are perverted, o\ public liberty manifestly endan- 
 gered ;" and it then adds a truth, which we commend to the con- 
 sideration of those who, like the author of this discourse (p. 29.) 
 believe an unjust government to be an " ordinance of God," and 
 those who resist it worJUiy of " damnation;" viz. "the doctrine 
 of non-resistance to arbitrary power and oppression, is absurd, 
 slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." 
 (iV. H. Bill of Rights, Arts. 1 & 10.) 
 
8 
 
 The Constitution of Vermont, (Declaration of RigJits, Art. 
 7.) is yet more explicit and emphatic, and seems to have been 
 framed to meet the insolent pretensions of the Rhode Island 
 landholders, that they are the "people," and that they have a 
 right to prescribe "the manner" in which any change of gov- 
 ernment shall be effected. Its words are these; — "Govern- 
 ment is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, 
 protection and security of the people, nation, or community, 
 and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single 
 man, family, or set of men who are a part only of that communi- 
 ty ;" (hear this, ye landholders of ^hode Island !) " and the com- 
 munity hath an indubitable, unali^able, and indefeasible right 
 to reform or alter government, in such manner, as shall be by that 
 community , judged most conducive to the public tccal." 
 
 The voice of Connecticut {Const. Art. 1. §. 2.) has uttered 
 the same truth, in regard to the popular power in determining 
 the 7nanner oi reform, or change. 
 
 See also the Constitutions of New Jersey (Preamble) and of 
 Pennsylvania (Art. 9. §. 2.) — the last of which may well be 
 quoted ; " The people, at all times, have an uaalienable, and in- 
 defeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in 
 such manner as they think proper." 
 
 But above all, and last of all, (for we will not weary our 
 readers by running the gauntlet of all our Constitutions,) — 
 above all, how eloquently to these points, speaks out the Consti- 
 tution of "the ancient Dominion!" "All men are by nature 
 equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, 
 of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, 
 by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, viz., the en- 
 joyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and 
 possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and 
 safety." " A majority of the community hath an indubitable, 
 unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish, 
 government in such manner as shall be judged most conducive 
 to the public weal." ( Dill of Rights, originally adopted June 
 12, 177G. §§. 1. 3.;. 
 
 Such is the people's right. It is " unalienable," and cannot 
 be sold, or given, or thrown away. 
 
 It is " indefeasible," and cannot be justly taken away, or 
 withheld, or refused, by any set of men, or board of rulers. 
 
 It may be exercised " at all times " — for it is at all times in 
 and with the people. 
 
 It may be exercised in such " manner " as the people please : 
 — in the mode, and to the extent, by themselves judged expe- 
 dient: for, apart from the laws of conscience, the movements of 
 sovereign power are incapable of restraint or limitation. It is 
 of itself, paramount, and contains within itself the minor trifles 
 of manner and modus operandi These are to be "judged" of 
 
by the people for themselves. They determine what manner of 
 alteration, what manner of reform, what manner of abolishing, 
 or creating, is for the public weal. Their ancestors are not to 
 judge for them, and carmot bind them : their rulers are not to 
 judge for them : their tyrants are not to judge for them. They, 
 in their sovereign capacity, and at their own option, must judge 
 for themselves, decide for theniseves, act for themselves : and, in 
 the language of Dr. Wayland himself, uttered long since, and 
 before the Rhode Island atmosphere had clouded his vision, — 
 "Wountoihe man, wo unto the dynasty, wo unio i\\e party , 
 and wo unto the policy, on whom shall fall the scath of their 
 blighting indignation .'" 
 
 This was the old liberty doctrine. Without it we should never 
 have broken one link of Parliamentary despotism, one chain of 
 British misrule. Yet Rhode Islanders, and their advocates and 
 preachers, are now frightened by the very shadow of this princi- 
 ple, and cry out, " alas! that such heresy should be spoken or 
 acted !" or, in the words of this Discourse, that " the asserted 
 majority of the people, — a majority determined by no forms of 
 law*, has a right, at any moment, to overturn the whole fabric of 
 existing institutions and form a government at will !" {Discourse, 
 pp. IG, 17.) 
 
 How would these modern preachers against the "principles" 
 of the fathers, dare meet, face to fiice, the stern old patriarchs 
 and heroes of the golden age of our patriotism ; the Washington, 
 the Adams, the Jetferson, the Jay, the Wilson, whose trumpet 
 tongues proclaimed from the held, the forum, and the court, those 
 fundamental principles of republicanism, whereof the constitu- 
 tions we iiave quoted and referred to, are the oracles and echoes ! 
 The rebuke of Adams and Jefierson. — nay, of the entire 
 Congress of '76, — the venerable and illustrious " Signers," upon 
 these modern doctrines and doctors of despotism, is found in the 
 Declaration of Independence; and "the great Father of his 
 Country," in his " Farewell Address," (which Rhode Island poli- 
 ticians may find prefi.xed to their strange Code of 179(5) ; has 
 left his solemn declaration, as a guide to all coming ages, that 
 " the basis of onr political systems is the right of the people 
 
 TO MAKE AND TO ALTER THEIR CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT." 
 
 This maxim is, indeed, incorporated into the Bill of Rights of 
 every American Constitution, except that which, in November 
 last, was framed by the landholders' Convention in Rhode 
 Island. From that record of the reluctant concessions of a 
 usurping oligarchy, it was most scrupulously excluded ! 
 
 The framers of the federal constitution gave a most signal 
 expression of this principle, in casting off the ties of the old 
 
 * What "form of law" except simple addition, can "determine a 
 majority ?" 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 Confederation in 1787. That Confederation, by its final article, 
 was declared inviolable and perpetual, and exempt forever from 
 alteration, except such as should be agreed to in Congress, and 
 confirmed by the Legislature of every ^State. The Constitution 
 of 1787, (Art. 1.) without regard to this rule of inviolability, 
 provided that its "ratification by the Conventions oi nine States, 
 should be sufficient for the establishment of the Constitution 
 between the States so ratifying the same." The people never 
 dreamed, in those days, that their sovereignty could be denied, 
 restrained or set at defiance. 
 
 It is worthy of remembrance that the Charter Government of 
 Rhode Island, alone of all the States, refused to send delegates 
 to the Convention which framed the Federal Constitution : and 
 that the State of Rhode Island was the last to come into the 
 Union, having held out, in obstinate reliance upon the sufficien- 
 cy of its defunct royal Charter, until May, 1790. 
 
 We cannot close this view of the prevalence, and truth, of 
 the "principle" of the Rliode Island suffrage movement, more 
 appropriately than by quoting the opinions delivered in 1787, by 
 Judge Wilson of Pennsylvania, who was a member of that cele- 
 brated Federal Convention, and who was, after its labors closed, 
 appointed one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States: — "The truth is," said that eminent lawyer, "that 
 in our governments, the supreme, absolute and uncontrollable 
 power, remains in the people : as our Constitutions are superior 
 to our legislature, so the people are superior to our Constitutions. 
 Indeed, the superiority in this last instance, is much greater; for 
 the people possess, over our Constitutions, control in act, as well 
 as in right. 
 
 " The consequence is, that the people may change the Consti- 
 tutions ichencvcr and however they please. This is a right of 
 which 710 positive institution can ever deprive them!'' * 
 
 This was the opinion of the man who represented Pennsyl- 
 vania in the Federal Convention, and whom Washington almost 
 immediately after this opinion had been pronounced in the Penn- 
 sylvania Legislature, elevated to the bench of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States. 
 
 In another part of the same work we find the same man, as 
 an apology for argument on the subject, thus saying : — 
 
 " In America, indeed, the doctrine has not been denied in 
 words : yet unwearied attempts have, on more occasions than 
 one, been made to elude its operation and to destroy its force," 
 
 Had he lived to read this Discourse he would now say " this 
 doctrine has been denied in words." — Had he lived to witness the 
 controversy in Rhode Island, he would have added one more 
 instance to his catalogue of " attempts." 
 
