The United States Is Still A British Colony
Charter of Carolina; June 30, 1665 (1)
I included in my book “The United States Is Still British Colony” the Virginia and Carolina Charters of 1606, 1609, 1621, 1663 and 1669, and others. Recently I found the Carolina Charter of 1665, which I did not know existed. The previous documentation is more than conclusive, however, if you did not have this record to prove the Crown’s control, all you would need is the Carolina Charter of 1665. It stands alone, The information contained in this document is eye opening.
But first going forward in history, the State of North Carolina came into existence in 1776, under the 1776 North Carolina Constitution. However, with a reservation, the 25th section of the North Carolina Bill of Rights, which proceeded the N.C. Constitution, not only part of the Constitution, but the foundation of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution .
Before I deal with the reservation made in the North Carolina Bill of Rights in the 1776 Constitution, I need to deal with the obvious. The members of the North Carolina Congress, which formed a royal Colony so to speak, because the 7 lord proprietors having sold their granted lands back to the king, who then put in place his governors and other officials, later created the State of North Carolina. You have to understand the legal word, “of”, which means, belonging to, the State belonging to. To what? Carolina. Which Carolina? The only Carolina in existence with the legal authority to incorporate. The Carolina Corporation, that just minutes before the 1776 N.C. Constitution was signed, was the only Corporation that existed. The Carolina Charter “Corporation” was created by another Corporation, the Crown, the king’s Corporation to do business in his name. The Corporation’s of the king were only re organized by the 1783 Paris Treaty, and Corporate rights of the Crown were further protected by the 1794 Jay Treaty and the 1815 Ghent Treaty. To again prove the States, nor the people had right of ownership in this country, accept for those that had land grants from the king, or lessor title coming from those holding land grants, read the following cases.
“But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a source from whence it never issued, and from tenants who never held under it? MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70
“The capacity of private individuals (British subjects), or of corporations, created by the crown, in this country, or in Great Britain, to hold lands or other property in this country, WAS NOT affected by the revolution.
The proper courts in this country will-interfere to prevent an abuse of the trusts confided to British corporations holding lands here to charitable uses, and will aid in enforcing the due execution of the trusts; but neither those courts, nor the local legislature where the lands lie, can adjudge a forfeiture of the franchises of the foreign corporation, or of its property.
The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the 6th article of the treaty of peace of 1783 in the same manner as those of natural persona; and their title, thus protected, is confirmed by the 9th article of the treaty of 1794, so that it could not be forfeited by any intermediate legislative act, or other proceeding, for the defect of alienage.
The termination of a treaty, by war, DOES NOT devest rights of property already vested under it.
Nor do treaties, in general, become extinguished, ipso facto, by war between the two governments. Those stipulating for a permanent arrangement of territorial, and other national rights, are, at most, suspended during the war, and revive at the peace, unless they are waived by the parties, or new and repugnant stipulations are made.” The Society, &c.;, v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489
“It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words. The most general words that can be devised (for example, any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least, if they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights and interests. He may even take the benefit of any particular act, though not named. The rule thus settled respecting the British Crown is equally applicable to this government, and it has been applied frequently in the different states, and practically in the Federal courts. It may be considered as settled that so much of the royal prerogatives as belonged to the King in his capacity of parens patrioe, or universal trustee, enters as much into our political state as it does into the principles of the British Constitution.” U.S. v. Chamberlin, 219 U.S. 250 (1911), “Dollar Sav. Bank v. United States, supra”
“….His lordship observes that that was a case in which the old government existed under the King’s charter, and a revolution took place, though the new government was acknowledged by this country. Yet it was held, that the property, which belonged to a corporation existing under the King’s charter, was not transferred to a body which did not exist under his authority, and, therefore, the fund in this country was considered to be bona vacantia belonging to the crown….“The Society, &c.;, v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.
“….The treaty of 1783 forbids all forfeitures on either side. That of 1794 provides that the citizens and subjects of both nations, holding lands (thereby strongly implying that there were no forfeitures by the revolution), shall continue to hold, according to the tenure of their estates; that they may sell and devise them; and shall not, so far as respects these lands and the legal remedies to obtain them, be considered as aliens. In the case Kelly v. Harrison, 2 Johns. cas 29., Mr. Chief Justice Kent says:” I admit the doctrine to be sound (Calvin’s case, 7 Co. 27 b.; Kirby’s Rep. 413), that the division of an empire works no forfeiture of a right previously acquired. The revolution left the demandant where she was before….” The Society, &c.;, v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.
The reservation made in the Bill of Rights preceding the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, it needs no commentary.
“And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under the laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any of them.” Declaration of Rights 1776, North Carolina Constitution
I want to remind everyone before you read the 1665 Charter, of what I have written many times. Our federal reserve was created by the Bank of England in 1913. The problem is the Americans are totally ignorant about the origin of the federal reserve, nor do they care. The federal reserve has always existed in this country, but was renamed and re chartered in 1913. Prior to 1913 the federal reserve went by its English name, the exchequer, and remained in the back ground from the very outset of this Country, always having a representative in this Country The exchequer was begun by William the Conqueror, just after his Conquest of Britain in 1066, he was also responsible for the Doomsday Book. The Doomsday Book was a written record of the conquered holdings of king William, which was later the basis of his taxes and grants. Just as the federal reserve is the descendant of the exchequer, the Country records of today are the descendants of the Doomsday Book.
The king increased his grants to his lords in the 1665 Carolina Charter, one of which represented the exchequer. I need to make this observation. The king in granting land under English law has allodial title to it. By granting land and your not being challenged, perfects and proves your ownership. How did the king come to own this land. First of all, having his law in existence and recognized by the World. Second, expending his resources in a business venture to colonize this land. Third, placing his flag here, along with his subjects. Fourth, by his subjects being under his flag, governed by his Admiralty law, supported by international law governing conquest, possessed this land by force of arms. Then being able to defend his land from any challengers profecting his claim. Fifth, his subjects working the land, then concluded by his incorporation and later grants to the lords, overseeing his interest and possessions, all along governed by his law, carried out by his subjects.
