THE author of the Halifax letter, who now affects to call himself only the editor, begins his defence with "a serene and composed survey of a storm, taken in a calm, after the tumult of the waves had subsided." This is a speci­men of the methodical disposition of his ideas, and of the regularity and clearness of his modes of think­ing. He gives us a flourish on the "blood and im­mense treasure of her subjects that Great-Britain has lavished for the security of the colonies, as well as her own importance and dignity." Were none of those subjects Americans? Was no part of those im­mense sums raised by the northern colonies? It is ac­knowledged with gratitude, and hath very generally impressed the deepest sentiments of duty and loyalty, that his present and late Majesty, with their respec­tive parliaments, were graciously pleased to give the colonies far greater protection, support and encou­ragement, than had ever been received from all the Princes their royal predecessors together. But our notable editor should not have forgotten that these colonies ever distinguished themselves by the most unbounded loyalty. Their inviolable attachment to the present establishment in his Majesty's illustrious family; their love to the British constitution and go­vernment, from which, under God, they derive their greatest happiness, have been, at all times, acknow­ledged [Page 4] by some of the most inveterate of their ene­mies. That the northern colonies on the continent have ever exerted their most strenuous efforts in the common cause of the whole empire, will not be de­nied but by those who are fearless of ridicule, and intirely lost to any sense of honor or shame. I will also venture to affirm, they will be ever found ready on any future occasion, to convince those of their mistakes, who may entertain any kind of doubt of their loyalty. I believe there were few so terrified and alarmed, even in these dark and gloomy days of the American commanders preceding an Amherst, a Wolfe and a Monkton, as to have "gladly compoun­ded for a barrier at Albany." It was easy to foresee that a change of Generals would bring on so essen­tial a change of measures, as at least, to secure his Majesty's ancient territories. The event of things happily proved this, and a great deal more. I remem­ber those days, and own I was one who was greatly terrified and alarmed at the rapid progress the French were suffered to make, while ten thousand of the best troops in the world were kept parading at Hali­fax, and spent the summer in mock-battles and sieges. If the editor then had his residence there, I presume he was well pleased to see the British forces so wisely employed, while the Canadians were bringing fire and sword into the bowels of the continent. I am pretty certain, he and all those of his stamp in Ame­rica, would have been grieved at an Albany barrier, for this plain reason; they were in hopes to join in chanting Te Deum with their French Catholic Brethren in the churches, chapels and meeting-houses of Boston, New-York and Newport. Upon all oc­casions, during the war, they manifested their joy and exultation at any little success of the French— [Page 5] but kept vigils and severe fasts when they were drub­bed. The Halifaxian is at this time very intimate with a set of gentry who are in combination to vil­ify the colonies, and depreciate every service they have rendered the crown. He is at no loss any ev'­ning to find some of his old gang, who, if fame speaks true, as I believe she does for once, have crack'd many a bottle of true sterling to the health of J—m-y S—t, as these pretty lads call him when they are about half seas over, and imagine themselves out of danger. Such is the little, dirty, drinking, drabbing, contaminated knot of thieves, beggars and transports, or the worthy descendents of such, collected from the four winds of the earth, and made up of Turks, Jews and other Infidels, with a few renegado Chri­stians & Catholics, and altogether formed into a club of scarce a dozen, at N—p—t. From hence proceed Halifax-letters, petitions to alter the colony forms of government, libels upon all good colonists and sub­jects, and every evil work that can enter into the heart of man. These are some of the gentry, who all of a sudden are become the most loyal subjects in Ame­rica; and have had the impudence to attempt to per­suade all England that the rest of the colonists are as great rebels as ever appeared in arms for the Preten­der, not excepting those choice friends, of, that learn­ed apothecary and barber-surgeon of a man of war Dr. Smallbrain, the lying historiographer, of the first expedition to Louisbourg, whom he has bro't the beau monde to call the insurgents of 1745. Our edi­tor and his adherents, have from time to time, in the NewportMercury and elsewhere sub rosa talked pretty loudly of "dragooning the colonists into better manners," and said, "G—d d—m their blood, they shall soon see the difference between martial and [Page 6] civil law: between the common law, and the eccle­siastical canons." "They deserve to have all their laws written Draco and D—l-like in human gore." "The hand of a Spanish inquisitor is far too light a punishment for Fanaticks." ^* "I hope," said one of the most mild and serene of them, laying down his flute, his fiddle and his Pilpay, "to see the time, grant it may soon come ye gods whom we all adore, when it shall be decreed meritorious to burn a rac­koon-box, and kill a skunk." These are two cant terms of the junto for meeting-houses and protestant dissenters. "A man," says another, "who would not fight for high-church and the hierarchy, sooner than for monarchy or a monarch, except one Juris divini, is no good subject or christian."