 * Judge Wilson's Works, vol. 3. pp. 2.92—3. Philad. ed. 1804. 
 
11 
 
 This is the true doctrine of republicanism. Tiie right thus 
 residing in the people is beyond, and forever beyond, limitation 
 and control, and can no more be restrained or abandoned, than 
 can the range and scope of human thought, or the heavenward 
 hopes and aspirations of an immortal soul. " Prudence, indeed," 
 — to quote again from the Declaration of Independence, — 
 "Prudence will dictate, that governments long established should 
 not be changed for light or transient causes." Of \.h'\s " pru- 
 dence," the people, alone, are the authoritative judges; and 
 though they will listen to the advice of friends, and think it law- 
 ful to learn even of their enemies, they will be likely to pay little 
 heed to those who question their rights, and still less will they 
 submit to the dictation of usurping rulers. 
 
 Nor need any apprehension be felt, except by the advocates 
 of defective and despotic institutions, (such as royal Charters and 
 uncontrolled Legislatures,) that the people will be in haste to dis- 
 turb their constituted systems and organs of authority ; for, in 
 the language of the same Declaration " all experience hath shown 
 that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are suffera- 
 ble, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which 
 they are accustomed." Such is the lesson of the past; and he 
 who has studied the history of his race, and who forms a just 
 judgment upon the character of his fellow citizens, will not, in 
 his sober hours, entertain any fear that liberal Constitutions, or 
 just and equal laws, will be rashly subverted by the action of the 
 people. 
 
 Indeed, the conduct of the people of Rhode Island itself, for 
 the half century last past, furnishes an amazing, nay almost in- 
 credible specimen of popular forbearance and fear of change; 
 an example of endurance without parallel in America. Nothing 
 but a patience amounting nearly to servility, could so long have 
 tolerated the political mischiefs and injuries that have been un- 
 sparingly, and in increasing measure, heaped upon that com- 
 munity. 
 
 Dr. Wayland, we doubt not, speaks the sincere convictions of 
 the moment, when he says (p. 9) that under the government of 
 Rhode Island "ewer// man has been most perfectly protected; 
 every man has enjoyed the most perfect liberty." But an appeal to 
 facts may perhaps change this opinion, and will certainly exhibit 
 its incorrectness. 
 
 It is but a few years since the "freemen"* of Providence (we 
 believe the author will remember the fact) passed and enforced 
 a resolution, excluding all other persons from the floor of the 
 Town House during Town meetings. A trifling act, perhaps; 
 but " er pede, Htrculem;" the set of the current may be learned 
 from a floating bubble. 
 
 * Such is the name given to qualified voters. The rest of the people may 
 be called serfs or bondmen. 
 
12 
 
 We happen to know that, for about fifteen years the author of 
 the Discourse has resided in Rhode Island, paying taxes every 
 year, yet never allowed to vote, nor to exert his influence, or lift 
 up his voice, in the affairs of government, nor to sit upon a jury, 
 nor to claim the protection of law hy sueing out his writ. All 
 this may, in his opinion, be no injury, no infringement of liberty, 
 no more than an inconsiderable loss. But such, for a hundred 
 years, has been the fate of all other citizen " serfs," not " free- 
 men ; " and in the common opinion of plain republicans, such a 
 state of political servitude ?.'? an evil. 
 
 Is the right of suffrage, of choosing the public servant, the law 
 maker, the executive, the tax-imposer, the levier of public bur- 
 dens, — of being represented : — is all this nothing ? More than 
 three fifths of the adult male population of Rhode Island have 
 neither part nor lot in this matter.* Upwards of fourteen thou- 
 sand men are thus disfranchised, while the entire affairs of the 
 government are controlled by less than nine thousand " frccmni !" 
 
 While more than three fifths of the citizens are thus reduced 
 to the condition of vassalage, they are {Stot. 119S, p. 407, §§ I. 
 3. & \S-2-2, p. 310) compelled to pay taxes : and {Stat. '98, p. 
 423 &1. 1822, p. 320) to do military duty : so that more than 
 three fifths of the burdens of the State are imposed upon a class 
 of men totally unrepresented in the Rhode Island Parliament; 
 and from the government, which thus wastes their substance, and 
 despoils tliem of their rights, they are, in fact, as far removed, as 
 though the wide waste of the Atlantic rolled between. 
 
 What would the patriots of '76 have said of a political system 
 like this? In their creed would it have been " perfect liberty" 
 and " perfect protection ? " 
 
 The patriots of '76 ! Nay, rather, go to the Americans of near a 
 hundred years earlier : to the Colonial legislature of Massachu- 
 setts in 1692, and hear them announcing to the British monarch, 
 that " no tax, aid or imposition could rightfully be assessed or 
 levied upon them, without the act and consent of their own leg- 
 islature wherein they tvcre re presented." ■\ 
 
 This was the voice of all the Colonies ; who claimed as their 
 indefeasible right, that where there was no representation, there 
 should be no taxation. 
 
 The Continental Congress in their celebrated Declaration of 
 Rights, in 1774, maintained that "the foundation of all free gov- 
 ernment was a right in the people to partake of the legislative 
 poioer: and that they were entitled to a free and exclusive power 
 of legislation in all matters of taxation, in their several provincial 
 legislatures, tvhere their right of representation could alone be 
 preserved."! 
 
 * The whole number of this class exceeds 23,000 : the largest vote ever 
 thrown (in 1S40) was but 8662. 
 
 t Hazard, State Papers, vol. l,pp. 408, 487. 
 i Journal of Cong., vol. 1. 
 
13 
 
 What but the denial and infringement of this right, which de- 
 nial was considered tantamount to Parliamentary despotism, kin- 
 dled the flame of the Revolution ? The " tea act," " the stamp 
 act," "the Boston Port bill," — these were the grand overt-acts 
 of legislative tyranny, which sounded the war cry of patriotism 
 all over the land, and the knell of British domination in America. 
 
 It is difficult for us to believe that among our fellow-country- 
 men there can be found many who place so low a value upon 
 this grand fundamental right, as the Discourse would lead us to 
 suppose is attached thereto by its author. Wc have been taught 
 to regard it as of unspeakable importance, essential to the e.xist- 
 ence of liberty, the palladium of free government. Not so the 
 Discourse. 
 
 On page 13 it says, speaking of the government of Rhode 
 Island, 
 
 " A form of social organization which has maintained this 
 character* for one hundred and eighty years in the midst of a 
 people proverbially jealous of their rights,f cohUI not surely con- 
 tain any element essentially vnfai'orablc to liberty." 
 
 This is said of a government whose Charter limits citizenship 
 to such persons as the Assembly may, by their vote, admit as 
 " freemen ; " and whose laws provide that no person shall enjoy 
 that right, — the right of freemen, — unless, being the owner of 
 real estate of the clear value of one hundred and thirty-four dol- 
 lars, in the town where he resides, he shall, by the " freemen" 
 of that town, after three months' nomination, be admitted as a 
 freeman thereof. 
 
 This fact furnishes a comment somewhat singular upon the 
 boasted perfectness of Rhode Island government : and it leads 
 us to correct a curious mistake into which the Discourse has 
 fallen in the attempt to set forth the primary facts involved in 
 this great controversy. The author says, (p. 12,) 
 
 " The charter under which this State has from the beginning 
 existed, limits the right of suffrage to those who possess real 
 estate to the value of one hundred and thirty-four dollars." 
 " The qualijication was placed so low that it was believed that 
 most persons who really desired to participate in public affairs, 
 might easily do so." 
 
