1778-06-01st
At a legal meeting of the Inhabitants of the Town of Beverly June 1 1778.
Mr. Richard Leach being Moderator on adjournment.
Voted. That the sum of one thousand pounds be assessed and raised on the polls and estates of the
Inhabitants within this Town for the defraying the necessary charges arising within the same.
Voted. That the sum of three thousand pounds be immediately assessed and raised on the ratable
polls and estates within this Town for defraying the charge of procuring of the militia and
hiring of men to go into the Continental Army for this Town.
Voted. That Asa Brown and others that joined him in petition shall have the liberty to work out their
highway tax on the way between [illegible] Brown’s and the country road under the
inspection of the Surveyor.
Voted. That William and Isaac Green the shall have the liberty to work out their highway tax on the
way between their dwelling houses and the Town Road under the Inspection of the Surveyor
in whose list they are in.
Voted. That Jonathan Dodge should be Constable for the Ferry Ward in the room of Benjamin
Lovett Jr. and to go for said Lovett’s term.
Voted. That the list of jurors exhibited by the Selectmen should be accepted.
Voted. That the Selectmen be empowered and directed to sort and put the list of Jurors into the
several boxes agreeable to the above said list of them.
nd
Voted. That the proceedings of the Town on the 22 of May last relative to their taking under
consideration the form of government etc. be reconsidered. The Constitution and form of
th
government agreed upon by the Convention of this State on the 28 of February last was
taken under consideration and after a most candid and deliberate examination unanimously
voted to reject the same, the number present were fifty-eight.
The Committee appointed to draw up some instructions for their representative to the Great and
General Court and therein set forth the reasons why they rejected said Constitution & reported and
were accepted by the Town and ordered to be given to their representative which is as followeth viz.
To Capt. Josiah Batchelder Jr. Representative of the Town of Beverly for the present year.
Sir:
We, the Inhabitants of the Town, having considered the Constitution and form of government
recommended to us by the Convention of this State and adopted such a mode of disquisition as might
best ascertain its merits or demerits, after the most candid and deliberate examination, are of opinion
that it is not well calculated to promote the general welfare, and that it is not the best that could
reasonably be devised; and would readily be adopted by the people - that without searching for the
reasons that induced the exclusion and the 5th articles so constant to that extensive liberality of
sentiment which ought to prevail in a free State, we find ourselves more nearly effected by
considering the 6th. This from the point on which it treats ought to have secured to us the most
inestimable privilege as people; but we are surprised to find a great proportion of us stripped of it and
in the main that representation, which is the very basis and support of freedom in a large society, is
the most exceptionable article in this Constitution. This most important point, the forming of a body
to represent the people, as it must be a miniature of the whole so it ought to be in justice and good
policy to an exact one and the difficulty of making it so, however great, must be surmounted. For
if the representation be unequal, the government will not long continue equal and the time will soon
arrive when the majority of this body really representing by a small part of the State might advance
their own and their constituents’ private interest to the great injury and oppression of the rest of the
people. The power thus played in their hands, combined with the almost irresistible allurement of
interest will offer such a violent temptation to them to do wrong, as members of political bodies have
severally ever resisted with success, but on the other hand if that body be a fair and exact epitome of
the whole people or in other words if the representation be equal, it will be invariable for their interest
to do strict justice whatsoever is for the interest of the people at-large will be for theirs too so that
the general good will be their object. In the one case, we have nothing on our [illegible] power and
interest may cooperate against us - in the other, right, power and interest combine in our favor, to
make duty and inclination in the servants of the public go hand in hand with such security, and not
otherwise the power of government may be trusted to the few for the benefit of the many.
If it should be said on the plan of representation by Towns which we have been used to, or as pointed
out in the Constitution and form of government before us, equal representation according to members
should make the body unwielded and therefore inadmissible, we grant that the House would be much
too large, but at the same time, we also add that notwithstanding the unequal retrenchment proposed
by the late Convention, the numbers allowed of even would now be far too many and half a century
hence should this State continue to populate, they would be increased beyond all decent bounds.