I should not have thought the above vain threats worth citing, but as they show what a blessed advo­cate any administration hath in the editor and his junto. What an opinion should we have of our su­periors, if, which God forbid, it were to be formed from what we know of these wretches? Should the editor think it against the laws of Polemicks to apply to him, or the Halifax letter-writter, who chose to be anonymous, even what I know hath been said by divers of the junto, let him recollect that the same editor in the defence of the letter▪ hath not only [Page 7] made the writer of the vindication of the colonies answerable for every thing that hath been thought, spoken, written, printed or published in America, an­ticatholicon, for several years past. He hath without sufficient authority, affirmed, that the author of the Rights of the British colonies asserted and proved, and the writer of their Vindication against the editor's foul aspersions, is the same person. This, if true, he did not know, and therefore in foro conscientiae approxi­mates to leesing-making. Does this show his hu­mane and serenely sweet disposition of avoiding any thing that looks like a personal contest. He certainly must be lost to all sense of honor, or when he was not only treated like a gentleman, but with infinitely more lenity than he deserved, and nothing said that could be called naming him, he would not have used this expression, "The rights of the British colonies asserted, of which this Boston writer was the author." This is certainly equivalent to naming who he thinks the writer of the Vindication, as the author of the Rights asserted gave his name to the public. Not content with this, he has made the writer of the Vindication answerable for pieces which he declares he never saw, 'till he read them in the de­fence. He has made him intimate with gentlemen he never heard of, and confederate with wri­ters he never guessed at. The writer of the Vindi­cation has more than once said in my hearing, "that he knows not any more than the dead who that Providence writer" is, but he believes him to be a match for all the Jacobites & Jew-jobbers in Newport.

With regard to the present subject, I solemnly declare, and defy the Editor to prove the contrary, and I have heard the author of the Rights of the British colonies asserted, say as much, I never was [Page 8] directly nor indirectly concerned in, or knowing to the composing or publishing of one pamphlet or other piece, by the Editor cited, or any other, except the Rights of the Colonies asserted, and the Vindica­tion, of which I own I was the publisher, and the author of the first is well known; and if there is any thing offensive in either, I am heartily sorry, and am well assured the author never intended any such thing, and has given me authority in his name, humbly to ask pardon for the least iota that may have displeased his superiors, humbly imploring as he at first expressed his diffidence of himself, that they would candidly impute any slip to the "agony of his heart, rather than to the pravity of his will." I as much disapprove of many things that have been published, as the Editor pretends to. But in a point of such importance, and in regulations at least new, is it to be wondered at, that there should be some diver­sity of sentiments? Should any imprudencies have escaped any, all "candid Philanthropes," but such as the Editor, will make benevolent allowances for, those who have been born and bred in the wilds of Ame­rica, and have had little opportunity to learn the Eu­ropean urbanity and manners, unless they could take them from a few strollers, straggling pedlars & trans­ports, which were the principal school-masters of polite­ness the letter writer conversed with, before the late war, since the opening of which, many fine gentlemen have visited the colonies. As the country becomes polished, I hope it will grow in virtue and good manners & avoid the least appearance of any thing that may offend. The colonies have been long indulged with a more ample subordinate legislation, than the wisdom of administration thinks the good of the whole Empire will admit of their enjoying any longer. Indepen­dency [Page 9] on Great-Britain was never tho't of, much less wished for or desired. During the last war, his late and present Majesty were graciously pleased to avail themselves of all the aids in the power of their loyal subjects the northern colonists, by the royal requisitions signified by their respective ministers of state, to the seve­ral provincial assemblies. In consequence of these, and of our lives and fortunes being ever devoted to their Majesty's service, men from time to time were chear­fully raised, and monies granted by the provincial representatives of the people, who in reflecting on the honour and happiness of being enabled to serve their King & country in this way, had also the pleasure of contemplating their own importance in society.