CONSIDERING the different Opinions a­mong the People of the Colony of Con­necticut, relative to the Conduct of the GO­VERNOR in taking, and of the COUNCILLORS in administring the Oath enjoined by the Act of Parlia­ment, charging certain Stamp-Duties on the Colonies and Plantations in America, commonly called the Stamp-Act. And that such differing Sentiments, occasion Disputes, Disquietudes and Uneasiness among some of the Inha­bitants.

It may be expedient, and expected, that a brief Ac­count of the Reasons of that Conduct should be publish­ed, for the Information and Satisfaction of such as are desirous to be acquainted with the same.

To the End therefore, that Truth may appear, in re­gard to that Matter; and that the Occasions of Uneasi­ness [Page 4] concerning that Affair, may be removed. The fol­lowing Observations and Hints are offered to candid Consideration.

It is well known to the People of this Colony, who have printed Copies of the Stamp-Act in their Hands; that all the then present Governors or Commanders in Chief of any British Colony, were expressly required be­fore the first Day of November, 1765; and all who shall hereafter be made Governors or Commanders in Chief of the Colonies and Plantations, or any of them before their Entrance into their Governments, to take a solemn Oath, to do their utmost, that all, and every the Clauses con­tained in that Act, should be punctually, and bona fide, observed according to the true Intent and Meaning thereof, so far as appertains unto the said Governors or Commanders in Chief respectively, under the like Pe­nalties, Forfeitures and Disabilities, either for neglect­ing to take the said Oath, or for wittingly neglecting to do their Duty accordingly, as are mentioned and ex­pressed in An Act made in the 7th and 8th Year of the Reign of King WILLIAM the Third, entituled, "An Act for preventing Frauds, and regulating Abuses in the Plantation Trade." And that the Persons who have been, or shall be appointed to administer the Oath required to be taken by the said Act of King WILLIAM, are expressly required to administer the Oath required by the Stamp Act.

[Page 5] The Act of WILLIAM the Third, to which the Stamp Act refers, requires the said Governors or Commanders in Chief, to take the like Oath respecting the Clauses in that Act; and also, respecting the Clauses in An Act made in the 12 ^th Year of CHARLES the Second; and in another Act made in the 15 ^th Year of the same Reign: And that such Oath should be administred by such Per­sons as His Majesty, His Heirs or Successors should appoint; And by the aforesaid Act of WILLIAM, it is further enacted, that upon Complaint and Proof, be­fore His Majesty, His Heirs or Successors, or such as should be by him or them thereunto authorised and ap­pointed, by the Oath of two or more credible Witnesses; that any of the said Governors or Commanders in Chief, have neglected to take the said Oath at the Times a­foresaid, or have been wittingly or willingly negllgent in doing their Duty accordingly. The said Governor so neglecting or offending, shall be removed from his Government, and forfeit the Sum of One Thousand Pounds Sterling.

And although it doth not appear, that any Persons were appointed in Consequence of the Acts of the 12 ^th and 15 ^th of CHARLES the Second, to administer the Oaths to the Governors, required to be taken by those Acts (in both of which the Governors were required to be sworn, much to the same Purpose, as in the Act of [Page 6] WILLIAM is mentioned) yet in Pursuance of the Act of WILLIAM, the King appointed the Governor of the Massachusetts, to administer that Oath to the Governor of Connecticut; upon which the Colony represented to the King, the Hardships and Difficulties of such a Measure, which obliged the Governor to go to Boston to be qualified, before he could act in his Office with Safety. Upon which the King was graciously pleased by His Commission to a certain Number of the Coun­cil by Name, &c. Which he calls his Council for the Colony of Connecticut, to appoint them, or any Three or more of them to administer the Oath to the Governor; and that Commission stands now directed to, and appoint­ing any Three or more of the Council of the Colony, for the Time being, to administer that Oath to the Governor; (none else therefore, may do it) and these Persons, the Stamp Act expressly required to administer the Oath, required by that Act, to be taken by the Governor.

By Virtue of that Commission under the Great Seal, lodged in the Secretary's Office, that Oath hath been administred to the successive Governors of the Colony ever since; which is near Seventy Years.