Charter of Carolina; June 30, 1665 (1)
CHARLES the Second, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c.; WHEREAS, by our Letters Patents, bearing date the twenty-fourth day of March, in the fifteenth year of our reign, We were graciously pleased to grant unto our right trusty and right well-beloved Cousin and Counselor Edward Earl of Clarendon, our High Chancellor of England: our right trusty and entirely beloved Cousin and Counselor George Duke of Albemarle, Master of our Horse; our right trusty and well-beloved William now Earl of Craven; our right trusty and well-beloved Counsellor John Lord Berkeley; our right trusty and well-beloved Counsellor Anthony Lord Ashley, Chancellor of our Exchequer; our right trusty and well-beloved Counsellor Sir George Carteret, Knight and Baronet, Vice-Chancellor of our Household; our right trusty and well-beloved Sir John Colleton, Knight and Baronet; and Sir William Berkeley, Knight; all that province, territory, or tract of ground, called Carolina, situate, lying and being within our dominions of America; extending from the north end of the island called Luke Island, which lieth in the Southern Virginia seas, and within thirty-six degrees of north latitude; and to the west, as far as the South-Seas; and so respectively as far as the river of Matthias, which bordereth upon the coast of Florida, and within thirty-one degrees of north latitude; and so west, in a direct line as far as the South-Seas aforesaid.
Now Know ye, That We, at the humble request of the said grantees, in the aforesaid Letters Patents named, and as a further mark of our especial favour to them, we are graciously pleased to enlarge our said grant unto them, according to the bounds and limits hereafter specified, and in favour to the pious and noble purpose of the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkely, their heirs and asigns, all that province, territory or tract of land, situate, lying and being within our dominions of America aforesaid; extending north and eastward, as far as the north end of Currituck river or inlet, upon a strait westerly line to Wyonoak creek, which lies within or about the degrees of thirty-six and thirty minutes, northern latitude; and so west, in a direct line, as far as the South-Seas; and south and westward, as far as the degrees of twenty-nine, inclusive, of northern latitude; and so west, in a direct line, as far as the South-Seas; together with all and singular the ports, harbours, bays, rivers and inlets, belonging unto the province or territory aforesaid And also, all the soils, lands, fields, woods, mountains, forms, lakes, rivers, bays and islets, situate or being within the bounds or limits last before mentioned; with the fishings of all sorts of fish, whales, sturgeons, and all other royal fish, in the sea, bays, islets and rivers, within the premises, and the fish therein taken, together with the royalty of the sea upon the coast within the limits aforesaid;
In the below section you will see the king reaffirmed his claim on all minerals, those known and in existence, as well as those unknown, not yet discovered. Again, it was his to claim and to defend, the only way under his law, or international law, to change or overcome his allodial title, was by conquest. I must at the point of being redundant, remind you that, no where in the 1783 Paris Treaty, wherein the U.S. was recognized and granted the corporate oversight of the king's holdings, the grant or cession of the minerals below ground.
In the same context concerning his ownership of the minerals, he declares that all churches built in this country would have to have his license, and would have to conform to the ecclesiastical laws and rules of the church of England, as defined by the king of England. So those of you that have questioned where the government got its authority to require churches to obtain 501-C-3 status, now you know. I'm sure some would argue this status is not a granted license, true. However, tax exemptions being granted or withheld are a form of control, of the Church's doctrine. Without this exemption, government controls what is taught and official doctrine. Remember what happened to the Indianapolis Baptist Church, or the more extreme abuse of power by the government, the destruction of Waco.
and moreover all veins, Mines and quarries, as well discovered as not discovered, of gold, silver, gems and precious stones, metal, or any other thing, found, or to be found, within the province, territory, islets and limits aforesaid: And furthermore, the patronage and advowsons of all the churches and chapels, which, as Christian religion shall increase within the province, territory, isles, and limits aforesaid, shall happen hereafter to be erected; together with licence and power to build and found churches, chapels and oratories, in convenient and fit places, within the said bounds and limits; and to cause them to be dedicated and consecrated, according to the ecclesiastical laws of our kingdom of England; together with all and singular the like and as ample rights, jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives, royalties, liberties, immunities, and franchises of what kind soever, within the territory, isles, islets and limits aforesaid: To have, hold, use, exercise, and enjoy the same, as amply, fully and in as ample manner, as any Bishop of Durham, in our kingdom of England, ever heretofore had, held, used, or enjoyed, or of right ought or could have, use, or enjoy: And them the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkely, their heirs and assigns,
You will see in the below section that this grant to the lord proprietors is contingent upon their continued loyalty and support of the king, his heirs and successors, meaning forever. If you could not find an heir, as long as the flag flies over the government you will have a successor. Also, that bound not only the lords, but also their heirs and successors, forever. This is yet another reason to show that allodial title rested with the king, not even the 8 lords in this grant could claim it. The king declared his sovereign dominion and that a tax on the Corporation was due, to be paid yearly. To prove they did not have allodial title, 7 of the lords sold their land back to the king. That was the only way they could transfer the land back to the king. If they had allodial title they would have to grant the king the land, for you cannot sale allodial property. After this, the Crown had another title to the land in the Carolina Corporation. Prior to this only the overseers of his Corporations and receivers of grants of land, could create title and sell land. Now the Crown could do this, never affecting his allodial title, which included the minerals. The land above ground, contained in the title would still escheat back up to the king, just as it would if a lord had sold (rented) the land, and then the land reverted back to the lord, though failure to meet the obligations of the contract, or by no office being found.
Also, the price for this grant is a huge tax of half of all gold and silver which shall from time to time by found, for his heirs and successors. This tax is worded the same way as the earlier tax of a quarter of the gold and silver and twenty marks, which can be found in the earlier charters. This 1665 Charter increased the amount to half of all gold and silver found or to be found, besides the twenty marks, "BY THE SAID LETTERS PATENT RESERVED AND PAYABLE", no comma, this is written and has the same effect as a bill submitted and received.
Is there any evidence of the transfer of gold to the king? Yes. In the early 90's I wrote a short book called "A Country Defeated In Victory". Contained in this book is a great deal of Congressional Record, which is replete with proof that millions of dollars of gold was taken out of this Country and transferred to England. In fact many Congressmen brought charges of Impeachment against the federal reserve board members "exchequer", declaring and proving this occurred and caused the 1929 stock market crash.
we do, by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, make, create, and constitute, the true and absolute Lords and Proprietors of the said province or territory, and of all other the premises; saving always the faith, allegiance, and sovereign dominion, due to us, our heirs and successors, for the same: To hold, possess, and enjoy the said province, territory, islets, and all and singular other the premises, to them the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs and assigns forever; to be holden of us, our heirs and successors, as of our manor of East-Greenwich, in Kent, in free and common soccage, and not in capite, or by Knight’s service: Yielding and paying, yearly, to us, our heirs and successors, for the same, the fourth part of all gold and silver ore, which, within the limits hereby granted, shall, from time to time, happen to be found, over and besides the yearly rent of twenty marks, and the fourth part of the gold and silver ore, in and by the said written Letters Patent reserved and payable.