—No disagreeable sentiment this, even to the "good and virtuous men" of the Editor's acquaintance, if many such there are. The business of the provincial as­semblies for the future, will probably be confined to the "little low local affairs of their petty corpo­rations," as they are considered by the Editor. A very great friend of the colonies, as he is pleased to style himself, in a late M. Gazette, has carried the matter so far, as to say in effect, that the American colonies are of no more importance, than the most insignificant settlements on the coast of Africa.—That the inhabitants of Cape-Coast-Castle▪ who may not consist of more than a captain, two subalterns, fifty non-commission officers and privates, ten strumpets and their brats, have as much pretence to hope to be be indulged with returning members of parliament as all N. America, which has at this present writing, nearly as many inhabitants as there are in Scotland or Ireland, more than three millions of which are whites, and as great a proportion of them, as in any part of the British empire, without any reflection, [Page 10] true and loyal subjects, who fear God, honour the King, reverence his parliament, and daily pray for the prosperity of Great-Britain. Am I a man, and must not speak? Tears relieve me a moment! Thank God there is no law humane or divine, against treating a Halifax letter-writer as he de­serves. Tho' some of the colonies should not in all things think with the very ingenious, learned, polite and delicate writer of a pamphlet intitled, Regulati­ons lately made concerning the colonies, and the taxes imposed on them considered; yet none but the bigoted N—t Editor would thence infer, that all the continent of America were about to become insurgents. As there cannot be the least doubt but the views of ad­ministration are intentionally the best and wisest; so the law presumes with me, that they are really so on the whole. We at this distance can see but very im­perfectly. Tis the duty of all humbly and silently to acquiesce in all the decisions of the supreme legisla­tive. I will, however, presume to utter one short prophecy, namely, that nine hundred and ninety nine in a thousand of the colonies, will never once entertain a thought but of the most profound duti­ful and loyal submission and obedience to the wis­dom and goodness of our most gracious Sovereign, and to the authority of parliament, in all cases and possible contingencies. Any informations of a con­trary disposition in the colonists, transmitted from America, upon a strict enquiry, will be found to be at least very great mistakes.

I have mentioned the pamphlet, intitled, Regula­tions, &c. but as a friend of mine, who is much pleased with that performance, and at his leisure, is preparing a critical and candid review of it, with a sincere design to conciliate as far as possible every [Page 11] man in America to the system of measures there discussed, it is needless to make many observa­tions on it here, especially as the bare naming it in a day, much more any comparison be­tween that and the Halifax letter, will, I fear, be considered as an outrageous affront to the real merit of the European, if so, I ask his pardon for it. The reader will there find the colonists, not only treated like men, but gentlemen, and British subjects.—None of your Draconic laws, nor inquisitorial grid-irons to broil hereticks on, are lisp'd, or I believe tho't of, much less openly threatned and wished for, as by the Halifaxian.—We see the traces of genius in every sentence, often in the choice of a single letter in the alphabet.—The tenderness of a parent, the prudence of a Nestor, the legislative skill of a Solon, and a Lycurgus are displayed, instead of the rage, malice and fury of an Orestes, tearing out the bowels of his mother, stabbing his sister, killing his own sons and his daughters, and plucking out his own eyes; all which are very faint traits of the madness of the Halifaxian. In the European we also find a perfect knowledge of our constitution, laws, political interests, internal police, and state of trade and commerce thro' the globe.—Of all this in the Halifaxian, verily nothing. The European tells us, we are a part, an essential part of the empire of Great Britain, and a beloved part, entitled to every benefit of the best constitution on earth. The Halifax Tar­tar will not allow his countrymen any greater rights and privileges than the Creoles allow the Ethiopians, or his brother Sythians afford their captives. Quic­quid est vocis ac linguae omne in istum turpissimum calumniae questum contulisti! Tu lucem adspicere audes? Tu hos intueri? Tu in foro, tu in urbe, tu in civium esse conspectu? Anglicè, "you a lawyer and coun­sellor [Page 12] at law too, and a candidate for one of the provinces? There is nothing more of eloquence in you, than there is of music in the rumbling of a lumber cart. What little skill you have in the ma­nagement of your voice, hath been employed in sing song, as your pen hath been in scanda­lizing your country. Dare you behold the light? Dare you face the forum, the city and the assembly of your injured fellow-countrymen?" I