These being the principal Facts, it may from thence be justly observed,

First. That as the Commission of King WILLIAM, to the Council of the Colony, was obtained on the Re­quest [Page 7] quest of the Colony; there can be no Doubt, but the Colony esteemed it a great Favour, and thankfully ac­cepted it. And that such Request and Acceptance must imply on the Colony's Part, an Agreement to comform to it; and also, that the Council whom the People should elect for the King should act under and according to it. And this every Councillor by the Acceptance of his Office engages to do: And as it is a Maxim of Law in the British Constitution, That the King hath an In­terest in, and a Right to the Service of all his Subjects; and more especially to the Service of Those who are the Officers of the Crown; and by that Means are un­der particular and express Obligations to Obedience.

Every Governor and Councillor are bound, not only by their Allegience, but by their Office, and in the pre­sent Case also, by Agreement or Contract, by accepting their Offices to which the aforesaid Commission is an­nexed, to yield Obedience to the Requirements of the King and Parliament.

It is taken for granted by the King and Parliament, That all his Majesty's Officers will obey their Com­mands. And on this Presumption, the Execution of Royal Commands, Acts of Parliament, and even Acts of Provincial Legislatures are often made dependant. The King therefore, in every such Case, expects all his Officers, as well those which the People elect▪ and [Page 8] dis­ignate for him, as those whom he, by his immediate Commission or Warrant appoints, will obey his Com­mands.

In Case any Officers, who are immediately appointed by the Crown, refuse Obedience; it is natural to suppose they will be displaced, and others more loyal and obedi­ent put in their Room. But the Government to which they belong, or for which they are appointed will be in no Danger of a Censure in that Case. It must nevertheless, be supposed, the Consequence would be very different, if those Officers whom the People elect, should refuse such Obedience, and so frustrate the Intention and Requirements of the Act, in any particular; for, in such a Case, it may justly be expected, the King will at least appoint others, and that in another Government, in whom he can confide, and not continue the Honor of a Betrustment to such, for the Time being, as the People should designate, on whom he can have no Dependence. Yea, it is to be presumed, that if the Governor and Council, whom the People choose, should refuse Obedience, the King, or the King and Parliament would deprive the People of the Privilege of electing such Officers; and then the whole Charter would be at once struck up. That this would be the Event, in such Case, must be more than probable.

The Governor and the Councillors, apprehending their [Page 9] Non-Compliance with the Stamp-Act, in the Particular aforesaid, would be fatal to the Charter Privileges grant­ed to the good People of this Colony (for which they have the tenderest Regard, and highest Value) held themselves bound to conduct so as not to endanger, but rather, if possible, to save them to themselves, and the People, for whose Welfare they were seriously concerned. ^*

Besides all this, it is natural to suppose both the Go­vernor and Councillors, by a Refusal, would have exposed [Page 10] themselves to the King's highest Displeasure; and what that means many have been made sensible of by fatal Ex­perience. There can be no Objections against such a Com­pliance with the express Requirements of the Stamp-Act, unless they arise from the Force of some superior Law, or from the Force of some prior Oath which such Officers are under: To this it will readily be conceded, that Oath ought not to be against Oath, nor ought a superior Law to be disobeyed by a Compliance with one subordinate to it; but if neither of these happen in the present Case, the Objection vanishes: And if on the Contrary, former Oaths, and a superior Law also, oblige to this Conduct, the Objection will appear yet more Groundless. That this is truly the Case, will appear, if it be considered,

Secondly, That the Governor and Council were, by their Office-Oath, bound to such a Conformity to the Act.—It is well known to every one who hath inspected the Governor's and Assistant's Oaths, in the Colony-Law-Book, that they are sworn to maintain all the lawful Privileges of the Colony, &c. By which they are bound to do their utmost for that Purpose: And the same Obli­gation lies upon them, not to neglect or refuse doing that, the Omission of which would endanger the Loss of those Privileges. This must appear plain to every candid Rea­der [Page 11] If therefore, the Governor and Council, whom the People choose, by their refusing Obedience to the Com­mands of an Act of Parliament, would endanger the Loss of the Privileges which they, and their Electors en­joy, as has been shewn to be the Case; it necessarily fol­lows, they are bound by their said Oaths, not to refuse such Obedience; and also, that while they view Matters in this Light their Disobedience, or Non-Compliance, could not, in their Opinion, come short of a Breach of their Office-Oaths. This shews the greatest Injustice, of being charged with Perjury, on Account of a Fulfilment of those sacred Obligations comprehended in the Office-Oaths aforesaid.