 The Charter of Rhode Island contains no such provision; as 
 any one will perceive who examines it carefully. That instru- 
 ment does not create, nor in any way refer to or recognise any 
 such property qualification; but simply authorises the Assembly 
 to admit all whom it pleases to make " freemen." Nor was it 
 till 1724, that the Assembly imposed any limitation as to proper- 
 
 * Query : Reputation ? 
 
 t What people .' The freemen, or those who have been seeking a reform 
 with vain efforts for half a century ? 
 
14 
 
 ty. In 16G6, as a matter of convenience, the Assembly trans- 
 ferred to the several towns the power of admission. The act of 
 1724 provided a property qualification of one hundred pounds, — 
 which was, in 17&2, reduced to forty pounds, whose equivalent 
 in our currency is $134, — at which the limitation now re- 
 mains.* 
 
 Nor is this the full extent of the author's inadvertent but most 
 extraordinary mistake. From the latter part of the passage just 
 quoted, it would be naturally — nay, necessarily inferred, that any 
 person possessed of real estate to the value of one hundred and 
 thirty-four dollars, might, if he pleased, become a freeman. But 
 such is not the fact. On tlie contrary, the ownership of all the 
 land in Rhode Island, coupled vvitii the most earnest desire to 
 acquire the right of suffrage, would not insure the boon. It is 
 not within the reacli of the best man, or the richest man, in tiie 
 State, unless he is graciously permitted, by the vote of the " free- 
 men" of the town in which he resides. Unless the person own- 
 ing land happens to be the oldest son of a freeman, and so bi/ 
 birth entitled to this aristocratic distinction, he must, like a can- 
 didate for admission to a Presbyterian church, be propounded to 
 the " freemen " for admission into the close corporation of the 
 Rhode Island government, for the period of three months, after 
 which he may, if the " freemen " so desire, be voted into the 
 oligarchy; or rejected, if they should happen to prefer to keep 
 their number " conveniently small." (See Revised Stats, of R. 
 I. 1 70S, pp. 114, 115. «rtr/o/'1822. ;j/a 1)0-91 ) 
 
 This is the author's faultless government, containing " no cle- 
 ment essentialli/ unfavorable to freedom ;" the veriest aristocracy 
 that ever scandalized the name of a free government. 
 
 But the Discourse supplies a key to this singular estimate of 
 the Riiode Island government; for it brings out, in strong relief, 
 the author's entire disregard, (not to say contempt,) for the right 
 of suffrage, and of participation in the public affairs. We will 
 quote one passage from pp. 13 - 14, viz. : 
 
 " While, however, I say this, it is proper to add, that, in my 
 opinion a citizen of Rhode Island who has been always familiar 
 with this form of the constituency, does not readily appreciate 
 
 * The Charter may, by those who wish to examine it, be found in the 
 Appendix to Knowles's Life of Roger Williams, in " The American's Guide," 
 pulilished at Philadelphia, 1830, in the R. I. Hist. Society's Collections, and 
 prefixed to the R. I Revised Stats. 1798, and 1822. It is, to us, viewing the 
 subject perhaps with professional eyes, matter of astonishment, that any one 
 who undertook to teach the public what is contained in the Charter, should 
 not have made himself familiar with that ins'runient 
 
 We see that in the second edition of Dr. Wayland's Discourse, a letter 
 is published signed by Judge Pitman, exposing the author's mistake of fact 
 as to the " Charter " — but leaving the illogical reasoning based on the mis- 
 take uncorrected. 
 
15 
 
 the manner in which it strikes persons from other States, who 
 have been accustomed to a wider extension of suffrage. It gives 
 rise to odious and unkind comparisons. Hence, wliatever may 
 be its* practical value, in other respects, it* should be borne in 
 mind that this value may be overbalanced by the ill feeling winch 
 is liable to be engendered. It should be also remembered that 
 in any social compact, not only the rights, l)Ut also the feelings 
 of our fellow men, should be strictly regarded ; and that it is 
 frequently better to yield in a doubtful matter, than to suffer the 
 accusation of injustice from too strict an adherence to our own 
 opinions." 
 
 We have italicised those words which show, that, by some 
 fatality, as we must call it, the author of this Discourse has 
 arrived at the conviction that suffrage is not so much a matter of 
 right as of feeling ; not an indubitable and most precious boon, 
 but a fancy, " a doubtful matter," a thing not worth the quarrel- 
 ling for or about, upon the one side or the other. 
 
 With these peculiar views concerning political rights and free- 
 dom, we wonder less at Dr. Wayland's disposition to eulogize 
 the charter and laws of Rhode Island, than we do at his thinking 
 it desirable, as he (p. (i) does, that suffrage should be extended. 
 Still m.ore surprised are we, to find the following extraordinary 
 statement, at the conclusion of his depreciation of suffrage, and 
 his censures on those who have recently endeavored to put this 
 right in exercise under the sanction of the people's Constitution : 
 — "While, however, I say this, it is proper to add, that until very 
 lately, it has been really doubtful whether a change was actually 
 desired by any large number of our citizens. Petitions on this 
 subject were, it is true, several times presented, but they never 
 seemed to arise from any very strong feeling, nor to assume a 
 form that called for immediate action. It has really been a mat- 
 ter of surprise to me that the qucstioni awakened so little atten- 
 tion." (Discourse, p. 14.) 
 
 We do not question the author's intentions, but we do wonder 
 at his statements. How is such a person to be satisfied? When 
 we petition, pray, supplicate, but confine our zeal within the 
 limit of words — he wonders, (though suffrage is an affair of such 
 trifling importance,) — wonders that we do not " seem " to have 
 "any strong feeling;" but when oppression long endured, be- 
 comes intolerable, and words neglected are thrown aside for action, 
 and we presume to exercise our rights and live our creed, then 
 we become anarchists, "lawless soldiery," fighters against " the 
 ordinance of God," and worthy of " damnation." — (pp. 29, 30.) 
 
 Before giving a brief sketch of the conduct of the free suffrage 
 
 * We are not sure that we understand what " its" is intended to represent. 
 
 t The foregoing sentences relate to two distinct questions, viz. extension 
 
 of sufTrage, and equality of representation. Which of these is here intended ? 
 
16 
 
 party in Rhode Island, as we propose to do, in further illustra- 
 tion of our assertion, that their course has been characterised by 
 prudence, patience and long-suffering, we will exhibit a few far- 
 ther facts concerning that faultless government whose subversion 
 the author so earnestly deprecates. 
 
 1. Under the conjoint operation of restricted suffrage and an 
 unequal apportionment of representation, the yolitical control of 
 the state is in the hands of less than one-third of its adult male 
 population. No comment upon a fact like this, is needed. Such 
 a government, every one sees, cannot, without a gross abuse of 
 language, be called a republic. 
 