shall pass over what the Editor says of the Providence writer, as he calls him, and of the honourable gentleman, except where he has bro't the Vindication in question. Those gentlemen are able to defend themselves a­gainst this doughty champion for Great-Britain, as he vainly stiles himself. The Editor, in order to sup­port his charge against the colonies, of disloyalty and disaffection to Great Britain, has been grubbing up all the little pieces that have been published in any of the News-Papers on the continent. He will have it again, contrary to what he must know to be true, that "numberless pamphlets" have been published upon the occasion. If prior to the Halifax letter, he can name above four, and one since besides the Vindication against him, I will give him the weight in gold of all that have been published. This dic­tator has given the author of the sentiments of a Bri­tish North-American, a place in his black catalogue. The Editor's grand charge is against the motto of this piece, taken from Phaedrus, which being only a fable of an old man and his ass, surely none but a jack-ass could have been offended at it. Phae­drus could be no offender against the statutes of G.B. Phaedrus was certainly no subject of Great Britain, nor could he know any thing of her munici­pal laws and customs. But the treason is not in [Page 13] the motto it seems, but "the application of the above fable to the subject of taxing the colonies, shews clearly the author's opinion, that under the present parliamentary regulations, it is matter of in­difference what Prince we are subject to, whether a George or a Lewis, as a certain gentleman expressed it." ^* The humanity and philanthropy of this attack on a gentleman who has been long in a very ill state of health, and now unable to answer for himself, is very remarkable. What an eagle-eyed fellow is this Editor, and would be governor, at espying plots, treason and rebellion, in all but his own club? Be­cause Phaedrus his ass tho't it a matter of indifference whose pack she carried, therefore the North American is of opinion, that it is a matter of indifference what prince or power we are subject to, whether a George or a Lewis. This is exactly of a piece with the law, the truth, the sincerity, the logic and philanthropy of the Editor in his other productions. As to the allu­sion of George and Lewis, the author of the Senti­ments has no concern in it.—'Tis supposed to relate to an expression wilfully misrepresented by the Editor, and was very different from the manner in which it is cited. Those who please may see the whole story in the vindication of the house of representatives of M. B. published about three years since, and never attempted to be answered; in which 'tis clearly de­monstrated, if I remember rightly, for I have not seen the book for some time, that the words really used, and as clearly intended, had quite an innocent mean­ing: and the author of that expression, if what went before and immediately followed is taken with it, may defy the Editor to show any thing disrespectful in it. The person, who used the words, thus, scandalously falsly and knowingly misrepresented, could boast a [Page 14] series of services yielded to his Majesty and his illus­trious predecessors, by himself and ancestors, as faith­ful as those the Editor and his junto have on all oc­casions shown their desire of yielding the pretender; but he repines not at others reaping the fruit of his as well as of the labours of those from whom he is descended. ^* But he means not to be vain in boast­ing of his independency of spirit and purse, which the Editor so foolishly puffs and vapors about. He knows the dependency of man on man, and how lit­tle he has to expect from the philanthropy of modern politicians. The Editor complains most bitterly of "inhuman treatment," particularly in the Boston pamphlet, as he politely calls it. What instance has he pointed out to support this charge? By his own account of matters, he has received the greatest be­nefit by this Boston-pamphlet he ever received by any discipline in his life. I guess he will not receive half so much good by all the rewards he may receive from home, as the grand apologist of Great Britain. These rewards of his merit from Apollo, he gives broad hints he soon expects. But he says, I have fitted him for any misfortune in life, freed him from all future fears of purgatory, and the pains of h—ll; both which he had reason enough to dread, were it only for the almost unpardonable sin of being the author and Editor of the Halifax letter. By my help he flatters himself he is become an Achilles and a Salamander. He tells his readers, he can now safely travel thro' the infernal abode, and drink sire and brimstone, as sweetly as if it were nectar and ambrosia. Poor man, I fear he boasts a little too [Page 15] much of his armour against the fiery darts he may yet have to encounter, from an old archer, in a cer­tain passage he will soon make, without any possible assistance he can receive from the custom-house or me.