Let it be considered, Thirdly, That the Governor, by a refusal to take the Oath, by the Time prescribed in the Act, would have exposed himself, besides what has been before mentioned, to the Penalty of being removed from his Government, and the Forfeiture of One Thousand Pounds Sterling. And as his Tryal must be before the King, or such Persons as he should appoint, there could be no avoiding a Condemnation, it would be to no Pur­pose, unless to aggrevate the Offence, to plead any Thing against the Operation of the Act, before those Judges.—A Judgment, in such a Case, would not only subject the Governor to the Payment of a large Fine, too heavy for [Page 12] a Governor of this Colony to bear; and to a Removal from his Office, but would also render him Infamous, and deprive him of any further Usefulness in Life: And how that would feel, let any Man, who has any Value for his Character and Reputation, make it his own Case, and thereon candidly judge for himself, and in so doing, he will judge for another.

It hath been objected, That although the Governor is subject, by the Act of Parliament, to a very severe Penalty in Case of his Neglect or Refusal to take the Oath, yet no Penalty is imposed on the Council, in Case they neglect or refuse to administer the same:—And though it might be wise and prudent, for the Governor to offer to take the Oath, and in a Sense necessary for him so to do; yet surely the Council were under no such Obligation or Ne­cessity to administer the same:—And that, whatever might be said, by Way of Excuse, on Account of the Governor, nothing can be said, in Favour of the Councillors, who undertook to administer the same, as their Neglect or Refusal exposed them to no Penalty at all.—

To this it may be answered, That, although no parti­cular Penalty is expressly mentioned, in said Statute, to be inflicted on the Council, in case they should refuse or ne­glect [Page 13] to administer the Oath required; yet, as the Com­mission expressly empowers and directs them to administer the same, their Neglect, or Disobedience would have been a great Breach of Trust, and such a high Contempt of the Authority both of the King and Parliament, as would be punishable even at Common Law. Is it not a known Rule of the Law, in all such Cases, where no particular Pe­nalty is expressly mentioned, that the Offender lies at the King's Mercy, and may be punished at Discretion (saving Life) either by the Courts of Common Law, or the Court of Chauncery? And 'tis apprehended, that the least such Councillors could expect, would be to suffer the same Pains and Penalties that the Governor would have incurred, had he been the faulty Party, and refused to take the Oath. Let the impartial World candidly consider this, and say, Is it reasonable the Councillors should expose themselves to such a Sentence as this? If, as the Objection supposes, the Penalty is too great for a Governor of this Colony bear, surely, with more Reason it may be said, that 'tis much too heavy for any Councillors to endure!

This Matter, and the Consequences, as they re­spected the Governor, appeared so clear to the Council, when discoursed among themselves, that the whole Council present, were of Opinion, it was adviseable for the Governor to offer to take the Oath required: [Page 14] They also see, that if one Governor was removed for Refusal, another would be in the same Case, and so on. Therefore the Colony must, in that Case, give up all Pretence of having a Governor or Commander in Chief, unless he complied with the Act. And whether the Charter itself could subsist, without such an Officer, is no difficult Question to determine. If, therefore, it was the Governor's Duty to offer to take the Oath, it must certainly be right for him to take it, in Case the Council would administer it: And that they were bound to admi­nister it, has been clearly evinced: So that the Whole of their Conduct, in the Matter aforesaid, appears not only to be barely justified; but also, that it deserves the Applause of all who desire the Safety of the Privileges of the Colony. Whoever candidly consider these Things, will, as it is conceived, judge the Governor and Coun­cillors, by their aforesaid Conduct, acted the Part of faith­ful Officers to the Crown, and that of true Patriots to their Country. Upon the Whole then, it may be justly concluded, they were moved from Principles of Loyalty to the King; from a serious and tender Concern for the Privileges of the Colony; a conscientious Regard to the solemn Obligations of their Office-Oaths; and a just Value for their own Interest, Reputation, and Useful­ness in Life.