Here you see the king increasing his holdings and possessions of the original charter for his heirs and successors, by annexing land and adding it to the original Carolina Charter.
AND that the province or territory hereby granted and described, may be dignified with as large tythes and privileges, as any other parts of our dominions and territories in that region; Know ye, That we, of our further grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, have thought fit to annex the same tract of ground or territory unto the same province of Carolina; and out of the fullness of our royal power and prerogative, we do, for us, our heirs and successors, annex and unite the same to the said province of Carolina.
AND forasmuch as we have made and ordained the aforesaid Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord - Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs, and assigns, the true Lords and Proprietors of all the province or territory aforesaid; Know ye therefore moreover, That we, reposing especial trust and confidence in their fidelity, wisdom, justice, and provident circumspection, for us, our heirs and successors, do grant full and absolute power, by virtue of these presents, to them the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs and assigns,
The lords were given the absolute authority to establish a government, with the advise and consent of the Freemen, which refers to the aristocrat land owners, holding grants of land, not the common people, renting land, who owned the shops or worked the small farms and those employees of others, you will see this distinction further on.
When you read about this government that the lords were to set up, it sounds very familiar to the government constituted in the 1787 Constitution, with a national Congress and mirror state and local governments. We fought the Revolutionary War for no taxation without representation, seems to me we are much worse off today, because we are heavily taxed, and only the king's corporations control this Country, together with mob rule, of the special interests.
for the good and happy government of the said whole province or territory, full power and authority, to erect, constitute, and make several counties, baronnies, and colonies, of and within the said provinces, territories, lands, and hereditaments, in and by the said Letters Patent, granted, or mentioned to be granted, as aforesaid, with several and distinct jurisdictions, powers, liberties, and privileges: And also, to ordain, make, and enact, and under their seals, to publish any laws and constitutions whatsoever, either appertaining to the public state of the whole province or territory, or of and distinct or particular county, baronny, or colony, or of or within the same, or to the private utility of particular persons, according to their best directions, by and with the advice, assent and approbation, of the freemen of the said province or territory, or of the freemen of the county, baronny, or colony, for which such law or constitution shall be made, or the greater part of them, or of their delegates or deputies, whom, for enacting of the said laws, when, and as often as need shall require, We will, that the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, and their heirs or assigns, shall, from time to time, assemble in such manner and form as to them shall seem best; and the same laws duly to execute, upon all people within the said province or territory, county, baronny, or colony, or the limits thereof, for the time being, which shall be constituted, under the power, and government of them or any of them, either sailing towards the said province, or territory of Carolina, or returning from thence towards England, or any other of our, or foreign dominions, by imposition of penalties, imprisonment, or any other punishment; yea, if it shall be needful, and the quality of the offence require it, by taking away member and life, either by them the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, and their heirs, or by them, or their Deputies, Lieutenants, Judges, Justices, Magistrates, or officers, whatsoever, as well within the said province, as at sea, in such manner and form as unto the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, and their heirs, shall seem most convenient:
Here you will see the court and judicial system is established under the common law of England, and any law written had to conform to the common law of England. What law did our fore fathers setup in the new government? English common law. How in the world could any one believe we defeated the king, when we put in place the king's law, the very thing that gave life to his system of land ownership. Mix with this the court cases included in this book, that said it was impossible for us to claim ownership when land ownership never rested in anyone but the king. I have not made this connection concerning these court decisions, in which the court in effect recognized, that conquest of the king never took place, nor was the land purchased. Looks to me like Patrick Henry was right, he said he smelled a rat. The 1787 Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 established the English common law as our law. We did not as belligerents complete the conquest, nor could we, so far from the king. So the fore fathers sued for peace, which was dictated by the king in the 1783 Paris Treaty, leaving his law intact, thereby leaving the claims of his Charters intact, reaffirmed later under the Treaties of 1794 and 1815. Also, you see the predecessor of the federal register, the posting of the king's laws.
The transfer of taxation takes place by transference of real property through the use of federal reserve notes. Think of it this way, once gold and silver could not repay the king, the only wealth left was our labor, a renewable resource, to be taxed. When you are paid and accept federal reserve notes for payment for your labor, you were never paid, you cannot pay a debt with fiat money. You can only transfer debt with a fiat note, when you pay a tax with this money the debt was never taken off their books as far as what the U.S. owes. You were credited with payment since your labor was transferred to the U.S. Corporation via fiat money, in order to continue the illusion and your faith in the fiat money. Since every U.S. citizen is the guarantor of the U.S. debt you still owe it, I repeat, a debt cannot be paid with a note. What is the reason for the illusion? So the king can continue to collect his tax, since gold and silver have just about been exhausted, your labor is the only real value, equal as a tangible asset to gold and silver. Another reason for our labor being taxed is because we consume the king's resources, the legal definition of consume is to destroy.
And also, to remit, release, pardon, and abolish, whether before judgment or after, all crimes and offences whatsoever against the said laws; and to do all and every thing and things, which, unto the complete establishment of justice, unto courts, sessions, and forms of judicature, and manners of proceeding therein, do belong, although in these presents express mention is not made thereof; and by Judges to him or them delegated, to award process, hold pleas, and determine, in all the said courts and places of judicature, all actions, suits, and causes whatsoever, as well criminal as civil, real, mint, personal, or of any other kind or nature whatsoever: Which laws so as aforesaid to be published, our pleasure is. and we do enjoin, require, and command, shall be absolutely firm and available in law; and that all the liege people of us, our heirs and successors, within the said province or territory, do observe and keep the same inviolably in those parts, so far as they concern them, under the pains and penalties therein expressed, or to be expressed: Provided nevertheless, That the said laws be consonant to reason, and as near as may be conveniently, agreeable to the laws and customs of this our realm of England.
AND because such assemblies of freeholders cannot be so suddenly called as there may be occasion to require the same, we do therefore, by these presents, give and grant unto the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs and assigns, by themselves, or their magistrates, in that behalf lawfully authorized, full power and authority, from time to time, to make and ordain fit and wholesome orders and ordinances within the province or territory aforesaid, or any county, baronny, or province, within the same, to be kept and observed, as well for the keeping of the peace, as for the better government of the people there abiding, and to publish the same to all to whom it may concern: Which ordinances we do, by these presents, straitly charge and command to be inviolably observed within the same province, counties, territories, baronnies and provinces, under the penalties therein expressed; so as such ordinances be reasonable, and not repugnant or contrary,
Again, our laws were to be modeled after the laws of England. Also, in this section you can see glimpses of the Fourth Amendment.
but as near as may be, agreeable to the laws and statutes of this our kingdom of England; and so as the same ordinances do not extend to the binding, charging, or taking away the right or interest of any person or persons, in their freehold, goods, or chattels, whatsoever.