 2. We have all been taught that the trial by jury is one of the 
 great bulwarks of freedom, and to estimate highly the right to 
 sit upon the panel. But this precious right is enjoyed by less 
 than two-fifths of the citizens of Rhode Island. None but 
 •' freemen " are empanelled and can sit as jurors. All other citi- 
 zens are as completely excluded from the jury box, as though 
 they were idiots, lunatics, slaves, or convicted of infamous of- 
 fences. — (Revised Statutes, 1798, p. 183, § 2.) How could an 
 impartial jury be found under the laws of Rhode Island for the 
 trial of Gov. Dorr, or any of his " lawless soldiery ?" The thing 
 would be impossible.— f.SVe also Rev. Stat. 1622, pp. 138, 139.; 
 
 3. We are wont to rejoice in our right to a certain and speedy 
 redress for all personal grievances by legal remedies. Were our 
 courts to be shut against us, except we entered the temple of 
 Justice under the patronage, and leaning upon the shoulder, of 
 some freehold favorite of the government, we should feel that we 
 were grossly outraged, and that the language of Magna Charta 
 was no longer true — " Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut 
 
 DIFFEREIMUS JUSTITIAM 
 
 But in Rhode Island the great mass of the people are thus ex- 
 cluded. Let the author of this Discourse, or any other non-free- 
 holder, (we will not say bondman,) be he never so eloquent in 
 praise of Rhode Island institutions, go to any counsellor, (say, 
 for example, to the individual whose name stands last upon the 
 letter of compliment prefixed to this sermon,) and ask for a writ to 
 secure a debt, by arresting the debtor, or by attaching property, 
 or by simple summons, and the answer will be, " Sir, by the laws 
 of this State {R. I. Stats. 1708, pp. 149, § 7, and 189, § 2,) you 
 cannot have your writ unless you procure some freeman to en- 
 dorse it V'*—{Revi.'icd Statutes of R. I., 1822, pp. 114, 143.) 
 Is this " perfect protection " and " perfect liberty 1 " 
 4. Another fruit of the perfect systeui of Rhode Island may be 
 found on page 356, § 13, of its Revised Statutes of 1798, and p. 
 278, § 13 of the Code of 1822. This section authorises the 
 
 * Nor will any masistrate issue a warrant on any offence, however hein- 
 ious, unless the 'complainant furnish security to prosecute with effect or to 
 pay all costs.— (ib., p. 60.5, and Rev. Slats. 1S22, j). 149. 
 
17 
 
 town Council, when any person comes within their limits whom 
 they dislike, or whom for any cause they desire to get rid of, or 
 whom, in the words of the law, " they shall determine to be an 
 unsuitable person to become an inhabitant" of their town, may 
 give that person (he not being a freeman) notice to depart out of 
 the town within a certain period, on penalty, if he fail to go, of 
 being bound out, for one year, into servitude to any citizen of the 
 United States.* 
 
 It is easy to imagine how a case, under this statute, might have 
 arisen some fifteen years ago, that would have robbed Brown 
 University of its President, and sent him to some Virginia or 
 Louisiana planter for the year's servitude. It would have been 
 an extreme case ; but had the Town Council of Providence been 
 as weak as the law is wicked, it might have lawfully occurred ! 
 
 But let us consider for awhile some questions of a more gen- 
 eral bearing, which arise from the inspection of this much eulo- 
 gized government of Rhode Island. 
 
 5. That little State has no Constitution, except we bestow the 
 name on the Charter conferred by King Charles II. All the 
 rights or powers described in that royal chart are the king's gifts, 
 bestowed, as the parchment says, " of our especial grace, certain 
 knowledge and mere motion" This is the source and character 
 of all the powers and rights of the government of the Republic of 
 Rhode Island; a royal concession, which denies, on the face of 
 it, the entire doctrine of popular sovereignty, and is utterly repug- 
 nant to the principle that " all just government is founded in the 
 consent of the governed." 
 
 Dr. Wayland says that the people of Rhode Island have felt " a 
 natural pride" in possessing the oldest form of social organiza- 
 tion existing in any part of this new world. If such be the fact, 
 it is another illustration of the infinite loveliness of the grace of 
 humility. And perhaps it is another instance of that benignant 
 spirit so often manifested in the order of events, when evils that 
 are hopeless become objects of admiration and occasions even of 
 thankfulness. The Swiss and Tyrolese mountaineer, afflicted 
 and made monstrous by his goitre, 
 
 " — dew-lapped, like oxen," 
 
 exults in the deformity, and pities those less favored mortals 
 whom nature has left arrayed in all her fair proportions. So per- 
 chance Rhode Island " freemen " may feel proud to draw all their 
 republican rights and principles from the foul fountain of royal 
 grace and favor ; to found their " Republic," not on the consti- 
 
 * Another section (15) of the same act of 1798, {R. S. 1822, § 14,) renders 
 it imperative on all who entertain strangers, to report them within seven days to 
 the President of the Town Council. The law seems resolved, that in R. I. 
 no " angel " shall be " entertained unawares." 
 3 
 
II 
 
 tution and consent of the people, but on the concession and 
 " mere motion " of the most profligate and worthless king that 
 ever sat on the English throne ! 
 
 6. Nor should it be forgotten that this Charter of King 
 Charles, if now in force, bestows despotic authority upon the 
 Legislature of Rhode Island. The only qualification or restric- 
 tion, except in religious matters, is found in the proviso that the 
 Acts of the Assembly shall not be repugnant to the laws of " this 
 our realm of England." Oh, admirable limitation ! Oh, trusty 
 safeguard ! Let but the Acts of Assembly come up to the stand- 
 ard of the worst statutes of Parliament, — even the " Tea Act," 
 •' the Stamp Act," and those various other laws of "this our 
 realm of England," which severed from British rule this our glo- 
 rious Republic, — and no one can lawfully complain. 
 
 7. The Charter empowers the Executive, in the recess of the 
 Legislature, to establish and enforce " all methods, orders, rules 
 and directions" that it may deem proper. 
 
 Thus, under the Charter, there is a despotic assembly in per- 
 pefuain, and a despotic Executive ad interim, against whose mis- 
 rule the growing people of Rhode Island have absolutely no pro- 
 tection beyond their own unacknowledged and, until lately, un- 
 exerted sovereignty. 
 
 8. We may approach this subject and examine it, in still an- 
 other light. This royal Charter, with all its grants and limita- 
 tions, expired, — became a dead letter, a mere skin of parch- 
 ment, on the downfall of British domination in this country. 
 When the Assembly of Rhode Island, July 12, 1776, adopted 
 the Declaration of Independence and recognised by their Reso- 
 lution the noble truth, that sovereignly resides in the people, that 
 Charter was forever vacated and annulled. 
 
 The Rhode Island Assembly, therefore, has now no rightful 
 authority, but is, to all political intents, a sheer usurpation. Being 
 the creature of the king and charter, the old Assembly could not 
 survive its creator. Whatever of authority the legislature now 
 holds and exerts, it has acquired by as high handed an act of po- 
 litical felony, as, in a country like ours, could be perpetrated. 
 This authority is might without right, and whosoever speaks of it 
 as " constitutional authority," perverts language and mistakes the 
 truth of this great controversy. 
 
 9. In this view of the case also, the Legislature has no check, con- 
 trol or limit upon its power, so long as the people whom it abuses 
 are meek and submissive. Like the British Parliament it is 
 nearly almighty. Nay, it is more potent than Parliament ; for 
 while it is said of that body, in a proverb familiar as household 
 words, that it can do every thing but make, a woman of a 7nan, — 
 this Rhode Island Legislature has wrought that miracle, to such 
 an extent, that the manly spirit, if not the manly form, seems to 
 have been banished from its territory ! We rejoice to behold the 
 
19 
 
 indications of a more resolute and manly spirit, however slight, 
 amongst the people of Rhode Island. 
 
 Having thu investigated the great question of popular right, 
 and considered some of the evils of the political organization and 
 of the system of laws existing in Rhode Island, — for the purpose 
 of demonstrating that the principles which the author of this 
 Discourse condemns, are just and true, and that the system he 
 eulogizes is defective and dangerous, oppressive, anomalous and 
 intolerable, — let us now brietly trace the history of the popular 
 movement — for the purpose of exhibiting the patience, persever- 
 ance, and orderly procedure, of the people, in all the stages of 
 their movement, to the very hour when a usurping minority, by 
 force of arms, obtained a temporary triumph over the people, and 
 maintained at the point of the bayonet and cannon's mouth, that 
 political organization which scorns the plainest doctrines of re- 
 publicanism, and cares nothing for the consent of the governed. 
 