He gives a very unfair and false analysis of the Halifax letter. He says, "all the points he in­tended to prove were (amongst others) 1. That "the New-England colonies privileges, as corpora­tions created by the crown, are fixed and ascertained by their chartets." 2. "That these charters give them no exemption from the jurisdiction of parlia­ment." These propositions are so self-evident, that no man can possibly be supposed to dispute them, or even to have ever admitted the least doubt of them. The amount of the first is, no more nor less than, that, a charter is a charter, of the second, that, the parliament of Great-Britain is the supreme legislative of the whole British empire. These are two won­derful discoveries the universe is obliged to this Ha­lifax genius for. Had he stopped here, or with his other four wonderful propositions, he never would, at least by me, have been tho't worthy of a chastise­ment for the sin of scribbling. Does monsieur Edi­tor forget these assertions of his in the letter? "The relation between modern colonies and their mother states, is formed by political compact." This opin­ion, if true, would make it ridiculous for him to have attempted his laborious search after the natu­ral abstract relation which he confessed his noddle would furnish him with no notices of. How will he excuse himself from the nonsense in supposing, as he does, that a natural relation subsisted between ancient states and their colonies; and yet, that it cannot enter into the heart or head of a man, to conceive any such relation between modern states [Page 16] and their colonies? He was pressed with this absur­dity, by his own confession, in the letter; he was press'd with it in the vindication; and he was so op­press'd with it when he composed his defence, that he was not able to say a single word about it. I would ask this great lawyer a few more questions in a ca­techism he ought to be much better acquainted with than I fear he ever will be. Does he think his allegiance to his most sacred and gracious Majesty GEORGE the III ^d is natural? Dares he now deny this as in the junto room heretofore, and affirm the same thing of the Pretender, only because he was the son of an Italian, and for any thing that can be now certainly proved to the contrary, might be lineally descended from Taffy the fiddler, and chan­ter of Lillibullero to a very beautiful Queen? ^* Is the immortal distinction between "personal and political rights already forgotten," my dear Martinus Scrible­rus? Above all, don't you remember, my dear boy, what you once said in a manner, it is too late to re­tract or palliate that "the several New-England char­ters ascertain, define and limit the respective rights and privileges of each colony," and that the said self same colonies "have no rights independent of their charters?" The infinite nonsense and unparallelled absurdity of these expressions, are sufficiently exposed in the Vindication of the British colonies. I shall only add here, ex abundanti, as we lawyers, and would be thought great folks, sometimes puff it, that if by rights, is meant charter rights, then the sum will be, two other most wonderful dogmas, viz. 1. "Charter rights and privileges are ascertained and defined in and by charters." 2. "The colonies have no charter rights or privileges independent of their charters." My dear, dear Editor, neither you nor [Page 17] the Halifax gentleman, an alter et idem, nescio sed fa­cile credo, have heads for this argument. It requires something more than a musical genius, or a catcher of butterflies, to reason clearly and conclusively on the origin and principles of government; how much more—not being myself qualified, I cannot certainly say. How silly a fellow must you be, Mr. Editor, to charge your most humble servant with "disingenuity, to say no worse of it," only because by your own confession he plainly pointed out the fallacy of an ar­gument that escaped your sagacity? Am I under any promise or obligation to swallow the errors of one man more than of another? How can I be a false brother to honorable gentlemen, to whom I have not the happiness of being known, or charged with de­serting them, and the party of truth, the only party I recognize, because I think some of them are a little mistaken in their reasonings on the non-essentials of politicks? What depravity and insincerity in all this? Thy head is certainly turned; you are as visionary as any fanatic preacher, as you politely and indiscri­minately call the dissenting clergy.

Among other surprizing mysteries, the Editor as­serts, that an "implicit is the same with an express denial of the authority of parliament." I hope he will not say an inadvertent implicit denial is equiva­lent to one that is not only express, but evidently premeditated. I must confess, however, that I should not be more astonished at this than at another as­sertion, that "a meer humble doubt of the equity of an act of parliament, is the same thing with a down right denial of the authority of parliament." This calls up a saying of Mr. Hamilton to a certain attorney-general of New-York, much such a lawyer as the Editor, "A man" says he, at New-York, may [Page 18] make very free with his God and his king, but he must take special care what he says of a minister, or of a plantation governor," as nearly as I remember. The more the Editor flutters and flounders on, the more he exposes, even in the opinion of some of his best friends, his shameful ignorance of the first prin­ciples of law, and of the British constitution. Reader, take this short account of the "little modicum" of knowledge that appears in either of the Editor's per­formances. He took a journey to Boston in the depth of last winter, to exhibit his talents of singing before a certain august assembly, remarkable for the beauty and politeness of those of both sexes who at­tend it. In the course of his residence here, for the amusement of the gay and the pretty, he happened as I conjecture to overhear a few expressions which fell from the mouths of some learned men about that time, and has been these two months further mangling, chewing and retailing the "cud of poli­tics", as I think Swift expresses it, so I will not be answerable for the indelicacy of the expression, should it affect the stomach of our fine gentleman; for to do him justice, tho' he would lick the spittle and swal­low a— of a great man, he cannot bear the tho'ts of tobacco smoke, nor the name of another plant of no bad smell, but of a cursed bitter taste and touch, and to which he is said to have his aversion from indefeasible hereditary descent. This circum­stance I knew not, and if I had, was not half angry enough with him to allude to it, when I wrote before, nor should I now, had not his behaviour to his country proved that he hath the conscience of a high­wayman, the heart of an assassin and the impudence of a billingsgate▪

[Page 19]His conceptions of the origin and foundation of the supreme power and legislative authority of a state and of that of Great-Britain in particular, are to the last degree ridiculous; and if he knew what he said would be a more direct attack upon that sacred & just power, than all he has picked up in the ransack of his printer's office, and from those repositories of learning, the news papers of America.