The invitation for the king's subjects to colonize the rest of the content, was with the king's license for such a venture under his flag and laws, thereby further increasing his holdings and profit for his heirs and successors, for his undertaking his business venture to colonize America.
AND to the end the said province or territory may be the more happily increased, by the multitude people resorting thither, and may likewise be the more strongly defended from the incursions of savages, and other enemies, pirates and robbers; therefore, we, for us, our heirs and successors, do give and grant, by these presents, full power, license and liberty, unto all the liege people of us, our heirs and successors, in our kingdom of England, and elsewhere, within any other our dominions, islands, colonies, or plantations, (excepting those who shall be especially forbidden) to transport themselves and families into the said province or territory, with convenient shipping and fitting provision; and there to settle themselves, dwell, and inhabit: Any law, act, statute, ordinance, or other thing, to the contrary notwithstanding.
Now we get to the subjects, his property and natural resources. He declares that all subjects being transported here, their heirs and those born here are to forever owe their allegiance to the king, his heirs and successors. Also, by our allegiance, we could buy and hold land and leave it to our heirs, notwithstanding any legislation to the contrary. These rights were predicated on our allegiance, negated by the 1776 Declaration of Independence, and later harshly punished when cession took place during the Civil War.
AND we will also, and of our especial grace, for us, our heirs and successors, do straitly enjoin, ordain, constitute, and command, that the said province and territory shall be of our allegiance; and that all and singular the subjects and liege people of us, our heirs and successors, transported, or to be transported into the said province, and the children of them, and such as shall descend from them there born, or hereafter to be born be, and shall be denizens and lieges of us, our heirs and successors, of this our kingdom of England, and be in all things, held, treated, and reputed, as the liege faithful people of us, our heirs and successors, born within this our said kingdom, or any other of our dominions; and may inherit or otherwise purchase and receive, take, hold, buy and possess, any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, within the said places, and them may occupy and enjoy, sell, alien, and bequeath; as likewise, all liberties, franchises, and privileges, of this our kingdom, and of other our dominions aforesaid, may freely and quietly have possess, and enjoy, as our liege people, born within the same, without the molestation, vexation, trouble, or grievance, of us, our heirs and successors: Any act, statute, ordinance, or provision, to the contrary, notwithstanding.
AND furthermore, that our subjects of this our said kingdom of England, and other our dominions, may be the rather encouraged to undertake this expedition, with ready and cheerful means; Know ye, That we, of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, do give and grant, by virtue of these presents, as well to the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, and their heirs,
Again, the king grants license to increase his holdings in America. I've had people say, well how does this apply to the states, who were made states after the original 13 states and formation of the U.S. Corporation? Now you have your answer, in addition to the previous documents provided in this book. The king declares, "saving unto us, our heirs and successors", customs, duties and payments due as a result of the expansion and colonialsation of America, again, as a result of his expenditure of his wealth and resources, air go taxes. Am I arguing in behalf of the king? No, but this is the way the king sees it. I say that only one King owns the land, that being Jesus Christ.
as unto all others as shall, from time to time, repair unto the said province or territory, with a purpose to inhabit there, or to trade with the natives thereof; full liberty and licence, to lade and freight, in every port whatsoever, of us, our heirs and successors, and into the said province of Carolina, by them, their servants and assigns, to transport all and singular their goods, wares and merchandises; as likewise all sorts of grain whatsoever, and any other thinner whatsoever, necessary for their food and clothing, not prohibited by the 1aws and statutes of our kingdom and dominions, to be carried out of the same, without any let or molestation of us, our heirs and successors, or of any other our officers or ministers whatsoever; saving also unto us, our heirs and successors, the customs and other duties and payments, due for the said wares and merchandises, according to the several rates of the places from whence the same shall be transported.
In this section you see laws governing the trade with England and duties to be paid by other countries.
WE will also, and by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, do give and grant licence by this our charter, unto the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craved John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, and their heirs and assigns, and to all the inhabitants and dwellers in the province or territory aforesaid, both present and to come, full power and absolute authority, to import or unlace, by themselves or their servants, factors, or assigns, all merchandises and goods whatsoever that shall arise of the fruits and commodities of the said province or territory, either by land or sea, into any the ports of us, our heirs and successors, in our kingdom of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or otherwise to dispose of the said goods in the said ports; and, if need be within one year next after the unfading to lade the said merchandises and goods again into the same or other ships; and to export the same into any other countries, either of our dominions or foreign, being in amity with us, our heirs and successors, so as they pay such customs, subsidies and other duties, for the same, to us, our heirs and successors, as the rest of our subjects of this our kingdom, for the time being, shall be bound to pay; beyond which, we will not, that the inhabitants of the said province or territory, shall be any ways charged: Provided nevertheless, and our will and pleasure is, and we have further, for the considerations aforesaid, of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, given and granted, and by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, do give and grant unto the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs and assigns, full and free licence, power and authority, at any time or times, from and after the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel, which shall be in the year of our Lord Christ one thousand six hundred and sixty-seven, as well to import and bring into any of our dominions, from the said province of Carolina, or any part thereof, the several goods herein after mentioned; that is to say, silks, wines, raisins, capers, wax, almonds, oil, and olives, without paying or answering to us, our heirs and successors, any custom, impost, or other duty, for or in respect thereof, for and during the term and space of seven years, to commence and be accounted from and after the importation of four tons of any of the said goods, in any one bottom, ship, or vessel, from the said province or territory, into any of ourvdominions; as also, to export, and carry out of any of our dominions, into the said province or territory, custom free, all sorts of tools which shall be useful or necessary for the planters there, in the accommodation and improvement of the premises: Any thing before in these presents contained, or any law, act, statute, prohibition, or other matter or thing, heretofore had, made, enacted, or provided, in any wise notwithstanding.
AND furthermore, of our more ample and especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, we do, for us, our heirs and successors, grant unto the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs and assigns, full and absolute power and authority, to make, erect, and constitute, within the said province or territory, and the isles and islets aforesaid, such and so many sea-ports, harbours, creeks, and other places, for discharge and unfading of goods and merchandises, out of ships, boats and other vessels, and for lading of them, in such and so many places, with such jurisdictions, privileges and franchises, unto the said ports belonging, as to them shall seem most expedient; and that all and singular the ships, boats and other vessels, which shall come for merchandises and trade into the said province or territory, or shall depart out of the same, shall be laden and unladen at such ports only as shall be erected and constituted by the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs and assigns, and not elsewhere: Any use, custom, or thing, to the contrary notwithstanding.