This, we think, proves being incontestably that the measure taken to prevent the House from being
too numerous is inadequate, and, that it is unjust is obvious as no one can justify the exclusion of a
large body of Freeman from the right of representation while others are in full possession of theirs,
merely because their local situations are different, the injustice further appears if it be considered that
as all contribute alike to the formation of government by parting with an equal share of those right
all equally possessed. So all are equally entitled to the benefits which arise from it, in a word, the
equal right of representation ought ever to be contended for and insisted on by every individual as
a matter of right and of the highest importance whensoever he is called upon to give his consent to
any form of government. Were we to point out a mode of representation which we think right and
best, we should place all on an equal footing, yet to circumscribed the numbers of the House that they
should never exceed what are absolutely necessary to the proper knowledge of the State and
transacting the public business of it. And we cannot but think that the best method to secure an equal
representation and at the same time prevent the evil of having an unwieldy House would be to lay
aside the distinction of Town and taken up, in its stead, a representation by County. Each County may
be divided into Districts and every District throughout the State contain an equal number of Freeman,
the number of Freeman necessary to compose a District may be so determined that though each
District have one representative, yet the entire number of Districts shall not exceed such number as
it is thought best that the whole House shall consist of by this mode all would be put upon the like
footing and none would have reason of complaint. This plan, we conceive to be easy if we have but
virtue enough to listen to what is honest and just.
We might say much on the impropriety of the mode of electing Senators, as men at one extremity of
the State must determine upon the qualifications of men at the other to serve in that important body
with whose true character fewer of them, from their local situation, can become acquainted. This will
unavoidably gave the representatives in some parts a great influence from year-to-year to introduce
those to be voted for by their constituents whom they themselves may choose to have elected in this
way. A great part of the Senators may, in fact, be chosen by the House to the subversion of that
distinction and independence of the two branches so necessary to good government. We cannot but
think that if the each County or District was to elect its own member or members for the Senate, that
important part of the Legislature would be much more equally chosen than upon the plan of the late
Convention, but conceding as we do that the inequality of the representation is enough to insure a
disapprobation of the proposed Constitution, we forbear entering minutely into their particular the
same reason prevents our remarks on several other articles which we think exceptionable.
Though we cannot dismiss it without observing the want of an article which we think any
Constitution that is confirmed and ratified by the people ought to contain. We mean one by which
it shall be provided that on a certain day in the year 1778 or such time as may be judged best, a
Convention chosen by the people at-large distinct from the General Court shall be held to determine
on such amendments, alterations or erasements as shall be found just. Such innovation to have the
sanction of the people and that after other 20 years, the Constitution shall again be taken up in the
same manner and so on successively. This, if any human method can, might in time perfect a
Constitution and secure it enviably by the State Convention and should be voted in when it appears
a considerable part of the people are not in favor of it to enter your protest explicitly against it should
the same be set aside we expect that some other body, distinct from the General Court, be delegated
from among the people for the sole and entire purpose of forming a Bill of Rights and Constitution
of government the [illegible] of which we conceive ought to describe the natural rights of man, pure
as he inherits them from the Great Parent of Nature, distinguishing those, the control of which, he
nd
may part with to society for social benefits, from those that he cannot and the 2 marked out with
perspicuity and plainness what portion of them and on what condition they are parted with. Clearly
defining all the restrictions and limitations of government so as to admit of no prevarication it should
also contain a full and fixed assurance of the equivalent to be received in return.
We mean not to dictate how all those matter should be particularly conducted but expect a
candid exception of these general hints as originating from a sincere desire to secure the invaluable
liberties of the people for the reasons mentioned. We reject the Constitution, and not from a
disposition to prevent good order and encourage anarchy and opposition to equal government. Good
government, we are sensible, is essential to the happiness of the community and this we ardently wish
to take place and shall sincerely endeavor to encourage and promote. But if any form is offered to
us which we in our consensus think does not tend to the public welfare, but in its consequences is
destructive of it, to oppose it with a decent but manly & zealous freedom and firmness is a duty we
owe to ourselves and posterity and we shall ever esteem ourselves bound to extend to its call.