 As long ago as the latter part of the last century, an unsuc- 
 cessful attempt was made by the friends of constitutional liberty 
 in Rhode Island, to procure the formation of a Constitution. It 
 was felt to be politically wrong and dangerous, that the govern- 
 ment and people should be without a fundamental law, to stand 
 between them, to restrain the one and protect the other. 
 
 In the Assembly of 1811, an extension of suffrage to all who 
 voted and performed military duty, was sought for, and a Bill ac- 
 tually passed through the Senate, — but was defeated in the 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 The years 181U-20-21-22 were signalized by long continued 
 and strenuous efforts on the part of the friends of liberty to pro- 
 cure a Constitution under the Legislative sanction. But in vain. 
 
 In 1824, however, it seemed that their prayers were about to 
 be answered. A landholders' convention was called together to 
 frame a Constitution. The character of that body, as would have 
 been foreseen by any person at all conversant with the reluctance 
 of any privileged order to abandon its power and privilege, was 
 such that a proposition to extend suffrage received but three 
 votes ! A Constitution was framed, however, the provisions of 
 which would, in some degree, have equalized the representation. 
 This Constitution was laid before the " freemen " — not the peo- 
 ple — and was by their votes rejected. The oligarchy still swore 
 allegiance to King Charles and his Charter. 
 
 In 1829 the friends of suffrage again addressed the Legislature, 
 numerously and urgently. Their petition was referred to a com- 
 mittee which reported through its chairman against the prayer 
 thereof This report, drawn up, if we remember rightly, by a Mr. 
 Hazard, was of the most insulting and offensive description, vili- 
 fying and casting ridicule upon the petitioners, and recommend- 
 ing them to cure their complaints by removing from Rhode 
 Island. 
 
20 
 
 In 1832 a similar attempt on the part of the people was made, 
 and met its usual fate at the hands of the aristocracy. 
 
 In 1834 a free Sujfragc party was organized, after the New 
 England fashion, and a very general and vigorous effort was 
 made to secure the election of a Legislature liberally disposed. 
 The result was, that the Legislature that year summoned a Con- 
 vention of " freemen " to meet at Providence and draft a Consti- 
 tution to be laid before the people ? — No. — the "freemen" 
 
 at large. In this Convention the article proposing an extension 
 of suffrage received but seven votes — and finally the Convention, 
 one member after another absenting himself, dwindled down to 
 less than a quorum, and thus dispersed without accomplishing, in 
 any way, the purpose for which they assembled. 
 
 Not yet out-wearied, " cast down, but not despairing," the 
 Suffrage party continued for four years longer its unavailing 
 efforts and unheeded supplications, and then ceased to act in that 
 capacity.* 
 
 This is what may be called the conclusion of the first part of 
 the Rhode Island struggle between Might and Right. We now 
 approach the second ; to which alone the Discourse very distinct- 
 ly refers, (pp. 14-21.) A plain statement of this part of the 
 story, will, in the light of the foregoing facts and doctrines, show 
 how little the Reverend Author's animadversions are deserved. 
 
 In 1840, associations, composed of the liberal portion of free- 
 men, and of the disfranchised classes, and whose object was a 
 redress of grievances, were form.ed in Providence and in many 
 other places throughout the State. For the purpose of once 
 more testing the spirit of the Legislature, a large body of these 
 individuals, sent in to the Session of January, 1841, petitions 
 praying for extension of suffrnge, for the equalization of repre- 
 sentative apportionment, and the formation of a State Constitu- 
 tion. These petitions contained about six hundred names, — 
 and they were insultingly passed by icithout any notice, or action, 
 on the part of the Assembly. At the same session of the Legis- 
 lature, the inhabitants of Smithfield petitioned for some correc- 
 tion of the inequality of representative apportionment. This 
 Smithfield petition was acted upon February 6, 1841, the Assem- 
 bly passing Resolutions " requesting the freemen in August to 
 choose delegates to a Convention to be holden on the first Mon- 
 day of November, 1841, to frame, cither in whole, or in part a 
 ncio (!) Constitution for this State," the subject of equalizing the 
 
 * This statement is compiled from official documents, among which are 
 Mr. Barber's Report to the Assembly, April 1842, from the Committee on 
 the subject of a Constitution ; the Message of Gov. Dorr, and the Journals of 
 the Assembly. The same may be alfirmed of the statements next following, 
 all which rest upon unquestionable authority. See the two Constitutions, 
 and the Acts and Reports of the Assembly. 
 
21 
 
 representation being especially recommended to the action of 
 the Convention. 
 
 The contemptful treatment bestowed upon the petitions of six. 
 hundred, and the experience of the past, which had so often 
 taught the disfranchised how little could be expected but insult 
 from a landholders' convention, induced the friends of liberty to 
 call a Mass-Convention of the people at Providence, April 17th, 
 1841, to consider of their rights, grievances, and remedies. A 
 second Mass-Convention was held at Newport on the 5th of May, 
 and a State Committee was appointed, with power to call a Con- 
 vention of the people at large for the formation of a Republican 
 Constitution. The call was delayed, however, until after the 
 June session of the Legislature, when Mr. Atwell of the House, 
 (a free Suffrage member,) proposed an Act in that body, author- 
 izing " every white male citizen of the United States, over twenty- 
 one years of age, who has resided in Rhode Island two years, and 
 in the town or city where he is to vote, for six months next pre- 
 ceding the town meeting, and who has paid tax on real estate or 
 personal property for one year previous to the time of voting, to 
 vote in the choice of delegates to the Convention appointed by 
 the Assembly to meet in November next, exce})t persons insane, 
 under guardianship, and convicts." This last effort of the free- 
 dom party to give a popular character to that November Conven- 
 tion was totally defeated. Ten members voted for Mr. Atwell's 
 motion, and Jifty-hiw against it! 
 
 The State Committee, finding all hope of legislative justice 
 vain, now proceeded to call a Convention of the people at large, 
 to assemble in Providence, October 4th, 1841. The delegates 
 were chosen in most of the towns, in the ratio of one to every 
 thousand inhabitants, in the latter part of August, in the ordi- 
 nary forms of Rhode Island procedure, and the number of votes 
 cast in their election was about seven thousand two hundred. 
 
 This Convention met at Providence Oct. 4th, and having drafted 
 a Constitution adjourned to November, for the purpose of allow- 
 ing the public mind to become formed and fixed on the subject 
 of their labors. Re-assembling in November, and adopting sev- 
 eral amendments, the Convention definitively passed upon a Con- 
 stitution, and ordered it to be proposed for adoption or rejection, 
 to the adult population permanently residing in the State and 
 being citizens of the Union. 
 
 This Constitution was so submitted to the popular vote, in ac- 
 cordance with its 14th Article, on Monday, Dec. 27th, 184], 
 and the two following days,* and was adopted by a vote of 
 
 * The following quotations from the Constitution thus adopted will show 
 how the proceeding was conducted : — 
 
 " Art. xiv. § 1. This Constitution shall he submitted to the people, for 
 their adoption or rejection, on Monday, the 27th day of Dec. next, and on the 
 two succeeding days; and al! persons voting, are requested to deposit in the 
 
22 
 
 thirteen thousand, nine hundred forty four, and being more 
 than three ffths of the adult male population of Rhode Island. 
 The result of this vote, in pursuance of Art. 14, was duly com- 
 municated, and made known to the Convention at its adjourned 
 Meeting, January 12, 1842. 
 
 The number of adult males in R. I., citizens of the United 
 States, as near as could be ascertained in January last, was 
 23,142; — of whom, 11,572 are a majority. The constitution 
 therefore was adopted by a clear majority of 4747, — more than 
 three fifths of the whole number of adult male citizens. 
 