AND we do further will, appoint, and ordain, and by these presents, for US, our heirs, and successors, do grant unto the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, and their heirs and assigns, that they the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs and assigns, may, from time to time, forever, have and enjoy the customs and subsidies, in the ports, harbours, creeks, and other places within the province aforesaid, payable for the goods, wares and merchandises there laded, or to be laded or unfaded; the said customs to be reasonably assessed, upon any occasion, by themselves, and by and with the consent of the free people, or the greater part of them, as aforesaid; to whom we give power, by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, upon just cause, and in due' proportion, to assess and impose the same.
AND further, of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, we have given, granted and confirmed, and by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, do give, grant and confirm, unto the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs and assigns,
The lord, their heirs and successors were given leave to rent lands to whom they chose, by a lessor title, fee simple and fee tail. I have a couple of chapters in this book on this subject. Just to reiterate, when an heir of such a grant can't be found the land esheats back to the grantor, back up to the king if necessary. The same would apply to those losing their lands by none payment of their rent, applicable taxes.
full and absolute power, licence and authority, that they the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs and assigns, from time to time hereafter, forever, at his and their will and pleasure, may assign, alien, grant, demise, or enfeoff, the premises, or any part or parcel thereof, to him or them that shall be willing to purchase the same, and to such person and persons as they shall think fit; to have and to hold to them, the said person or persons, their heirs and assigns, in fee-simple, or in fee-tail, or for term of life or lives, or years; to be held of them the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, heir heirs and assigns, by such rents, services and customs, as shall seem fit to them the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs and assigns, and not of us, our heirs and successors: And to the same person and persons, and to all and every of them, we do give and grant, by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, licence, authority and power, that such person or persons may have and take the premises, or any part thereof, of the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs and assigns; and the same to hold to themselves, their heirs and assigns, in what estate of inheritance soever, in fee-simple, or fee-tail, or otherwise, as to them the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs or assigns, shall seem expedient; the statute in the Parliament of Edward, son of King Henry, heretofore King of England our predecessor, commonly called the statute of quia emptores terrarum, or any other statute, act, ordinance, use, law, custom, or any other matter, cause or thing, heretofore published or provided to the contrary, in any-wise notwithstanding.
This section is self explanatory, it deals with the grant of titles of nobility.
AND because many persons, born and inhabiting in the said province, for their deserts and services, may expect and be capable of marks of honour and favour, which, in respect of the great distance, cannot be conveniently conferred by us; our will and pleasure therefore is, and we do by these presents, give and grant unto the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, and their heirs and assigns, full power and authority, to give and confer unto and upon such of the inhabitants of the said province or territory, as they shall think do or shall merit the same, such marks of favour and titles of honour as they shall think fit; so as their titles of honours be not the same as are enjoyed by or conferred upon any of the subjects of this our kingdom of England.
The king grants license to the creation of a military corporation. Read the quotes I have included at the end of this paper from Burke and Smith and remember World War II. The king also gives authority to the 8 Proprietors the authority to grant lessor titles of charters of incorporation, just as I have been saying. The Crown is the main Corporation, the U.S. government is the next in line, then the State governments, then the County governments and finally the local municipalities.
AND further also, we do, by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, give and grant licence to the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord of Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, and their heirs and assigns, full power, liberty and licence, to erect, raise and build, within the said province and places aforesaid, or any part or parts thereof, such and so many forts, fortresses, castles, cities, boroughs, towns, villages, and other fortifications whatsoever; and the same, or any of them, to fortify and furnish with ordnance, powder, shot, armour, and all other weapons, ammunition, and habiliments of war, both defensive and offensive, as shall be thought fit and convenient, for the safety and welfare of the said province and places, or any part thereof; and the same, or any of them, from time to time, as occasion shall require, to dismantle, disfurnish, demolish and pull down: And also to place, constitute and appoint, in or over all or any of the said castles, forts, fortifications, cities, towns, and places aforesaid, Governors, Deputy-Governors, Magistrates, Sheriffs, and other officers, civil and military, as to them shall seem meet: And to the said cities, boroughs, towns, villages, or any other place or places, within the said province or territory, to grant letters or charters of incorporation, with all liberties, franchises, and privileges, requisite or usual, or to or within this our kingdom of England granted or belonging; and in the same cities, boroughs, towns, and other places, to constitute, erect and appoint such and so many markets, marts, and fairs, as shall, in that behalf, be thought fit and necessary: And further also, to erect and make in the province or territory aforesaid, or any part thereof, so many manors, with such signories as to them shall seem meet and convenient; and in every of the same manors to have and to hold a Court-Baron, with all things whatsoever which to a Court-Baron do belong; and to have and to hold views of Frank-Pledge and Court-Leets, for the conservation of the peace and better government of those parts, with such limits, jurisdictions and precincts, as by the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, or their heirs, shall be appointed for that purpose, with all things whatsoever which to a Court-Leet, or view of Frank-Pledge, do belong; the same courts to be holden by stewards, to be deputed and authorized by the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, or their heirs, by the Lords of the manors and leets, for the time being, when the same shall be erected.
The king grants the lords the use of the War Powers, to be exercised in the governing of the government, if so needed. Rather than posting a paper on this subject here is the website so yo can look it up, it deals with the subject of the War Powers of Britain and the U.S.: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/articles/warpowers.html
AND because that in so remote a country, and situate among so many barbarous nations, the invasions of savages and other enemies, pirates and robbers, may probably be feared; therefore, we have given, and for us, our heirs and successors, do give power by these presents, unto the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs or assigns, by themselves, or their Captains, or other officers, to levy, muster, and train up all sorts of men, of what condition soever, or wheresoever born, whether in the said province, or elsewhere, for the time being; and to make war, and pursue the enemies aforesaid, as well by sea, as by land; yea, even without the limits of the said province, and, by God’s assistance, to vanquish, and take them; and being taken, to put them to death, by the law of war, and to save them at their pleasure, and to do all and every other thing, which to the charge and office of a Captain-General of an army, hath had the same.