"The issue of stupidity shall be fairly tried. Sir Edward Coke says, indeed, right, that the jurisdiction of this court is transcendent, &c. But from whence is it derived? Could this jurisdiction form and create itself? No: It is the common law founded upon long usage and consent, which has placed an uncontroul­able transcendent jurisdiction in that court, even to alter and amend the course and direction of various branches of the common law itself." ^* Has this man forgot who is the author of all things, and by whom kings reign and princes decree justice; or did he never believe in this origin of things? Has he lost sight of the Jus Divinum which he has so often heard discussed by his "good & virtuous friends", and very scandalously applied? This is sometimes taken in a literal sense, when it serves the cause: But with regard to the present establishment they allow it to have no sense at all. Does not counsellor sing song know that the greatest part of what is now called common law, is held by the sages to have been ori­ginally enacted by parliament, the records of which have long since been swept away by the hand of all- devouring time? Could the common law, that is not only subordinate and controulable at pleasure of, and created, for the most part, by, parliament, cre­ate the parliament, because the parliament is not [Page 20] self-existent, and could not create itself?—How would this kind of doctrine sound in a political creed? I Martinus Scriblerus, inter alia, believe, profess, testify and declare, that Lewis XV is not self-existent, and that therefore he was created by the Count d'Estaing, his governor and lieutenant- general of his islands and dominions in America. I also believe that Dr. Murphy is a blockhead, and begin to believe that said Dr. Murphy made me Mar­tinus one, and that we are both superlative block­heads, yet as the said Dr. Murphy did not create himself, and is not a self-existent blockhead, there­fore I his pupil believe I made him so; and that he made me so—yet we are both equally superlative blockheads; and yet Martinus is superior to Mur­phy, and Murphy to Martyn. All this I believe, and whoever disbelieves it shall be politically d—n-d.

To be serious, the source of parliamentary autho­rity is clearly derived from God, the author and creator of all things, principalities and powers. By his unerring laws of nature, societies, communities, and great states are formed in miniature, flourish and grow into mighty empires, and tumble again into ruins, that in their fall shake the whole universe. The various forms are in the opinion of some, left to what is called the free-will of man, and the compact of the whole with the whole, express or implied. Others think even the form is as mechanical in its generation as the substance, and that the whole is to be resolved into what is called power. Which of these opinions as the world generally goes is the truth, is of no great importance: those who want my opini­on must, do what few perhaps ever will think it worth while, take the pains to read and understand the meaning of the writer of the pamplet called The [Page 21] Rights of the British Colonies asserted, &c. before they find fault with him, or publish those dull things which in England are called Critical Reviews.

The Editor having taken his leave of the "Provi­dence writer", and of Mr. H—k—s, reserves the last fire for the "Boston writer", as he calls him. I have but a word to say with regard to his charge of ill treatment of some of the most respectable characters in the province of M. B.—As I am a lover of truth, 'tis confessed to my shame, that for two or three days I was most horridly deceived as to some of my antagonists in the dark in a little provincial paper war, some years since. I thought indeed that I had been engaged with some great & good men, but who had so far forgot themselves and the dignity of their sta­tions, as to condescend to a little porter's play. I soon found out my mistake, and after a few hebdo­midal Nugae dropt the affair. For any thing I cer­tainly know to the contrary, Dr. Seth H—d—n might write the first piece against me. The author of the long J. might be M—lv—y, who stood in the pillory lately. The writer of the d—n-d smart piece as the young bucks called it, may for ought I care have been hanged last assizes for Clarendon county; and the two chiefs of that gang of scribblers, if they now live, will, unless they repent of their sins, as I would charitably hope they have, meet with a worse fate the moment the breath goes out of their bodies, be it at which end it may.