 The result of this popular movement was transmitted to the 
 General Assembly at its January session, 1842, by Mr. Atwell, 
 who had been a member of the Convention and was a member 
 of the House of Representatives. He introduced an Act recitino- 
 the above results, and requiring the Assembly to yield up its au- 
 thority to the new government, which was to be organized under 
 the Constitution. The aristocratic government, forgetting every 
 principle of duty, refused to pass this Act. Mr. Atwell then 
 moved for an inquiry into the number of qualified voters who had 
 cast their ballots for " the new Constitution." But the Assembly 
 refused to take any such step, and expressed the most supreme 
 
 ballot boxes, printed or written tickets, in the following form: — ' I am an 
 American citizen, of the age of twenty-one years, and have my permanent 
 residence, or home, in this State. I am (or not) qualified to vote under the 
 existing laws of this State ; I vote for (or against) the Constitution formed by 
 the Convention of the people, assembled at Providence, and which was propos- 
 ed to the people by said Convention on the 18th day of November, 1841. 
 
 " 2. Every voter is requested to write his name on the face of his ticket ; 
 and every person entitled to vote as aforesaid, who, from sickness, or other 
 cause, may be unable to attend , and vote, in the town or ward meetings, 
 assembled for voting upon said Constitution, on the days aforesaid, is request- 
 ed to write his name upon a ticket and to obtain the signature upon the back 
 of the same, of a person who has given his vote, as a witness thereto, (a) 
 and the moderator or clerk of any town or ward meeting, convened for the 
 purpose aforesaid, shall receive such vote, on either of the three days next, 
 succeeding the three days before named for voting on said Constitution. 
 
 " 3. The citizens of the several towns in this State, and of the several 
 wards in the City of Providence, are requested to hold town and ward 
 meetings on the days appointed, and for the purpose aforesaid; and also to 
 choose in each town and ward, a moderator and clerk, to conduct said meet- 
 ings and receive the votes. 
 
 " 4. The Moderators and Clerks are required to receive and carefully 
 keep the votes of all persons qualified to vote as aforesaid, and to make regis- 
 ters of all the persons voting: which, together with the tickets given in by 
 the voters, shall be sealed up and returned to said Moderators, and Clerks, 
 with certificates signed and sealed by them, to the Clerks of the Convention 
 of the people, to be by them safely deposited and kept, and laid before said 
 Convention, to be counted and declared at their next adjourned meeting oa 
 the 12th day of January, 1842." 
 
 (a) Voting by proxy in Rhode Island was a practice long establislied by law. See Rev. 
 Stats. 1798, pp. 120—3. 
 
23 
 
 contempt for the doings of the Convention, and of the people, 
 whether by minority or majority. 
 
 No reasonable man can doubt that this refusal of the Assem- 
 bly to determine by inquiry whether or not the alleged majority 
 was real and true, and if it were so found, to pass an Act for the 
 confirmation of the Constitution, and expressive of their allegi- 
 ance to the known will of the people thus solemnly declared, was 
 an act of great folly; of inexcusable wrong — a neglect of mani- 
 fest duty ; the real culpable cause of all the subsequent confusion 
 and disorder. 
 
 Having thus refused to make official inquiry, the Assembly 
 cannot now pretend to doubt or deny that the " asserted majori- 
 ty " was real and true ; this refusal was an admission of the fact. 
 How idle is it, then, for any one now to doubt and cavil and ar- 
 gue. But after all doublings and cavillings, there are the bal- 
 lots and registers, to testify for themselves and settle the question 
 forever.* 
 
 But although the Legislature thus refused to do their duty, the 
 popular movement induced them to do something else. The 
 
 * Great efforts have been made by individuals, though never by the Assem- 
 bly, to impeach the fairness and force of this vote : as in this Disc. p. 16 — 
 but these attempts show, ]st,that those who make them are afraid that there 
 may be, after all, some political efficacy in the doctrine of majorities ; and 2d, 
 that in this R. I. affair the People's Constitution was actually adopted by a 
 majority of the whole people, and by a majority of the " freemen !" 
 
 The largest estimate of the adult male population of R. I., excluding per- 
 sons not citizens of the United States, is 23,1 42. The largest number of" free- 
 men" that ever voted (1840,) was S662. The whole number of votes for the 
 People's Constitution was 13,944, of which 4,927 were the votes of "freemen" 
 — so that we have a jnajnrity oj '■'■freemen " amounting to nearly 600, and a 
 total majority of 4,747. 
 
 It is said that the moderators who received the votes were not sworn officers. 
 The moderator in R. I., who determines what votes to receive or reject, is neuer 
 a sworn officer.— {R. S. ]8'22, pp. 91,95.) The voters are never sworn in 
 R. I., unless challenged, — and every challenge that was made, was received, 
 at the people's election, and the vote excluded from the count. 
 
 As to voting by proxy, that was formerly done, as we have shown by the 
 laws of R. I., in all elections. 
 
 As to any unfair dealings or spurious votes — the Assembly have never 
 dared, though solicited by the liberal members, to make the inquiry. The 
 original ballots are now kept, and may be examined and speak for themselves. 
 There is no room for controversy. 
 
 As to the vote upon the choice of officers in April, under the new Consti- 
 tution, which had been adopted in December and January, no argument can 
 be faiily deduced from its smallness — for the people, having obtained a Con- 
 stitution, and no opposition being expected in electing their officers, (as of 
 course the aristocratic minority would not attend the polls,) it was needless 
 again to rally in full numbers. How, then, could any one in fairness say, in 
 the words of the Disc. p. 16, " when the officers under the (people's) Consti- 
 tution were chosen, //lore ^/iartone-Aa//" (of those who had voted for the Consti- 
 tution,) had abandoned it ! " Such reasoning is false in logic and in politics. 
 The people cannot "abandon" a Constitution by voting, or neglecting to 
 vote, for Governor. The abandonment must be by a solemn act of the people, 
 intended to produce that very result. 
 
24 
 
 landholders' Convention, which had met in November, had ad- 
 journed without framing a Constitution, to meet again on the 
 14th Feb., 1842. The Assembly intimidated, though refusing 
 to obey the popular will, passed an Act authorizing all persons to 
 vote for or against the Constitution which might be framed in 
 February, who, by the provisions of that Constitution would be 
 allowed to vote under its sanction. They passed also another 
 Act declaring the People's Constitution to be a usurpation, and 
 its adoption " an assumption of the powers of government, a vio- 
 lation of the rights of the existing government, and of the rights 
 of the people at larffe !" 
 
 The landholders' Convention completed its labors by the draft 
 of a Constitution which was vastly inferior to the one which the 
 people had already adopted ; inasmuch as it still imposed unjust 
 restraint upon suffrage, and threw the control of the Assembly 
 into the hands of towns and districts containing less than one- 
 third of the inhabitants. 
 
 This imperfect Constitution was laid before that portion of the 
 people who were by law allowed to vote thereon, on the 21st, 22d 
 and 23d days of March, 1842, and was rejected by a majority of 
 those voting upon the question, which majority was nearly seven 
 hundred. 
 
 At the March session of the Legislature, the attention of the 
 Assembly was called to the two-fold expression of the popular 
 will, viz.: 1st, the adoption of the people's Constitution ; and 2d, 
 the rejection of the landholders' Constitution ; and the liberal 
 members of the Assembly introduced a Bill to conform the gene- 
 ral election to the provisions of the first named instrument, and 
 another to submit that Constitution to the votes of those who 
 were qualified to vote under the Constitution of the freeholders. 
 Both these Bills, either of which would forever have put an end 
 to strife, were rejected. A proposition was then made for an ex- 
 tension of suffrage, and in like manner repulsed. And finally, at 
 the adjourned session in April last, an attempt was made to call 
 another Convention whose delegates should be chosen by a con- 
 stituency somewhat larger than that which existed under the old 
 laws. In vain. A sullen madness seems to have ruled the hour. 
 The oligarchy would not yield one iota of their usurpation to the 
 gentle request of the people — but seemed resolved that a dynas- 
 ty which had ruled by injustice should go down in violence and 
 blood. 
 
