yet lost sight of the object we have ever had in | they treat with freedom, while their towns are view-a reconciliation with you on constitu- sacked; when daily instances of injustice and tional principles, and a restoration of that oppression disturb the slower operations of reafriendly intercourse which, to the advantage of son? both, we till lately maintained.

If this proposal is really such as you would The inhabitants of this country apply them- offer, and we accept, why was it delayed till selves chiefly to agriculture and commerce. As the nation was put to useless expense, and we their fashions and manners are similar to yours, were reduced to our present melancholy situayour markets must afford them the conveni- tion? If it holds forth nothing, why was it ences and luxuries for which they exchange the proposed? unless, indeed, to deceive you into produce of their labors. The wealth of this ex- a belief that we were unwilling to listen to any tended continent centres with you; and our terms of accommodation. But what is submittrade is so regulated as to be subservient only ted to our consideration? We contend for the to your interest. You are too reasonable to ex-disposal of our property. We are told that our pect, that by taxes (in addition to this), we demand is unreasonable that our Assemblies should contribute to your expense; to believe may indeed collect our money, but that they after diverting the fountain, that the streams must at the same time offer, not what your excan flow with unabated force. igencies or ours may require, but so much as shall be deemed sufficient to satisfy the desires of a minister, and enable him to provide for favorites and dependants. A recurrence to your own treasury will convince you how little of the money already extorted from us, has been applied to the relief of your burthens. To suppose that we would thus grasp the shadow, and give up the substance, is adding insult to injuries.

It has been said that we refuse to submit to the restrictions on our commerce. From whence is this inference drawn? Not from our words; we have repeatedly declared the contrary, and we again profess our submission to the several acts of trade and navigation passed before the year 1763, trusting, nevertheless, in the equity and justice of Parliament, that such of them as, upon cool and impartial consideration, shall appear to have imposed unnecessary or grievous restrictions, will, at some happier period, be repealed or altered. And we cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts of the British Parliament as shall be 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 external, for raising a revenue on the subjects in America without their consent.

It is alleged that we contribute nothing to the common defence. To this we answer, that the advantages which Great Britain receives from the monopoly of our trade, far exceed our proportion of the expense necessary for that purpose. But should these advantages be inadequate thereto, let the restrictions on our trade be removed, and we will cheerfully contribute such proportion when constitutionally required.

It is a fundamental principle of the British Constitution, that every man should have at least a representative share in the formation of those laws by which he is bound. Were it otherwise, the regulation of our internal police by a British Parliament, who are, and ever will be, unacquainted with our local circumstances, must be always inconvenient, and frequently oppressive, working our wrong, without yielding any possible advantage to you.

A plan of accommodation (as it has been absurdly called) has been proposed by your ministers to our respective assemblies. Were this proposal free from every other objection but that which arises from the time of the offer, it would not be unexceptionable. Can men deliberate with the bayonet at their breast? Can

We have nevertheless again presented an humble and dutiful petition to our sovereign; and to remove every imputation of obstinacy, have requested his majesty to direct some mode by which the united applications of his faithful colonists may be improved into a happy and permanent reconciliation. We are willing to treat on such terms as can alone render an accommodation lasting; and we flatter ourselves, that our pacific endeavors will be attended with a removal of ministerial troops, and a repeal of those laws, of the operation of which we complain, on the one part, and a disbanding of our army, and a dissolution of our commercial associations, on the other.

Yet, conclude not from this that we propose to surrender our property into the hands of your ministry, or vest your Parliament with a power which may terminate in our destruction. The great bulwarks of our constitution we have desired to maintain by every temperate, by every peaceable means; but your ministers (equal foes to British and American freedom) have added to their former oppressions an attempt to reduce us, by the sword, to a base and abject submission. On the sword, therefore, we are compelled to rely for protection. Should victory declare in your favor, yet men trained to arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap nor easy conquest. Of this, at least, we are assured, that our struggle will be glorious, our success certain; since, even in death we shall find that freedom which in life you forbid us to enjoy.

Let us now ask, what advantages are to attend our reduction? The trade of a ruined and desolate country is always inconsiderable, its revenue trifling; the expense of subjecting and

WILLIAM HENRY DRAYTON.

THE ancestors of William Henry Drayton came originally from Northamptonshire, in England. Thomas Drayton, his grandfather, emigrated from the island of Barbadoes, in company with Sir John Yeamans and others, in the year 1671, and settled in South Carolina. William Henry, the subject of the present sketch, was a son of John Drayton, of Drayton Hall, on Ashley river, at which place he was born some time in the month of September, 1742. In 1753, at the age of eleven years, he was sent by his parents to England, under the protection of Chiet Justice Pinckney, who had resigned his seat on the bench of South Carolina, and was removing with his family to the mother country. Under the guidance and care of this worthy gentleman, and in companionship with his sons, Charles Cotesworth and Thomas Pinckney, young Drayton pursued his studies at Westminster school, in London, until the fall of 1761, when he entered the University of Oxford. After prosecuting his studies at this place for nearly three years, he returned to South Carolina, where he at once entered upon a course of general reading, and applied himself with great industry to the study of ancient and modern histories, the laws of nations, and the rights of his own country. In the year 1764, he was married to Miss Golightly, a young lady of fortune and rare endowments, by whom he had a son and daughter.

