were British subjects, and all the authority of the government under the charter was derived from the British crown. This good old charter, as it has often been called, continued in full force and virtue until the tie which bound the colony to the mother country was severed by a sovereign act of the people when they declared themselves independent. As soon as that was done as soon as Rhode Island, with her sister colonies, declared herself absolved from all connection with Great Britain, and assumed to be an independent state - in that hour the good old charter died, and forever after became a dead letter. Here was a complete abrogation of all its constitutional authority, and political power returned to the people at large. Under these circumstances a majority of the inhabitants of the colony, in accordance with those democratic principles wich had marked all their former proceedings, might have instantly set themselves at work to form and establish a written constitution. But like a clap of thunder war broke upon them, and they had no quiet hours to deliberate upon a constitution. Rhode Island was of easy access to the British navy, and British troops were soon quartered in her bosom; public and private concerns were swallowed up in the spirit of heroism; they left "the deer and the steer, and their nets and barges," and rushed to the defence of their common country; and nobly did they acquit themselves.

Rhode Island soldiers mingled in every conflict; her Spartan bands fought with a courage and determination never surpassed; free as water they poured their blood upon the altar of their country, and without a murmur cheerfully sacrificed their lives in the great cause of freedom; and through all future time that state may well be proud of the part she bore in the American Revolution.

CHAPTER II.

THE ABROGATION OF THE ROYAL CHARTER BY THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. ITS DEFECTS AND PRACTICAL INJUSTICE, AND EFFORTS OF THE PEOPLE TO BRING ABOUT A CHANGE.

✓ As we have said before, all the authority of the

British government in Rhode Island became extinguished as soon as the people refused to recognize it, and declared the colony independent; but if any one should be disposed to deny that, there can certainly be no doubt that the absolution was fully consummated by the treaty of peace made in 1783. Whatever period may be fixed upon as that of the full emancipation of the inhabitants of the colony from the government of Great Britain, that was the time when the official authority of all who held under the charter ceased and terminated; that was the time when all political power returned to the people; the officers of the government, in its several departments, became tenants at will, and liable at any time to be ejected by the people in the exercise of their natural and unalienable rights; and if at that time, as they had twice done before, they had of their own accord, without any legal provision, met and conferred together in order to devise some plan by which the sentiments of the whole people,

or the major part of them, should be ascertained and made known, and, if finally a decided majority had manifested their wishes by adopting, in a regular public manner, a written constitution for the government of the state, such constitution would have been of undoubted validity, and every where acknowledged as the supreme law of the state. But we have been told that when the authority of Charles II. ceased, it vested immediately in the legislature. Could that be so? Does the agent retain power after the authority of the principal who granted it ceases? Certainly not. That would be a violation of every principle of law and reason. must therefore be acknowledged that there was a time, after the abrogation of the charter, when the people of Rhode Island might have proceeded in their own way to form and adopt a constitution. They were no longer a colony of Great Britain, but of themselves an independent, sovereign state. Yet they suffered the government to go on in form and name as though the old, defunct parchment still retained its original validity; and from 1776 to 1841 the people made no efficient effort to establish a written constitution.

It

Now, if, in 1776, the inhabitants, or a major part of them, might rightfully and properly have proceeded, in their own way, and formed a written constitution, when, we ask, did that right cease? When was it forfeited? Why might not the inhabitants of that territory as well and as rightfully proceed, in their original, sovereign capacity, to form and establish a written rule of government in 1841, as at any former period? It is said to be a maxim in the English government, that "time does not run against the King." By this rule, in a democratic government, time does not run against the people, and, therefore, what they had a right to do in 1776, they had a right to do in 1841.

But we are told that a government once established cannot be rightfully changed otherwise than through the government itself. According to that doctrine, as soon as a government of any sort is once set up, whatever may be its effects or tendencies, the people lose all control over it, and are forever bound to yield obedience to it, unless, by humbling themselves, they can induce the powers that be to modify it. These are not democratic, but despotic, doctrines, and they ill become the American Republic.

We are told that when the people wish to bring about a change in their government, they must do it in a constitutional manner, and proceed according to prescribed forms. This might be true to a certain extent, when the state already had a written constitution which contained provisions for its amendment. But Rhode Island can hardly be said to have had a constitution at the time the controversy broke out. After the people, by their declaration of independence, had annulled the authority of the royal charter, they never proposed to adopt that instrument as the constitution of the state; and if they had done so, it would have afforded them no relief, because it contained no provision for any change. That power was vested exclusively in the British crown. The people themselves could never change it; therefore no such provision was made.

Under these circumstances, the people must either