I leave this confession to the consideration of the learned, and proceed to the further examination of the Tale of a Tub.

[Page 22]Let the frigid retort of outrageous disgust, the ci­tation of the Evening-Post, the raphsodical descrip­tion of his passage thro' chaos, p. 24, and his return to the mansions prepared for that father of all Jaco­bites and his followers, sung by Milton in the first book of his paradise lost, be my witnesses.

Who but this poor maze-headed, clod-pated Editor would believe the same pamphlet could "scatter upon him unprovoked," or indeed any other "abuse," af­ter what he had written in his letter; and at the same time "sustain and confirm" the principal argument of that letter which is not only without one argument in it, but a string of absurdities and flat contradictions from end to end. The passage he cites to prove that I am "foil'd," that I have "given up all at discre­tion," "and betray'd the whole party", only by "a most solemn recognition of the absolute unlimitted authority of parliament over the colonies," is this,

" It is certain, that the parliament of Great Britain hath a just, clear, equitable, and constitutional right, power, and authority, to bind the colonies, by all acts wherein they are named. Every lawyer, nay, every tyro, knows this. No less certain is it, that the par­liament of Great-Britain have a just and equitable right, power, and authority, to impose taxes on the colonies, internal and external, on lands as well as on trade." Why did he not add what immediately follows in the Vindication, viz. "This is involved in the idea of a supreme legislative or sovereign state. It will however by no means thence follow, that 'tis always expedient, and in all circumstances equitable ^* for the supreme and sovereign legislative to tax the colonies; much less that 'tis reasonable this right [Page 23] should be practised upon, without allowing the colo­nies an actual representation. An equal representa­tion of the whole state is, at least in theory, of the essence of a perfect parliament or supreme legislature." I think it impossible for any man that well considers the whole passage, to mistake my meaning, or to find any thing in it repugnant to my former principles, or to truth; especially, if with the Editor he considers me as the author of The Rights of the colonies asserted, &c. which for the present he may, or may not, as he pleases. I certainly was or was not. If I was, there is a clear and express recognition of the authority and jurisdiction of parliament, not only in the above passage, but, in the only piece besides I ever wrote upon the subject of colony taxation, as appears be­yond the possibility of a doubt, in the passages cited in page 27 of the Vindication, which I might here repeat with some additions to the same purpose. After this for the Editor to say I ever denied or questioned the jurisdiction of parliament, will be consummate. If he has been pleased to father upon me the hete­rodox opinions of others I am no way privy to, he must take the consequences. If he says I did not write the pamphlet intitled, The rights of the British colonies asserted, &c. then the worst I have done is to quote this passage from it, page 27 of the Vindi­cation. "When the parliament shall think fit to al­low the colonists a representation in the house of commons, the equity of their taxing the colonies will be as clear as their power is at present of doing it without, if they please." The Editor had so poor success in ratiotination, by his own confession, when he attempted a confutation of his honor in catagoricks, that he has prudently avoided any further use of Ramus and Burgusdicius. He contents himself only with hint­ing [Page 24] at something inconsistent here with my recogni­tion, as he calls it. It is very difficult—to deal with people who have such a contempt for letters and syllables, that they will not be at the trouble of learning to read, without which they never can know the meaning of words. Be it known to this great professor of the Belle Lettres, that in the English tongue the word Equity is used variously; sometimes it is, as it may be applied, synonimous with law, justice, right, or reason. So the word Power is most commonly, ever so in acts of parliament and law-lan­guage, which this man's clients have an equitable right to be assured he knows something of, synonimous with authority, right of legislation & jurisdiction. In natu­ral philosophy power means a meer physical quality, that may be explained with the cause of gravitation in bodies, and the tendency of some souls to the centre. Now my dear M-rt-n, with the help of this spelling- book, attempt to read the passage once more, which, according to the plain sense of it, may be thus varied in expression, without any other alteration. "When the parliament shall think fit to allow the colonists an actual representation in the house of commons, the reasonableness of their taxing the colonies, externally and internally, will manifestly ap­pear to be as clear to all, but the weak and obstinate, as their present just constitutional and legal power and authority of doing it without, if they please, is and ever was to me: they being the supreme legislative