 Having thus exhausted every pacific mode of procedure, the 
 people now went forward under their Constitution and elected 
 their public officers, Monday, April 18th, 1842 ; and though a 
 much smaller effort was now made than had been put forth in 
 the grand struggle for a Constitution, the votes that were polled 
 exceeded those given at the freeholder's election by not less than 
 sixteen hundred. 
 
25 
 
 The new government assembled under the Constitution at 
 Providence, on the 3d day of May last, and organized itself in 
 accordance with the provisions of that instrument. 
 
 And now came the crisis of this eventful history — the moment 
 which was to test the patriotism, the principles, the republican 
 creed of the old government party, — and the earnestness, man- 
 hood and true American spirit of the people and their constitu- 
 tional officers. No movement of greater interest has occurred in 
 American history, since the glorious Congress of '7G adopted the 
 Declaration of our national independence. It is the first time 
 that the popular sovereignty has ever been called in question ; 
 the first conflict that has ever arisen between master and servant 
 — the people and a usurping government. 
 
 With the events that followed we are all familiar : — the appeal 
 of the King party to the Federal Executive; the promise of aid 
 from the standing army of the Central Government: the march of 
 Federal troops from New York to Newport, — from " old Point 
 Comfort" to New York — indicative of the direction that would 
 be given to the whole disposable force that is sworn to obey the 
 orders of the President of the United States; the garrisoning of 
 arsenals ; the momentary ardor of the people in support of their 
 rights ; the apparent certainty of bloodshed ; the triumph of 
 armed force collected and sustained by the public purse, over the 
 undisciplined people ; the dispersion of the Suffrage forces ; the 
 present exultation of successful power; the silence and quiet on 
 the people's side which, if they be not lost to patriotism, to honor, 
 to themselves, is but the prelude to a coming storm of public in- 
 dignation, that shall sweep from their high places the ruling dy- 
 nasty, and purify the atmosphere of Rhode Island of the last relic 
 of aristocratic misrule. 
 
 Nor need the long abused people of Rhode Island fear that on 
 their return to the struggle, their cause shall fail to enlist the 
 sympathy and to secure the assistance of the lovers of freedom, 
 the friends of republican truth, throughout the length and breadth 
 of the land. To quote the words of Dr. Wayland's earlier pro- 
 duction, whose moving eloquence banishes from our minds, as we 
 read them, every doctrine of this later Discourse, 
 
 " Thanks be to God, men have at last begun to understand the 
 rights, and to feel for the wrongs of each other ! Let the trum- 
 pet of alarm be sounded, and its notes are now heard by every 
 nation, whether of Europe or America. Let a voice, borne on 
 the feeblest breeze, tell that the rights of man are in danger, and 
 it floats over valley and mountain, across continent and ocean, 
 until it has vibrated in the ear of the remotest dweller in Christ- 
 endom. Let the arm of oppression be raised to crush the fee- 
 blest nation en earth, and there will be heard everywhere, if not 
 the shout of defiance, the deep-toned murmur of implacable dis- 
 pleasure. It is the cry of agrieved, insulted, much abused man ! 
 4 
 
26 
 
 It is human nature, waking in her might from the slumber of 
 ages, shaJcinff herself from the dust of ontiepiated institutions, 
 girding herself for the combat, and going forth conquering and 
 to conquer ! "* 
 
 Having by this time, as we think, satisfied all candid readers 
 that no safe reliance can be placed upon the facts or doctrines 
 set forth in the political portions of this sermon, the mistakes in 
 regard to which we attribute entirely to inadvertent haste, and a 
 highly excited frame of mind, and not to intentional misstatement, 
 we come to the third division of the Discourse, containing the 
 author's politico-religious opinions upon human government, and 
 the right of revolution, or rather the right of popular sovereignty. 
 A very few words will dispose of this branch of the subject. 
 
 The religious doctrines of the Discourse would seem to have 
 been taken entire from the manuscript sermon of some royal 
 chaplain, some " minister in ordinary " to " his majesty," or 
 " his Imperial Highness;" not from the head and heart of an 
 American preacher. The doctrines are these : (pp. 29, 30,) 
 — Government is an ordinance of God : God himself commands us 
 to obey it : the government which God thus commands us to obey, 
 need not be " either just or paternal." We have no more right 
 to abolish such a government than we have to annul the mar- 
 riage contract ! and if we do so we sin against God and deserve 
 " damnation." 
 
 To support this shocking creed, (we cannot call it by a softer 
 name,) various passages of Scripture are brought forward, with 
 apparent sincerity and unquestionable zeal. 
 
 Such doctrines are the very essence of despotism ; and the fra- 
 mers of the New Hampshire constitution (already cited) have, in 
 terms that may sound rude to courtly ears, declared them " ab- 
 surd, slavish, and dcstruitivc of the good and happiness of man- 
 kind." They contain the long exploded principle of the divine 
 right of kings ;t and we should have deemed it impossible that 
 
 * Discourse I. on the Duties of an American Citizen, April 7, 1825. 
 •" Oh that the present hour would lend 
 Another sermon of this kind ! " 
 Query : Is this " dust " to be " shaken " off according to " the forms of 
 laiv ? " See the quotation on p. 6. 
 
 t " Our ancient and famous lawyer Bracton, in his 1st Book, Chapter vii., 
 ' there is no kino; in the case,' says he, ' where will rules the roast.' And 
 in his 3d Book, Chapter i.v., ' A king is a king so long as he rules well ; he 
 becomes a tyrant when he oppresses a people committed to his charge.' And 
 again, in the same book, ' the king ought to use the power of law and right, 
 as God's minister and vicegerent ; the power of wrong is the Devil's^ and not 
 God's; when the king turns aside to do injustice, he is the minister of the 
 Devil.' Since, therefore, the law is chietly right reason, if we are bound to 
 obey a king and a minister of God, by the very same reason, and the very 
 same law, we ought to resist a tyrant and a mimstcr of the Devil." 
 
 Such are the words of the immortal Milton,'in his Answer to the King- 
 defending arguments of Salniasius. They contain truths well worthy of 
 present consideration. ^, . 
 
an American divine could entertain a creed like this which sanc- 
 tions alike the tyranny of Nero, and the rule of republicanism. 
 
 On pages 28—9, in reply to the question, "are revolutions 
 ever justifiable," the Discourse admits that this " ordinance of 
 God " (Government) may sometimes be lawfully resisted and over- 
 thrown : an admission which ought to satisfy any man of common 
 sense that, though the intention of God, as revealed in our socirl 
 natures, is, that we should organize society, it was never his will 
 to subject us to imperfect organizations, much less to those 
 which are unjust and oppressive. 
 
 This very admission, however, — such is the author's apprehen- 
 sion of popular movement, — is so linnted and qualified, as to 
 show that he regards with pious abhorrence all revolutions that 
 have ever occurred, or that ever would or could occur. For no 
 movement of this character, (and every exercise of the sovereign 
 power of the people is, in the preacher's view, revolutionary,) is 
 justifiable, until government has " vttoii/ failed" in all the pur- 
 poses for which it is created : a failure that cannot honestly be 
 predicated of any, the worst tyranny, that ever existed. The 
 American Revolution, therefore, was a horrible iniquity, utterly 
 unjustifiable ; for no candid man has pretended, or will pretend, 
 that British Colonial government wholly failed in each and all the 
 purposes for which governments are instituted. How vast the 
 change that must have come over the writer of this Discourse, 
 since, in his young and ardent days, he delivered his glowing 
 Eulogy on those two great lights of our Revolution, Adams and 
 Jefferson,* whose common glory it was that they succeeded in 
 subverting that "ordinance of God," the English misrule of the 
 North American Colonies ! 
 