In 1769 the important and serious questions which agitated the provinces, attracted the attention of Mr. Drayton, and the same year, under the signature of Freeman, he opposed "the mode of enforcing associations, which he deemed encroachments on his private rights of freedom." By this opposition he became involved in an animated controversy with the celebrated Christopher Gadsden. Soon after this he went to England, where he was favorably received by British court and nobility; and in February, 1771, he was appointed by the king to the Privy Council of South Carolina, in which body he took his seat in April, 1772. On the decease of Judge Murray, in 1774, he was placed by Lieutenant Governor Bull in the position of assistant judge of the province, "until his majesty's pleasure should be known." The energy and independence manifested by Judge Drayton in this position, excited the ill will of the chief justice and some of the assistant judges, and the appearance, in the autumn of 1774, of his address, To the deputies of North America, assembled in the High Court of Congress at Philadelphia,* exposed him in the council to an open manifestation of their displeasure, and finally to removal from the bench and council. This persecution enlisted the sympathies of his fellow-citizens, and from that time he exerted a powerful influence amongst them. He was elected to the Provincial Congress of South Carolina in 1775, and the same year ascended to the presidency of that assembly, in which office he remained while that congress existed.

On the formation of the constitution of South Carolina, in March, 1776, Judge Drayton was chosen chief justice of the colony. The courts were opened after the organization of government, under that constitution, when, on the twenty-third day of April, 1776, Chief Justice Drayton, in the presence of the associate judges, delivered his celebrated Charge to the Grand Jury;

* "In this address," says Dr. Ramsay, "he stated the grievances of America, and drew up a bill of American rights. This was well received. It substantially chalked out the line of conduct adopted by Congress then in session."

a production replete with learning, eloquence, and the strongest patriotism. In addition to the discharge of arduous official duties, he wrote several powerful addresses exposing the corruption of the ministry, and encouraging his fellow-citizens to assert and vindicate their natural rights. Among these is one under the signature of A Carolinian, in answer to the "Declaration of Lord and General Howe, published at New York, on the nineteenth of September, 1776, as commissioners for restoring peace to his Majesty's Colonies and Plantations in North America," &c. In this answer he points out the insincerity of the commissioners' proposals, and the wickedness of their intentions. "Your Excellencies," says he, "think fit to declare,' that you are desirous of restoring the public tranquillity.' But is the end your Excellencies aim at our honor and advantage? Is it to give a free scope to our natural growth? Is it to confirm to us our rights by the law of nature? No! it is to cover us with infamy. It is to chill the sap, and check the luxuriance of our imperial plant. It is to deprive us of our natural equality with the rest of mankind, by establishing' every State as a part of the British empire.' In short, your Excellencies invite men of common sense, to exchange an independent station for a servile and dangerous dependence! But, when we recollect that the King of Great Britain has, from the throne, declared his 'firm and steadfast resolutions to withstand every attempt to weaken or impair the supreme authority of that legislature over all the dominions of his crown:' that his hirelings in Parliament and tools in office, abhorred by the English nation, have echoed the sentiment; and that America, for ten years, has experienced that king's total want of candor, humanity, and justice—it is, I confess, a matter of wonder, that your Excellencies can submit to appear so lost to decency as to hold out subjection as the only condition of peace; and that you could condescend to sully your personal honor, by inviting us to trust a government in which you are conscious we cannot in the nature of things place any confidence-a government that you are sensible has been, now is, and ever must be jealous of our prosperity and natural growth-a government that you know is absolutely abandoned to corruption! Take it not amiss, if I hint to your Excellencies, that your very appearing in support of such a proposal, furnishes cause to doubt even of your integrity; and to reject your allurements, least they decoy us into slavery. The declaration says, 'the king is most graciously pleased to direct a revision of such of his royal instructions to his governors,' &c. 'and to concur in the revisal of all acts by which his Majesty's subjects may think themselves aggrieved.' But what of all this? Your Excellencies have not told the people, who 'think themselves aggrieved,' that they are to be a party in the revision. You have not even told them who are to be revisers. If you had, it would be nothing to the purpose; for you have not, and cannot tell them and engage that even any of the instructions and acts, being revised, shall be revoked, and repealed; particularly those by which the people 'may think themselves aggrieved.' But, if such are not to be repealed, why have you mentioned 'think themselves aggrieved?' If they are intended to be repealed, why did not your Excellencies come to the point at once and say so? It is evident your Excellencies are by your superiors precipitated into a dilemma. You have not been accustomed to dirty jobs, and plain dealing does not accord with your instructions; otherwise, in the latter case, I think you are men of too much sense and honor to have overlooked or suppressed so material a point of information. However, you say instructions and acts are to be revised: We see that you have laid an ambuscade for our liberties; the clause is carefully constructed without the least allusion to the revisers, or to the words redress, revoke, repeal. In short, it appears to be drawn up entirely on the plan of a declaration by King James the Second after his abdication, as confidentially explained by James's Secretary of State, the Earl of Melford, to Lord Dundee in Scotland. For Melford writes to Dundee, 'that notwithstanding of what was promised in the declaration, indemnity and indulgence, yet he had couched things so that the king would break them when he pleased; nor would he think himself obliged to stand to them.' And your Excellencies have 'couched things so,' that more words upon this subject are unnecessary."