Here you see the king's grant of authority for the lords, heirs and successors to govern by martial law. Now you know why I wrote about the conquest of the 1787 Constitution in the third chapter of this book. Now you know how the government could do this and why. Go back to the beginning of this paper, as soon as the king's terms were violated, mainly allegiance to the king's system. The flawed Constitution that allowed the cession, had to be conquered. If you remember, the state Constitutions had to reflect by force of arms that cession would no longer be allowed, nor the disruption of the king's commerce, and the states were forced by arms to ratify the 14th Amendment, by a defacto Congress. Washington was the first to exercise this power, declaring an emergency. While under this emergency, Washington and Congress modified the 1787 Constitution, by extending the jurisdiction and geographical size of the District of Columbia, because then Congress could legislate under the Constitution or outside the Constitution in their Insular capacity.
ALSO, our will and pleasure is, and by this our charter, we do give and grant unto the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs and assigns full power, liberty, and authority, in case of rebellion, tumult, or sedition, (if any should happen, which God forbid) either upon the land within the province aforesaid, or upon the main sea, in making a voyage thither or returning from thence, by him and themselves, their Captains, Deputies, or officers, to be authorized under his or their seals, for that purpose; to whom also, for us, our heirs and successors, we do give and grant, by these presents, full power and authority, to exercise martial law against any mutinous and seditious persons of these parts; such as shall refuse to submit themselves to their government, or shall refuse to serve in the war, or shall fly to the enemy, or forsake their colours or ensigns, or be loiterers, or stragglers, or otherwise offending against law, custom, or military discipline; as freely and in as ample manner and form, as any Captain-General of an army, by virtue of his office, might or hath accustomed to use the same.
People you would have to hire someone to help you misunderstand this section. The lords, their heirs and successors and tenants and inhabitants were declared sworn subjects to the Crown of England. If you did not know it already by reading previous chapters, the Crown is the king's corporation, setup to do the king's business and protect the king from liability.
What did the Conquest do, post Civil War, besides conquer the 1787 Constitution? It re instituted the oath of feality and allegiance to the king, through the king's sub corporation, the United States. How? The Reconstruction Acts declared an oath would be added and required to reaffirm the Citizens loyalty, by using the voter registration, that has never been changed. Don't you check a box declaring you are a U.S. citizen, a disenfranchised Fourteenth Amendment citizen? Yes. Go back and re read chapter 3 and some of the relevant emails. Also, at the end of this paragraph you see a glimpse of Civil rights.
AND our further pleasure is, and by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, we do grant unto the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkely, their heirs and assigns, and to the tenants and inhabitants of the said province or territory, both present and to come, and to every of them, that the said province or territory, and the tenants and inhabitants thereof, shall not, from henceforth, be held or reputed any member or part of any colony whatsoever in America, or elsewhere, now transported or made, or hereafter to be transported or made; nor shall be depending on, or subject to their government in any thing, but be absolutely separated and divided from the same; and our pleasure is, by these presents, that they be separated, and that they be subject immediately to our Crown of England, as depending thereof, forever: And that the inhabitants of the said province or territory, nor any of them, shall, at any time hereafter, be compelled, or compellable, or be any ways subject or liable to appear or answer to any matter, suit, cause or plaint whatsoever, out of the province or territory aforesaid, in any other of our islands, colonies, or dominions in America, or elsewhere, other than in our realm of England, and dominion of Wales.
When you read the below section you will understand why, or at least you will have further insight into why the Davidians were killed at Waco. They were by their beliefs considered dangerous not only to the public, but also the ecclesiastical dictates.
AND because it may happen that some of the people and inhabitants of the said province cannot, in their private opinions, conform to the public exercise of religion according to the liturgy, forms, and ceremonies of the Church of England, or take and subscribe the oaths and articles made and established in that behalf; and for that the same, by reason of the remote distances of those places, will, as we hope, be no breach of the unity and conformity established in this nation; our will and pleasure therefore is, and we do, by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, give and grant unto the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarlc, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs and assigns, full and free licence, liberty, and authority, by such ways and means as they shall think fit, to give and grant unto such person and persons, inhabiting and being within the said province or territory, hereby, or by the said recited Letters Patents mentioned to be granted as aforesaid, or any part thereof, such indulgences and dispensations, in that behalf, for and during such time and times, and with such limitations and restrictions, as they the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs or assigns, shall, in their discretion, think fit and reasonable: And that no person or persons unto whom such liberty shall be given, shall be any way molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinion, or practice in matters of religious concernments, who do not actually disturb the civil peace of the province, county or colony, that they shall make their abode in: But all and every such person and persons may, from time to time, and at all times, freely and quietly have and enjoy his and their Judgments and consciences, in matters of religion, throughout all the said province or colony, they behaving themselves peaceably, and not using this liberty to licentiousness, nor to the civil injury, or outward disturbance of others: Any law, statute, or clause, contained or to be contained, usage or custom of our realm of England, to the contrary hereof, in any-wise, notwithstanding.
AND in case it shall happen, that any doubts or questions shall arise, concerning the true sense and understanding of any word, clause, or sentence contained in this our present charter; we will, ordain, and command, that in all times, and in all things, such interpretations be made thereof, and allowed in all and every of our courts whatsoever, as lawfully may be adjudged most advantageous and favourable to the said Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Anthony Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, their heirs and assigns, although express mention, &c.;
WITNESS Ourself, at Westminster, the thirtieth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.
PER IPSUM REGEM.
A few words from king James, on the divine right of kings, this view has not changed, and to expand on this further go back and read the Treaty of Verona in the last chapter of this book.
Speech to Parliament, 21 March 1609
Extract on the divine right of kings
The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth … Kings are justly called Gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth. For if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God has power to create, or destroy, make, or unmake at his pleasure, to give life, or send death, to judge all, and to be judged nor accountable to none: to raise low things, and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both soul and body due. And the like power have Kings; they make and unmake their subjects: they have power of raising, and casting down: of life, and of death: judges over all their subjects, and in all causes, and yet accountable to none but God only.
Now in these our times we are to distinguish between the state of kings in their first original, and between the state of kings and monarchs, that do at this time govern in civil kingdoms … In the first original of kings, whereof some had their beginning by conquest, and some by election of the people, their wills at that time served for law; Yet how soon kingdoms began to be settled in civility and policy, then did kings set down their minds by laws
… And I am sure to go to my grave with that reputation and comfort, that never king was in all his time more careful to have his laws duly observed, and himself to govern thereafter, than I.
I conclude then this point touching the power of kings, with this axiom of divinity, that as to dispute what God may do, is blasphemy … so is it sedition in subjects, to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power: But just kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon: but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws … Therefore all kings that are not tyrants, or perjured, will be glad to bound themselves within the limits of their laws; and they that persuade them the contrary, are vipers, and pests, both against them and the Commonwealth.
