NO STANDING ARMY IN THE BRITISH COLONIES; OR, AN ADDRESS TO THE INHABITANTS OF THE COLONY OF NEW-YORK AGAINST UNLAWFUL STANDING ARMIES.

“Resolved, nemine contradicente, That the keeping a Standing Army in these Colonies, in times of peace, without the consent of the Legislature of the Colony in which such Army is kept, is against law.”—Proclamation of the Continental Congress.

Brethren, Friends, and Countrymen:

The sanguinary schemes of the present Administration have been sealed with the approbation of the late ministerial Parliament. Every vessel that came to this or the neighbouring ports, since the proceedings of our late Congress were published in London, brought us fresh intelligence of the hostile measures resolved on against us. More regiments are to be sent over, some of which will be stationed in this metropolis and in New-Jersey, to support the King’s friends, to intimidate and divide us, to be a check on the Southern Colonies, and, if judged practicable, to prevent their relieving our suffering brethren of the Massachusetts-Bay.

These particulars; and many more, have, doubtless, come to the knowledge of that body, commonly styled our Representatives; and yet, amongst the objects of real complaint, resolved as such by that Assembly, in their late catalogue of grievances, we do not read any of the ruinous consequences of an act of Parliament, which was solely machinated to extort the submission of all the British Colonies to every parliamentary, or, what is synonymous, to every ministerial mandate, though ever so ruinous. But it may be predicted that, sooner or later, this act will have the intended effect, should its not appearing to press upon us in a direct manner render us so inattentive, or so very selfish as to suffer its continuing to be enforced with impunity.

This introduction must point out to you, that the act, or rather edict here alluded to, is that which was made for extending to all the British Colonies on this Continent the acts of Parliament relating to mutiny and desertion in Great Britain, as likewise to maintain the discipline of His Majesty’s Army, so styled, instead of its true descriptive name, the British, or National Army—an impropriety of the greatest importance to a free people, justly jealous of their honour, and conscious of their real dignity! But, to the manifest danger of the national liberty, this is little attended to by military men; too many of whom, from a field-marshal to a drummer, mistake the true sense of that phraseology, which, when at first used, was meant but as a complaint, and appeared, as it really was, perfectly harmless, before our Kings kept a Standing Army. Erroneous notions on this head are now big with ruin, it being not unfrequent to find in the military order a commissioned, as well as a non-commissioned varlet, ignorant enough to believe that he eats the King’s bread, and is bound, for that very reason, implicitly to obey any command he receives from his superiours, who eat the same bread! As men of this stamp never inquire with whose bread the King himself is fed, it is judged very necessary, at this critical juncture, to awaken the attention and sensibility of many men of liberal principles, who serve in the British Army and Navy, some of whom inadvertently mention the King, and even address him, as their master.

The enemies to our Constitution, well knowing the fatal effects of the illusion which this old prejudice never fails to produce in the minds of the vulgar, surreptitiously provided themselves with the Extension Edict, before (though not long before) the late Parliament issued their inquisitorial sentences against the people of the Massachusetts-Bay. That edict demonstrates to you by what means the Ministry have determined to conduct their conspiracy against our liberty. Surely, this is a grievance of the first magnitude.

The American newspapers have informed you since that time, that Courts-Martial have dared to decree various punishments, which have been inflicted on soldiers in America; but, though such Courts-Martial acted under colour of that same illegal edict, we do not learn that any of their members, or the deluded victims that became their accomplices by executing the felonious sentences, have been indicted for their respective crimes! Nay, have not such unlawful Courts-Martial been suffered in our metropolis to exercise the same illegal authority?

About the beginning of the last war, an Administration, which had formed no design against our liberty, acted on very different principles, to prevent the mutiny and desertion of the British forces in North America. The Minister sent circular directions to most of the American Governours, for procuring temporary acts, which, as they manifestly tended to the welfare and safety of the whole British Empire, were cheerfully granted. The Legislatures to which such applications were made, extended to their respective territories the acts of Parliament for punishing mutiny and desertion, &c. Those acts afterwards received the Royal assent; but the legal force of every such temporary act has long since expired. They were granted with the same caution that acts of a similar nature pass in Great Britain, where the Lords and Commons know, that the national liberty might be easily destroyed should they declare acts of such importance, perpetual. The Legislature can give no lawful authority to such acts of perpetual duration, any more than they can lawfully surrender the liberties of the people. These have, in reserve, an inalienable right to ratify, or annual every act of their delegates to legislative assemblies.

The fair proceedings of the Administration above mentioned, are of publick notoriety. They not only prove, in the most authentick manner, that Administration then believed the British Parliament had no right to bind us in all cases whatsoever, but that the King and his Ministers were solicitous to demonstrate the uprightness of their intentions—that they would not violate any of our constitutional rights, by attempting to bind us in any case whatsoever, without our legal consent.

The anti-British junto, being sensible the legal expiration of those temporary acts of the Colonies was an invincible obstacle to their projects of depredation, so artfully conducted themselves in, and out of Parliament, that their dark designs were not suspected. For this reason, the patriotick minority, who did not think that more regiments were intended to be sent over to America, made little or no opposition to the Extension Edict. This shows you, my brethren, how cautious you ought to be of your friends themselves. They may be sincere, but they do not feel!

Let us see now what our late venerable Congress did for us—they who felt with us the innumerable evils that are inseparable from a Standing Army not dependant on ourselves. Their ninth resolve expressly declares, that to keep such Army is unlawful, and consequently proclaims the nullity of the Extension Edict, in the comprehensive words which are prefixed to this address, although the consequence which results from the truth contained in them, being founded on the self-evident principles of universal jurisprudence, that respectable authority might have been omitted here, without the least danger. This consequence is acknowledged by the uniform proceedings of every civilized Country relative to distributive justice, as well as in the judgment of every person who is not in a state of insanity. Whatever is done any where against law, cannot be supported there, by law. It is a mere nullity.

We have often been astonished at the superlative effrontery of ministerial hirelings; and yet, it is improbable any caviller of that tribe will be so irreverent and scurrilous as to urge, that the ninth resolve of the Congress does not affect the extension edict. However, should you meet with that wretch, read to him, and intrench yourselves within the tenth resolve in their Bill of Rights, from which the following quotation is inserted here, to support the ninth resolve, and several other parts of this address, to wit:

“All and each of which,” that is to say, the rights mentioned in the nine preceding resolves, “the aforesaid Deputies, in behalf of themselves and their constituents, do claim, demand, and insist on, as their indubitable rights and liberties, which cannot be legally taken from them, altered, or abridged by any power whatever, without their own consent, by their Representatives, in their several Provincial Legislatures.

“In the course of our inquiry we find many infringements and violations of the foregoing rights, which, from an ardent desire that harmony and a mutual intercourse of