The General Assembly of South Carolina elected Judge Drayton a delegate to the Continental Congress, early in 1778, and at the latter end of March, in that year, he repaired to York, Pennsylvania, where the Congress then held its sessions. Here he took an active part in the delibera

tions against the conciliatory bills of the British Parliament, and other important measures. On the return of the Continental Congress to Philadelphia, after the evacuation of that city by the British, Judge Drayton published another pamphlet against the royal commissioners, full of ridicule and power. This is supposed to be the last work that emanated from his pen in favor of the American colonies. From this period until his death, Mr. Drayton's congressional duties were laborious and constant. He died at Philadelphia on the third of September, 1779. Among the manuscripts left behind him, was a complete history of the American Revolution, brought down to the close of the year 1778. This was published, together with a memoir of its author, by John Drayton, LL. D., in 1821.

THE CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY.

At a Court of General Sessions, holden at Charleston, South Carolina, for the district of Charleston, on the twenty-third day of April, 1776, the following charge to the Grand Jury was delivered by Chief Justice William Henry Drayton:*

GENTLEMEN OF THE GRAND JURY: When, by evil machinations tending to nothing less than absolute tyranny, trials by jury have been discontinued, and juries, in discharge of their duty, have assembled, and as soon as met, as silently and arbitrarily dismissed without being impanelled, whereby, in contempt of magna charta, justice has been delayed and denied; it cannot but afford to every good citizen, the most sincere satisfaction, once more to see juries, as they now are, legally impanelled, to the end, that the laws may be duly administered-I do most heartily congratulate you upon so impor

tant an event.

In this court, where silence has but too long presided, with a direct purpose to loosen the bands of government, that this country might be involved in anarchy and confusion, you are now met to regulate your verdicts, under a new constitution of government, independent of royal authority. A constitution which arose according to the great law of nature and of nations, and which was established in the late Congress, on the 26th of March last-a day that will be ever memorable in this country-a month, remarkable in our history for having given birth to the original constitution of our government

in the year 1669; for being the era of the American calamities by the stamp act, in the year 1765; for being the date of the repeal of that act in the following year; and for the conclusion of the famous siege of Boston, when the American arms compelled General Howe, a general of the first reputation in the British service, with the largest, best disciplined, and best provided army in that service, supported by a formidable fleet, so precipitately to abandon the most impregnable fortifications in America, as that he left behind him a great part of the bedding, military stores, and cannon of the army. And for so many important events, is the month of March remarkable in our annals. But I proceed to lay before you the principal causes leading to the late revolution of our government-the law upon the point-and the benefits resulting from that happy and necessary establishment. The importance of the transaction deserves such a state-the occasion demands, and our future welfare requires it. To do this may take up some little time; but the subject is of the highest moment, and worthy of your particular attention. I will therefore confine my discourse to that great point; and, after charging you to attend to the due observance of the jury law, and the patrol and negro acts, forbearing to mention the other common duties of a grand jury, I will expound to you THE CONSTITUTION OF YOUR COUNTRY.

The house of Brunswick was yet scarcely settled in the British throne, to which it had been called by a free people, when, in the year 1719, our ancestors in this country, finding that the government of the lords proprietors opeThere were two other charges to the Grand Jury of rated to their ruin, exercised the rights transCharleston, delivered by Judge Drayton; one on the fif-mitted to them by their forefathers of England; teenth of October, 1776, and another on the twenty-first of

October, 1777. General Charles Lee took exceptions to some assertions contained in the latter, which bore severely upon his conduct at the battle of Monmouth, and sent a challenge to Judge Drayton, which he refused to accept; giving as reasons for so doing, "that although custom had sanctioned duelling with the military, it had not done so with the judiclary, and that such a conduct in a Chief Justice of South Carolina, as he was, would, in the eyes of the world, appear as a public outrage on government, society, and common decency."-Drayton's Memoirs.

and casting off the proprietary authority, called upon the house of Brunswick to rule over them-a house elevated to royal dominion, for no other purpose than to preserve to a people their unalienable rights. The king accepted the invitation, and thereby indisputably admitted the legality of that revolution. And in so doing, by his own act, he vested in those our forefathers, and us their posterity, a clear right to effect another revolution, if ever the govern