Below is a letter by George III, at first glance it looks by the first three words as if the king did lose. Wrong. Keep reading, it is clear, just as the facts of my book support and those in the Informer’s book, The New History of America, that the king utilized other ways of governing his Corporation. The quotes below by Burke and Smith will also confirm what the king is saying and give light as to where his methods derived, Burke and Smith, and no doubt others acting as think tanks for the king’s policies and for the Crown. Highlighted sections are in all caps.
Letter on the loss of America, 1780s (precise year unknown)
America is lost! Must we fall beneath the blow? Or have we resources that may repair the mischief? What are those resources? Should they be sought in distant Regions held by precarious Tenure, or shall we seek them at home in the exertions of a new policy?
The situation of the Kingdom is novel, the policy that is to govern it must be novel likewise, or neither adapted to the real evils of the present moment, or the dreaded ones of the future. For a Century past the Colonial Scheme has been the system that has guided the Administration of the British Government. It was thoroughly known that from every Country there always exists an active emigration of unsettled, discontented, or unfortunate People, who failing in their endeavours to live at home, hope to succeed better where there is more employment suitable to their poverty. The establishment of Colonies in America might probably increase the number of this class, but did not create it; in times anterior to that great speculation, Poland contained near 10,000 Scotch Pedlars; within the last thirty years not above 100, occasioned by America offering a more advantageous asylum for them.
A people spread over an immense tract of fertile land, industrious because free, and rich because industrious, presently became a market for the Manufactures and Commerce of the Mother Country. An importance was soon generated, which from its origin to the late conflict was mischievous to Britain, because it created an expense of blood and treasure worth more at this instant, if it could be at our command, than all we ever received from America. The wars of 1744, of 1756, and 1775, were all entered into from the encouragements given to the speculations of settling the wilds of North America.
What did the king just say? All three wars were fought to increase the Crown's wealth, including the war of 1775. The king does not care who's name is over the door, so to speak. All Three wars are viewed by the king as the same. The conqueror enters a Country for the prospect of increasing his wealth. Was the king's corporation setup to increase his wealth, diminished by the 1775 War, or the 1783 Paris Treaty? No. Read the below section in caps, then read the quotes after this speech, by Burke and Smith.
It is to be hoped that by degrees it will be admitted that the Northern Colonies, that is those North of Tobacco, were in reality our very successful rivals in two Articles, the carrying freight trade, and the Newfoundland fishery. While the Sugar Colonies added above three millions a year to the wealth of Britain, the Rice Colonies near a million, and the Tobacco ones almost as much; those more to the north, so far from adding anything to our wealth as Colonies, were trading, fishing, farming Countries, that rivalled us in many branches of our industry, and had actually deprived us of no inconsiderable share of the wealth we reaped by means of the others. THIS COMPARTATIVE VIEW OF OUR FORMER TERRITORIES IN AMERICA IS NOT STATED WITH ANY IDEA OF LESSENING THE CONSEQUENCE OF A FUTURE FRIENDSHIP AND CONNECTION WITH THEM; ON THE CONTRARY IT IS TO BE HOPED WE SHALL REAP MORE ADVANTAGES FROM THEIR TRADE AS FRIENDS THAN EVER WE COULD DERIVE FROM THEM AS COLONIES; FOR THERE IS REASON TO SUPPOSE WE ACTUALLY GAINED MORE BY THEM WHILE IN ACTUAL REBELLION, AND THE COMMON OPEN CONNECTION CUT OFF, THAN WHEN THEY WERE IN OBEDIENCE TO THE CROWN; THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY TAKEN INTO THE ACCOUNT, THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT OF IT.
The East and West Indies are conceived to be the great commercial supports of the Empire; as to the Newfoundland fishery time must tell us what share we shall reserve of it. But there is one observation which is applicable to all three; they depend on very distant territorial possessions, which we have little or no hopes of retaining from their internal strength, we can keep them only by means of a superior Navy. If our marine force sinks, or if in consequence of wars, debts, and taxes, we should in future find ourselves so debilitated as to be involved in a new War, without the means of carrying it on with vigour, in these cases, all distant possessions must fall, LET THEM BE AS VALUABLE AS THEIR WARMEST PANEGYRISTS CONTEND.
It evidently appears from this slight review of our most important dependencies, that on them we are not to exert that new policy which alone can be the preservation of the British power and consequence. The more important they are already, the less are they fit instruments in that work. No man can be hardy enough to deny that they are insecure; to add therefore to their value by exertions of policy which shall have the effect of directing any stream of capital, industry, or population into those channels, would be to add to a disproportion already an evil. The more we are convinced of the vast importance of those territories, the more we must feel the insecurity of our power; our view therefore ought not to be to increase but PRESERVE THEM.
3. FACTS OF THE KINGS MIND SET CONCERNING HIS CHARTERS
(Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of Great Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781), declared “That he should not answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free people, if he consented to sacrifice either to his own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of which the future strength and security of the country must forever depend.” The determined language of this speech, pointing to the continuance of the American war, was echoed back by a majority of both Lords and Commons.
In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of Commons that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be their opinion “That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience by force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of Great Britain.” The History of the American Revolution, Vol. 2, Ramsay, 617-9
“If America gives you taxable objects on which you lay your duties here, and gives you, at the same time, a surplus by a foreign sale of her commodities to pay the duties on these objects which you tax at home, she has performed her part to the British revenue. But with regard to her own internal establishments, she may, I doubt not she will, contribute in moderation. I say in moderation, for she ought not to be permitted to exhaust herself. She ought to be reserved to a war, the weight of which, with the enemies that we are most likely to have, must be considerable in her quarter of the globe. There she may serve you, and serve you essentially.
For that service - for all service, whether of revenue, trade, or empire - my trust is in her interest in the British Constitution. My hold of the Colonies is in the close affection which grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are ties which, through light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let the Colonists always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government, they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance.”
Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775
“But my idea of it is this; that an empire is the aggregate of many states under one common head, whether this head be a monarch or a presiding republic.” Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775
“Men may lose little in property by the act which takes away all their freedom. When a man is robbed of a trifle on the highway, it is not the two-pence lost that constitutes the capital outrage.” Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775
“The people heard, indeed, from the beginning of these disputes, one thing continually dinned in their ears, that reason and justice demanded that the Americans, who paid no taxes, should be compelled to contribute.” Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775
“Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.” Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775
Adam Smith also gives incite into the kings mind set in regards to the colonies paying for the benefits they receive from him, and as to the contributions they should pay and how it is to be done.
