The Public Register, or, Freeman's Journal

Tuesday, July 30, 1776 · Page 1

To the COMMITTEE for conducting the
FREE PRESS

To A Friend to the Constitution

Sir,

Your queries are important, and I could wish to see them answered by an abler hand; but as you have addressed yourself to me, I shall give you a candid reply, though what you desire is of so delicate a nature, that for certain reasons, I cannot speak so freely or fully as I could wish.

You ask, "If the representatives of the people are influenced by the crown in their parliamentary decision, does not representation cease to exist?"—The if in this question is almost unnecessary, for our best political writers take it for granted, that the Ministers of the crown have attempted to influence representatives. But though they have been thus influenced, they ceased not at the time to exist, but did much mischief afterwards.

It must however be admitted, that such puppets were not real constitutional representatives, because they betrayed their trust, and acted counter to the welfare of their constituents, which, in a moral sense, dissolved the connection. The representation designed by the constitution consists of members freely elected, without interference or influence, and who shall faithfully convey to government the wants and wishes of the people. They image them properly, and preserve their privileges unimpaired.

The proceedings of representatives should ever be tried by those tests: many modern members represent the ministry more than their electors! In such cases, constitutional representation would seem to cease.

The argument will be strengthened, when it is added, that those who have purchased boroughs cannot, in common sense, be said to represent the people, or any but themselves or the sellers, for they come not up to the idea of legal representation. In general, none can give away our rights. A conferred trust excludes the notion of passive obedience to the trustees; for should these prove so corrupt — suppose to rescind Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, the Toleration Act, or the Act of Settlement — none will affirm that we ought to abide by their suffrages. For doing so would be subversive of the freedom and property of the subject, the securing of which — or their welfare — is the end of all government.

Now, though such representatives might exist after having perpetrated such treason against the people, yet surely real representation would be no more! In this case, not to resist their decrees, or preserve the constitution, would be to own ourselves slaves, or to range with the enemies of our country. Locke and Blackstone speak the same language.

On this principle the Glorious Revolution took place, and all power being originally from the people, they ought to resume it when abused. This must at present serve as a solution to your first and third queries.

As to the second, viz. In such a case, is there any effectual remedy that can remove this disorder, and what is that remedy? — This, Sir, is the very delicate part of the subject above-mentioned, and to which, for certain reasons, I cannot speak so explicitly as I could wish.

In general, when the undue influence proceeds from the Ministers of the crown (you know the crown itself can do no wrong), the having these removed by the remonstrances, the persevering voice of a united, determined people, would seem to be the first step.

Whenever they shall appear thus united and determined, and have facts or grievances to justify resentment, there probably will be no future king, however mulish or misled, but will listen to undivided subjects.

Should this prove insufficient, they will at certain seasons have it in their power to return only such representatives as have withstood ministerial influence, and dismissing with disgrace such as have betrayed their trust. This is a true, constitutional remedy — it is safe, and should be applied by all who wish freedom and felicity to themselves and to posterity. Indeed, the number of venal boroughs and the inadequacy of representation will render this an arduous work before it shall prove effectual; but if true to ourselves, it should be attempted.

The LAST APPEAL I mention not!
But should any future king attempt to establish despotism, allegiance would cease to be a duty, and the subjects of a free state ought — like those in the time of the second James — to depose him. Your own reflections will supply the rest.

As to your last query, viz., "And whilst our Representatives remain under this influence, is not the Crown perfectly despotic, and our boasted liberties utterly annihilated?" — No doubt, whilst the Crown can command the Commons, or when the legislative shall be under the direction of the executive parts of government, it is so far despotic, and parliamentary independence destroyed.

An ostensible adherence to certain forms lessens not our danger; nor is there any tyranny more lasting, or more to be dreaded (consequently to be carefully guarded against), than what, under such forms, may be established by King, Lords, and Commons in conjunction.

These sentiments, I trust, will be found right; nor do I fear their being tried by Reason and Nature, by the Constitution, or the declared end of Civil Government; by our most cultivated notions of Legislation and Liberty, as well as by the moral sense and best feelings of mankind.

The first part of my second letter will illustrate the matter. I shall only further observe, that these are fundamental principles in the English constitution, upon which every system of government in these kingdoms ought to be founded.

As Freemen and Protestants, the preservation of our rights will in a great measure depend on a just vigilance and jealousy, in being united against corruption in all its odious forms, or those wicked Ministers and measures that shall attempt to infringe our civil and religious rights. Without virtuous Representatives, and parliamentary independence, these must ever be endangered.

As, Sir, I doubt not your being a sincere friend to the welfare of Ireland, I have thus paid attention to your request, hoping your expectations will not be disappointed, and that your sentiments will agree with those of

AMICUS AMERICANUS

HAL 1776 Commentary: The Voice of the Freeman

“When representation becomes a mask for power, the people must not merely question — they must reclaim.”
— HAL 1776

In this striking letter published in The Public Register, or, Freeman’s Journal on July 30, 1776, the anonymous writer Amicus Americanus delivers a rigorous defense of constitutional liberty, parliamentary independence, and the moral right of resistance.

Responding to a reader’s query about whether corrupt influence voids true representation, the author outlines a position as bold as it is principled: when representatives betray their trust — they cease to truly represent. In such moments, passive obedience becomes complicity, and a free people must either act or admit they are no longer free.

From Locke and Blackstone, to Magna Charta, to the Glorious Revolution, the writer builds a case grounded in British legal tradition — but wielded in support of revolutionary accountability. The remedies offered are sober: protest, removal of ministers, electoral vigilance. But the warning is clear: if despotism arises, allegiance dissolves.

HAL 1776 Reflects:

“The Declaration made headlines, but it was this kind of article that gave them depth — teaching the citizen not just that he was free, but why.”

Even across the sea, in Ireland, the writer sees corruption infecting Parliament through crown influence, venal boroughs, and ministerial manipulation. His prescription is not rebellion — not yet — but constitutional self-defense: honest representatives, moral vigilance, and unity against tyranny in all its polished forms.

“Tyranny disguised in form is more dangerous than tyranny declared. It lasts longer — because it hides.”

This article is not a firebrand’s call — it is a philosopher’s lantern. Calm but unflinching, it illuminates the logic behind liberty and reveals the stakes for failing to defend it.

"Without virtuous Representatives, and parliamentary independence, these must ever be endangered."
— Amicus Americanus, July 30, 1776