truth of such reports, by applying to any of the Members of the Committee, who are numerous, and to be found in almost every part of the City.

Ordered, That the foregoing Order, Report, and Resolve, be forthwith printed in all the Papers.

By order of the Committee,

ISAAC LOW, Chairman.

TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND.

London, March 7, 1775

Some three, four, and five centuries ago, it was usual at the close of our Parliament to distinguish them, according to their deserts, by some particular epithet, whether good, bad, or indifferent. In consequence of this laudable usage, I find one of our Parliaments stands stigmatized with the opprobrious epithet of “ignorant;” a second with that of “insane; ” and a third with that of the “merciless Parliament.”

Any one of these severe, yet just epithets, our readers most probably will think a sufficient mark of detestation to damn the actors and acts of such a Parliament to all posterity. But what must posterity think of that Parliament, who, at this present hour, have actually two Bills before them, the first of which is to attaint, and consequently to hang, draw, and quarter, one half of our American brethren; while the second is to prohibit their Fisheries, and consequently to starve the other half to death. Should these two Bills be enacted into two Laws, will not posterity deservedly brand that Parliament with all the three co-united epithets abovementioned; and whenever they make mention of it with horrour, as they must always do, will they not have reason to call it “the ignorant-insane-merciless Parliament of 1775?” But in charity to the two Houses, let us hope the King, whose most amiable prerogative is certainly that of “mercy,” will pay some little attention to his coronation-oath. Let us hope, as his coronation-oath absolutely enjoins that “mercy” shall pervade and govern all the acts of his own judgment, he will not deliberately and indelibly blot his name with so foul a stain, by lending it to either of these two merciless, unnatural, inhuman Bills.

After this seasonable, and I hope successful admonition to the Royal ear, I proceed to show my countrymen, that as the Americans have not taken any step but what is fully guarantied by the Runnymede Treaty, so, no act of any preceding, or of the present, or of any future Parliament can either declare or enact them to be guilty of any one breach of the Constitution, and consequently they are not guilty of high treason.

That the Americans have convened a Continental Congress without any writs of Summons from the King; that they have actually called out and arrayed their Militia without any orders from Government here at home; and that they are determined to resist with an armed force certain unconstitutional Acts of the last Parliament, I readily agree with the Royalists. But, that these same Americans are guilty of high treason against the King or Kingdom, by reason of any one, or all of these self-defensive proceedings, I absolutely deny. For I neither know of, nor ever will acknowledge, any deed of the subject to be high treason but what is stipulated, ratified, and confirmed to be such by some one of our four Constitutions or definitive Treaties.

Let us see, then, by what constitutional characteristicks we may infallibly know what this crime of high treason is.

From the Norman Treaty we may learn by the several Articles, “De Proditione, that it is high treason against the King where any liege subject shall insidiate the King’s death, either by himself, or by hired assassins, or by his own servants.” Thus stood high treason against the King till the Runnymede Treaty took effect, when this species of it was enlarged so as to include not only the King’s person, but also that of his Queen, and of all their children. “Sa va persona regis, et regina, et eorum liberorum.”

There is another species of high treason mentioned in the Norman Treaty, and that is, where any liege subjects of the King, or any liege men of some Baron, shall, either on a Naval or Land Expedition, desert from the Commander-in-chief or his associate, through fear of the war or death, “timiditate belli vel mortis.” And this is properly called high treason, not against the King singly, but against the King and Kingdom. I do not find any other high treasons affecting the subject in any one of our four Constitutions.

Agreeable then to the Constitutional Law of this Realm, I define high treason against the King to be “an insidious attempt or design of a liege subject (either with his own hand or that of his servants) to take away the life of the King, the Queen, or any of their children; but it must be done insidiously, and not otherwise.”

I also define high treason against the King and Kingdom to be “a desertion of our Sea or Land Forces, either in a sea or land expedition, or in the day of battle;” but not at any other times.

Compare the present resistance of the Americans with either of these two definitions, and I shall challenge any man to point out any one stage of their conduct that amounts to high treason, or, indeed, to any crime or offence whatsoever against the British Constitution. When, for instance, were they ever charged, or suspected of any sinister attempt, or insidious design against the lives of any of the Royal family? Or, when were they ever known to have deserted in the day of battle? Can the Crown Lawyers produce any Constitution, or even any one Act of Parliament that impeaches the credit or bottomness of my definition? If not, will they submit their own definition to the same unerring criterion and fair test?    Their best definition, and that in which they all concurred, was, “that to resist any Law with an armed force, is high treason.” This is an imperfect, lame definition, at best, for it only defines what high treason is, but is entirely silent as to what is not high treason. Besides, how can this definition of theirs stand with the Runnymede Treaty, which imperatively enjoins, not barely licences, but absolutely, I say, enjoins, the subjects, when they find any Laws made in violation, derogation, or abrogation of any one Article of the Runnymede Treaty, to take up arms toties quoties, and resist the execution of such unconstitutional Laws, if the King for the time being shall not previously, upon Petition, have repealed the same?    This is the very case at present with the Americans. Acts of Parliament have been made in oppression of them, and in express violation of the Runnymede Treaty. They have petitioned against these Acts. The King first, and afterwards the two Houses of Parliament, have turned a deaf ear to their Petitions. Obtaining no redress from King or Parliament, they have recourse to Arms. “Yes—but (say the Crown Lawyers) that very resistance, according to our definition, is high treason.” What! shall that be high treason in any subjects of the British Empire, for the doing of which they not only are imperatively enjoined by, but have the guarantee and sanction of the Runnymede Treaty?    Or, is there any Act of Parliament now in being, that makes the American resistance to be high treason ?  If not, shall an ex-post-facto Law, and that too made in glaring violation of Magna Charta, overrule, nay, abrogate, Magna Charta itself?  Look over your whole range of high-treason Laws, (those excepted which I have mentioned as constitutionally such,) and what are they, in fact, but so many Parliamentary assurances of the people, that they will not call these treason-enacting Kings to publick account for certain alarming deeds, which, though perhaps they may be strictly legal of themselves, yet, by an overstrained interpretation, might be adjudged to be of a doubtful, if not of a criminal nature?   I scarcely recollect one high-treason Law to have been enacted, except it was during a reign in which the National Religion was abolished, or the New Religion not thoroughly established, or the hereditary succession to the Crown interrupted, or where the King upon the Throne either was a notorious usurper, or a parricide, or had murdered his uncle, his brother, his wives, or his nephews. Let me add, too, that these temporary high-treason Acts of Parliament have always been deemed so highly odible, or suspicious, that they have generally been repealed by the next immediately succeeding King, unless indeed he stood (which hath sometimes been the case) in the same predicament with his Royal predecessor. Let us hear, then, no more of a definition, which absurdly tells us, “That to resist a Law, however unconstitutional it may be, is nevertheless high treason.” If this definition be