“Their wealth was considered as our wealth. Whatever money was sent out to them, it was said, came all back to us by the balance of trade, and we could never become a farthing the poorer by any expense which we could lay out upon them. They were our own in every respect, and it was an expense laid out upon the improvement of our own property and for the profitable employment of our own people.” 1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith
OUR FORE FATHERS WANTED THE BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES WITHOUT PAYING THE TAX TO THE KING.
“Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, can not properly be represented in the British Parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, WE CHEERFULLY CONSENT TO THE OPERATION OF SUCH ACTS OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, as are BONA FIDE, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the PURPOSE OF SECURING THE COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGES OF THE WHOLE EMPIRE TO THE MOTHER COUNTRY, and the COMMERCIAL BENEFITS OF ITS RESPECTIVE MEMBERS; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or ETERNAL, for raising a revenue on the SUBJECTS IN AMERICA, without their consent.” Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774
Authors's Comment:"Resolved, 7. That these, His Majesty's colonies, are likewise entitled to all the IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES GRANTED and confirmed to them by ROYAL CHARTERS, or secured by their several codes of provincial laws." Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774
The forefathers wanted the commercial benefits without paying the taxes that go hand in hand, it does not work that way Patriots.
“Before I enter upon the examination of particular taxes, it is necessary to premise the four following maxims with regard to taxes in general.
I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation. Every tax, it must be observed once for all, which falls finally upon one only of the three sorts of revenue above mentioned, is necessarily unequal in o far as it does not affect the other two. In the following examination of different taxes I shall seldom take much further notice of this sort of inequality, but shall, in most cases, confine my observations to that inequality which is occasioned by a particular tax falling unequally even upon that particular sort of private revenue which is affected by it.
II. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person. Where it is otherwise, every person subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax-gathered, who can either aggravate the tax upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such aggravation, some present or perquisite to himself. The uncertainty of taxation encourages the insolence and favours the corruption of an order of men who are naturally unpopular, even where they are neither insolent nor corrupt. The certainty of what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a matter of so great importance that a very considerable degree of inequality, it appears, I believe, from the experience of all nations, is not near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty.
III. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it. A tax upon the rent of land or of houses, payable at the same term at which such rents are usually paid, is levied at the time when it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay; or, when he is most likely to have wherewithal to pay. Taxes upon such consumable goods as are articles of luxury are all finally paid by the consumer, and generally in a manner that is very convenient for him. He pays them by little and little, as he has occasion to buy the goods. As he is at liberty, too, either to buy, or not to buy, as he pleases, it must be his own fault if he ever suffers any considerable inconveniency from such taxes.
IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state. A tax may either take out or keep out of the pockets of the people a great deal more than it brings into the public treasury, in the four following ways. First, the levying of it may require a great number of officers, whose salaries may eat up the greater part of the produce of the tax, and whose perquisites may impose another additional tax upon the people. Secondly, it may obstruct the industry the people, and discourage them from applying to certain branches of business which might give maintenance and unemployment to great multitudes. While it obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish, or perhaps destroy, some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so. Thirdly, by the forfeitures and other penalties which those unfortunate individuals incur who attempt unsuccessfully to evade the tax, it may frequently ruin them, and thereby put an end to the benefit which the community might have received from the employment of their capitals. An injudicious tax offers a great temptation to smuggling. But the penalties of smuggling must rise in proportion to the temptation. The law, contrary to all the ordinary principles of justice, first creates the temptation, and then punishes those who yield to it; and it commonly enhances the punishment, too, in proportion to the very circumstance which ought certainly to alleviate it, the temptation to commit the crime. Fourthly, by subjecting the people to the frequent visits and the odious examination of the tax-gatherers, it may expose them to much unnecessary trouble, vexation, and oppression; and though vexation is not, strictly speaking, expense, it is certainly equivalent to the expense at which every man would be willing to redeem himself from it. It is in some one or other of these four different ways that taxes are frequently so much more burdensome to the people than they are beneficial to the sovereign.” 1776, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
“It is not contrary to justice that both Ireland and America should contribute towards the discharge of the public debt of Great Britain. That debt has been contracted in support of the government established by the Revolution, a government to which the Protestants of Ireland owe, not only the whole authority which they at present enjoy in their own country, but every security which they possess for their liberty, their property, and their religion; a government to which several of the colonies of America owe their present charters, and consequently their present constitution, and to which all the colonies of America owe the liberty, security, and property which they have ever since enjoyed. That public debt has been contracted in the defence, not of Great Britain alone, but of all the different provinces of the empire; the immense debt contracted in the late war in particular, and a great part of that contracted in the war before, were both properly contracted in defence of America.” 1776, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
“The expense of the peace establishment of the colonies was, before the commencement of the present disturbances, very considerable, and is an expense which may, and if no revenue can be drawn from them ought certainly to be saved altogether. This constant expense in time of peace, though very great, is insignificant in comparison with what the defence of the colonies has cost us in time of war. The last war, which was undertaken altogether on account of the colonies, cost Great Britain, it has already been observed, upwards of ninety millions. The Spanish war of 1739 was principally undertaken on their account, in which, and in the French war that was the consequence of it, Great Britain spent upwards of forty millions, a great part of which ought justly to be charged to the colonies. In those two wars the colonies cost Great Britain much more than double the sum which the national debt amounted to before the commencement of the first of them. Had it not been for those wars that debt might, and probably would by this time, have been completely paid; and had it not been for the colonies, the former of those wars might not, and the latter certainly would not have been undertaken. It was because the colonies were supposed to be provinces of the British empire that this expense was laid out upon them. But countries which contribute neither revenue nor military force towards the support of the empire cannot be considered as provinces. They may perhaps be considered as appendages, as a sort of splendid and showy equipage of the empire. But if the empire can no longer support the expense of keeping up this equipage, it ought certainly to lay it down; and if it cannot raise its revenue in proportion to its expense, it ought, at least, to accommodate its expense to its revenue. If the colonies, notwithstanding their refusal to submit to British taxes, are still to be considered as provinces of the British empire, their defence in some future war may cost Great Britain as great an expense as it ever has done in any former war. The rulers of Great Britain have, for more than a century past, amused the people with the imagination that they possessed a great empire on the west side of the Atlantic. This empire, however, has hitherto existed in imagination only. It has hitherto been, not an empire, but the project of an empire; not a gold mine, but the project of a gold mine; a project which has cost, which continues to cost, and which, if pursued in the same way as it has been hitherto, is likely to cost, immense expense, without being likely to bring any profit; for the effects of the monopoly of the colony trade, it has been shown, are, to the great body of the people, mere loss instead of profit.” 1776, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith