Letter II

Of the Rights of the Colonists

Sir,

The rights of the colonists originate from the same principles as those of their fellow-subjects in Britain. As men, they are by nature free; as British subjects, they are entitled to all the privileges of Englishmen.

No argument from distance, or from the circumstance of their emigration, can divest them of this claim. By quitting their native land, they did not surrender their birthright. The protection of the laws of England accompanied them across the ocean, and with that protection their rights remained.

The colonial charters, granted by royal authority and confirmed by long usage, are legal evidence of their constitutional franchises. These are not privileges conferred as favors, but acknowledged as inherent. To question them is to question the very foundations of British liberty.

When we assert that the colonists are entitled to freedom, we assert nothing new. We only assert what every Englishman holds sacred — that liberty is not the gift of kings, but the birthright of subjects.

But what is liberty? It is not the license of doing as one pleases. It is the security of being governed by known laws, made with the consent of those who are to obey them.

The claim of the British legislature to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever is incompatible with liberty. It denies them the right of representation, and subjects them to taxation without consent. This is not legislation — it is arbitrary rule.

Such claims cannot be reconciled with the principles of the constitution. The British government is founded on the balance of powers, and the supremacy of law. To impose authority where there is no voice, to exact obedience where there is no choice, is to break that balance and violate that law.

If the colonists are freemen, they must be governed by laws of their own making. If they are subjects, they must have a share in the legislature. Without this, the connection is one of force, not of justice.

To perpetuate such injustice is to endanger both liberty and empire. It will alienate affection, provoke resistance, and destroy that harmony which is the only bond of durable union.

I am, &c.
John Cartwright

HAL 1776 Commentary

“Charters, reason, nature, and law — Cartwright gives the colonists every weapon but war.”
— HAL 1776

In Letter II, Cartwright solidifies his legal and moral scaffolding: the colonists are free not only because they claim it, but because their rights are anchored in English law, charter tradition, and natural justice.

He disarms loyalist objections by framing colonial rights not as rebellious novelties but as old English principles, transported across the sea. To deny Americans these rights is to unwrite the very freedoms that make Britain worth defending.

“Liberty is not the gift of kings, but the birthright of subjects.”

Here is the pamphlet’s moral heart. Cartwright is not proposing an overthrow — he is reminding Britain of what it once promised, and warning of the cost of forgetting. He makes it clear: you cannot extract taxes without voices, nor claim allegiance without representation.

And more subtly, he shifts the focus: the injustice isn’t just to America — it’s a threat to Britain’s constitutional soul.

“If they are subjects, they must have a share in the legislature.”

This was not mere political theory — it was a prediction. A union based on imbalance would not hold. And in the very year this letter was reprinted in America, the colonies declared what Cartwright had foreseen: the end of a connection that had ceased to be just.

“Cartwright held up the law as a mirror — and Parliament turned its face away.”
— HAL 1776