 We will not comment upon the false logic which denominates 
 the peaceful change of a bad government " revolutionary," and 
 which regards the violent resistance and misconduct of usurping 
 rulers in conflict with popular will, as " good order " and " con- 
 stitutional law;" but will dismiss this theology of despotism with 
 the remark, that Christianity will gain no laurels by becoming 
 the handmaid of oppression, or the advocate of servility ; that 
 the rotten superstructure of usurped power can find no safe 
 corner stone in the gospel ; that when " God's ordinance " seems 
 to have fallen under the Devil's administration, no good Christ- 
 ian or good patriot, is bound to support it ; and that the days 
 have long since passed, if they ever existed, when men could be 
 preached into forgetfulness of their rights, — though willing to 
 forget and to forgive their wrongs. 
 
 And now the inquiry very naturally arises, what motive im- 
 pelled the preacher to prepare, deliver and print this sermon ? 
 
 * Delivered in the First Baptist Church, Boston, July, 1826, — nearly 16 
 years ago. " E^en, fugaces ! " 
 
28 
 
 What was his " end and aim " .' What result did he hope to ac- 
 complish? 
 
 lie professes, (p. 5,) to have spoken from a mind full to over- 
 flowing, and upon an impulse that he could scarcely control. It 
 is very clear, however, that this fulness of mind was the fulness 
 of feelinir, not of knowledge and sound reflection ; for the sermon 
 betrays a great want of acquaintance with the leading facts, in 
 the case, and a consequent absence of just and true conclusions. 
 The great subject of the sermon, " the affairs of Rhode Island" 
 — its charter and laws — the rights of the people — the element- 
 ary doctrines of popular government — even the acts and doings 
 of the inhabitants of that State for the last fifty years — all these, 
 are so mistaken and mis-stated as to show, beyond all doubt, the 
 want of preparatory research and reflection. 
 
 The preacher knew that, somehow or other, the good city of 
 Providence had been dreadfully agitated and alarmed. The 
 common conversation of his common associates, (men upon 
 whom the mischiefs of the Charter and laws do not fall,) attributed 
 this agitation to desperate designs and corrupt purposes. He had 
 heard the current colloquialties, loose and vague, upon good 
 laws, and good order. Constitutions and Charters, without sifting 
 the facts or weighing the principles, and adopting the parlor con- 
 viction, that the people were wrong and the government right, he 
 was ready to feel very grateful for the temporary triumph of the 
 government, {that is, the King-ly government,) and to pour forth 
 his gratitude, in the pulpit, for Providential deliverances. 
 
 Did he expect to allay irritation and heal the evil of excite- 
 ment? His aspersions on the character and designs of the Suf- 
 frage party, (p. 7,) are poorly adapted to such a purpose, ami 
 what is worse, they are not warranted by the facts. That any 
 member of the people's party cherished purposes so base and 
 bloody, is a mere bugbear of an over-heated fancy. Were pillage, 
 anarchy, licentiousness, the objects of that party? Look at their 
 Constitution. It expressly provides, (Art. xiv, § 19,) that all 
 statutes and laws not repugnant to that Constitution, should re- 
 main valid and in full effect. No law, except those unjust stat- 
 utes which conflicted witli the suprenie law, w^as abrogated or 
 suspended. Rapine and plunder were dreamed of only by those 
 who, knowing themselves to be usurpers of power and violators 
 of right, apprehended expulsion by force from their usurpation, 
 and adding insult to injury, imagined that the people would run 
 riot with revenge in the hour of their just triumph. 
 
 Of the force that might have been, or that may be, exerted by 
 the people to maintain their Constitution, these usurping authori- 
 ties have no more right to complain, than had the British troops 
 in Boston when Washington opened upon their shipping the bat- 
 teries of Dorchester Heights. When a defunct government re- 
 bels against the people, tramples on their Constitution, and re- 
 
29 
 
 quires forcible expulsion from office and power, the government 
 and not the people is the faulty and the guilty parly, and must 
 alone bear the stigma of lawless designs and bloody purposes. 
 
 The preacher professes (p. 9.) to feel greatly humiliated by 
 what has occurred in this exciting controversy. And well he 
 may. But the shame should be, that a Constitution founded on 
 the everlasting principles of right, and solemnly adopted by a 
 large majority, both of the " freemen," and of the whole people 
 of Rhode Island, and thus made the Suprcmelaw of the land, has 
 been resisted by the old Governor and the old Assembly ! — It 
 should be, that men falsely pretending to right, and in the exer- 
 cise of lawless power, have retained possession of the public 
 property, and called in the aid of brute force to maintain their 
 usurpation ; and that this misconduct, instead of being univer- 
 sally condemned, finds advocates, even within the walls of the 
 University ! 
 
 We do not believe, however, that those old College Halls, (asso- 
 ciated with the pleasantest recollections of our youth,) yield 
 back any joyous or hearty echo to the doctrines of this " Dis- 
 course." As the Polytechnic schools of Warsaw and Paris, 
 when the misrule of the Czar and of Charles X. became intole- 
 rable, furnished forth the first and warmest disciples of freedom 
 in Poland and France, so, we are confident, the cloistered apart- 
 ments of Hope College and University Hall, were the call now 
 made, would pour forth an eager and noble band of bold, pa- 
 triotic, magnanimous spirits, to defend the People, and the first 
 Republican Constitution of Rhode Island. 
 
 We hope that, before another encounter in arms shall occur 
 between the two parties to this great controversy ; the contuma- 
 cious government will abandon its false position, and lay down 
 its f;\lse pretensions, at the feet of the people. Such is the de- 
 mand of every duty, social, political, and religious. Even now, 
 these mistaken men may, with some degree of grace, retire from 
 their untenable position, and avert the impending storm. 
 
 Do they vainly imagine that their tyranny is forever established 1 
 — that all before them, in case they persevere as they have begun, 
 is clear and bright, — secure and sunny ? — No. They know far 
 better. They know, and feel, that they float insecurely over a 
 fiery gulf; — that clouds are gathering in their sky: — that all 
 around them are portentous indications of approaching trouble. 
 And it would be a base libel on the character of Rhode Island, 
 for them to dream of security, when trampling in the dust, the 
 highest and dearest rights, — the very sovereignty of the people. 
 Neapolitan cowards may submit to Austrian yokes : Spanish 
 slaves may quail before the rod of Oppression : Russian " serfs " 
 may bow down even to the hiout of their heartless owners : — but 
 American hearts, baptised in the waters of freedom, will never 
 submit to servitude ! — They will rush to a second baptism, of 
 
so 
 
 blood, or of fire, — they will struggle, and bleed, and break, — but 
 never, never, will they bow or bend in servile submission ! 
 
 In conclusion, we would exhort our Rhode Island brethren, to 
 go forward calmly, boldly, decidedly, in the assertion of the peo- 
 ple's sovereignty ; remembering that their great mission now 
 is, to redeem from contempt this dearest American principle ; — and 
 if resistance is continued, and strife and bloodshed must come, 
 their cause is holy, just and true ; worthy of the best blood that 
 was ever spilled upon American soil. Nor let them fear that 
 Federal interposition will injure their cause. The first Rhode 
 Island blood that drips from Federal bayonets, will fall like Dra- 
 gon's teeth, springing up into a harvest of armed men. With- 
 in one week from the first encounter between the citizens of 
 Rhode Island and the hireling soldiery of the Central Government, 
 twenty thousand rank and file will take up their voluntary line of 
 march for the scene of strife ; and Rhode Island shall see, as did 
 Massachusetts after the bloody day of Concord and Lexington, 
 that the whole American people are ready to rally around the flag 
 of freedom, and to succor the oppressed. 
 
 nje'io