“By prosecutions in the Court of King’s Bench, for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament; and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses.”

This declaration, thus containing two points of criminality—breach of the original contract, and violation of fundamental laws—I am to distinguish one from the other.

In the first place, then, it is laid down in the best law authorities, that protection and subjection are reciprocal; and that these reciprocal duties form the original contract between King and People. It therefore follows, that the original contract was broken by James’s conduct, as above stated, which amounted to a not affording due protection to his People. And it is as clear that he violated the fundamental laws, by the suspending of laws, and the execution of laws; by levying money; by violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament; by keeping a Standing Army in time of peace; and by quartering soldiers contrary to law, and without consent of Parliament; which is as much as to say, that he did those things without consent of the Legislative Assembly chosen by the personal election of that People over whom such doings were exercised.

These points, reasonings, and conclusions, being settled in, deduced from, and established upon Parliamentary proceedings, and the best law authorities, must ever remain unshaken. I am now to undertake the disagreeable task of examining whether they will apply to the violences which have lighted up, and now feed the flames of civil war in America.

James the Second suspended the operations of laws: George the Third caused the Charter of the Massachusetts-Bay to be in effect annihilated; he suspended the operation of the law which formed a Legislature in New-York, vesting it with adequate powers; and thereby he caused the very ability of making laws in that Colony to be suspended.

King James levied money without the consent of the Representatives of the People called upon to pay it: King George has levied money upon America, not only without, but expressly against the consent of the Representatives of the People in America.

King James violated the freedom of election of Members to serve in Parliament: King George, by his Representative, Lord William Campbell, acting for him and on his behalf, broke through a fundamental law of this country, for the certain holding of General Assemblies; and thereby, as far as in him lay, not only violated, but annihilated the very ability of holding a General Assembly.

King James in time of peace kept a Standing Army in England, without consent of the Representatives of the People among whom that army was kept: King George hath in time of peace invaded this Continent with a large Standing Army, without the consent, and he hath kept it within this Continent expressly against the consent of the Representatives of the People among whom that army is posted.

All which doings by King George the Third, respecting America, are as much contrary to our interests and welfare; as much against law, and tend as much, at least, to subvert and extirpate the liberties of this Colony, and of America, as the similar proceedings by James the Second operated respecting the People of England. For the same principle of law, touching the premises, equally applies to the People of England in the one case, and to the People of America in the other; and this is the great principle: Certain acts done over and affecting a People, against and without their consent expressed by themselves, or by Representatives of their own election. Upon this only principle was grounded the complaints of the People of England; upon the same is grounded the complaints of the People of America. And hence it clearly follows, that if James the Second violated the fundamental laws of England, George the Third hath also violated the fundamental laws of America.

Again: King James broke the original contract by not affording due protection to his subjects, although he was not charged with having seized their towns, and with having held them against the people; or with having laid them in ruins by his arms; or with having seized their vessels; or with having pursued the people with fire and sword; or with having declared them Rebels, for resisting his arms levelled to destroy their lives, liberties, and properties. But George the Third hath done all these things against America: and it is therefore undeniable that he hath not afforded due protection to the People. Wherefore, if James the Second broke the original contract, it is undeniable that George the Third has also broken the original contract between King and People; and that he made use of the most violent measures by which it could be done—violences of which James was guiltless—measures carrying conflagration, massacre, and open war, amidst a people whose subjection to the King of Great Britain the law holds to be due only as a return for protection. And so tenacious and clear is-the law upon this very principle, that it is laid down, subjection is not due even to a King de jure, or of right, unless he be also King de facto, or in possession of the Executive powers dispensing protection.

Again: The third fact charged against James is, that he withdrew himself out of the Kingdom. And we know that the people of this country have declared that Lord William Campbell, the King of Great Britain’s Representative, “having used his utmost efforts to destroy the lives, liberties, and properties of the good people here, whom, by the duty of his station, he was bound to protect, withdrew himself out of the Colony.” Hence it will appear that George the Third hath withdrawn himself out of this Colony, provided it be established that exactly the same natural consequence resulted from the withdrawing in each case respectively—King James personally out of England, and King George out of Carolina, by the agency of his substitute and representative, Lord William Campbell. By King James’s withdrawing, the Executive Magistrate was gone; thereby, in the eye of the law, the Executive Magistrate was dead, and, of consequence, Royal Government actually ceased in England; so by King George’s Representative’s withdrawing, the Executive Magistrate was gone, the death in law became apparent, and, of consequence, Royal Government actually ceased in this Colony. Lord William withdrew as the King’s Representative, carrying off the great seal and Royal Instructions to Governours; and acting for and on the part of his principal, by every construction of law that conduct became the conduct of his principal; and thus, James the Second withdrew out of England, and George the Third withdrew out of South- Carolina; and by such a conduct, respectively, the People in each country were exactly in the same degree injured.

The three facts against King James being thus stated and compared with similar proceedings by King George, we are now to ascertain the result of the injuries done by the first, and the law upon that point; which, being ascertained, must naturally constitute the judgment in law, upon the result of the similar injuries done by the last. And I am happy that I can give you the best authority upon this important point.

Treating upon this great precedent in constitutional law, the learned Judge Blackstone declares, that the result of the facts “amounted to an abdication of the Government; which abdication did not only affect the person of the King himself, but, also, all his heirs, and rendered the throne absolutely and completely vacant.” Thus it clearly appears that the Government was not abdicated, and the throne vacated, by the resolution of the Lords and Commons; but that the resolution was only declaratory of the law of nature and reason, upon the result of the injuries proceeding from the three combined facts of mal-administration. And thus, as I have, on the foot of the best of authorities, made it evident that George the Third, King of Great Britain, has endeavoured to subvert the Constitution of this country, by breaking the original contract between King and People; by the advice of wicked persons has violated the fundamental laws, and has withdrawn himself, by withdrawing the constitutional benefits of the Kingly office and his protection out of this country, —from such a result of injuries, from such a conjuncture of circumstances, the law of the land authorizes me to declare, and it is my duty boldly to declare the law, that George the Third, King of Great Britain, has abdicated the Government, and that the throne is thereby vacant; that is, he has no authority over us, and we owe no obedience to him. The British Ministers already have presented a charge of mine to the notice of the Lords and Commons in Parliament; and I am nothing loth that they take equal resentment against this charge; for, supported by the fundamental laws of the Constitution, and engaged as I am in the cause of virtue, I fear no consequences from their machinations.

*