authority of Great-Britain and its dominions, and the only jurisdiction that I know of, who can finally and lawfully determine the questions, whether and how long 'tis reasonable a continent of this ex­tent, numbers and importance, shall be taxed, without being allowed a representation in fact, [Page 25] as they now have in law, or virtually as some express it, in the house of commons. The three branches of the supreme legislative, on my principles of politicks, which exactly coincide with the main principles of the incomparable writer of the new regulations considered and vindicated, clearly represent the whole Empire. Let the Editor here recollect the leave he was pleased to give us in the close of his letter, where he began to open the method and plan of the discourse he had nearly finished. "The dispute between Great-Britain (says he) and the colonies, consists of two parts. First, the jurisdiction of parliament▪—and secondly, the exercise of that jurisdiction." The first, I say, is unquestionable, and ever was with me. Under the second head, his highness was graciously pleas­ed to permit "full liberty to remonstrate, petiti­on, write pamphlets and news-papers, without num­ber, to prevent any improper or unreasonable imposi­tion." ^* With regard to this, I have some scruples, be­cause I think the parliament infinitely the best judges. Therefore I should think it every one's duty to be very careful not to charge the supreme legislative with improper and unreasonable proceedings. The law of parliament is, that the parliament cannot err. And 'tis a maxim of the common law, that the King can do no wrong. The constitution, reason, the nature of sovereignty and of a supreme legislative, all concur to make it necessarily the duty of all subjects to acquiesce in the presumption that even the inmost intentions of the supreme power, have ever for their favourite object the good of the whole community. These are maxims & principles, without a due attention to which, no government could subsist. Government [Page 26] being in short the dernier resort for law & justice, there can be no appeal from it, as there would be if private opinions and interpretations could have any authori­ty, or were allowed to be set up and considered as of any weight in the scale against it. But general rules hinder not, nor were designed to prevent mo­dest and humble enquiries after truth and reason. Should this be the case, it would tend much to stop the progress of all human improvement. The Editor to be sure is bound by his concession, that the rea­sonableness of measures may be discussed, this is argu­mentum ad hominem as to him, and should not be taken back. We have better authority than his, I mean among others, the opinion of the author of the New Regulations considered, who, I am certain, is so fair and honest an enquirer after truth, that he would be freely willing others should enquire for themselves, as well as he. If none were to enquire into the reason and meaning of laws, we should have no judges nor lawyers, unless perhaps such as the Editor. I have ever tho't that the whole science of law, and the fair and just practice of it, was found­ed in the study, interpretation and right application and execution of the reason, meaning and intention of the laws, and consequently of the legislative. There is nothing in all this that can in the least impeach their power, right and authority to make laws. To apply this reasoning to the present times, the author of the book called the new regulations, &c. is of opinion with me "that the colonies are justly bound by all acts of parliament wherein they are named." That the parliament have a "clear, just equitable and lawful authority, from the nature of a supreme legislative or sovereign power of a state, and by the British constitution in particular, to im­pose [Page 27] internal and external duties and taxes on the co­lonies, and to make any other laws they think fit, which when made are equally binding upon the co­lonists if named, as general acts are on the subjects within the realm". ^* I have the honor also to agree with the European writer, that the colonists are virtually, constitutionally, in law and in equity to be considered as represented in the honourable house of commons. This I endeavored to prove, and think I have done it, as incontestably, tho' perhaps no man in Britain could have proved that and a thousand other very important points, so handsomely as this writer has done. We have the honor of hav­ing our doctrine approved by the Newport Editor, who I dare say will allow it, will be somewhat of a greater honor still, when the stamp act shall have passed the supreme legislative, which if done before the publication of the defence, as is most probable, it was not known to the Editor, nor could be; for all the intelligence yet arrived, is a copy of the resolves of the honourable house of Commons. I therefore leave it to the Editor to reconcile to truth his positive assertion, that, the stamp act is passed, when we have not yet heard of more than an order to bring in a bill agreeable to the report of the com­mittee, and the resolves of the honourable house. The falsity he begins his appendix with, is this. "Since the aforegoing sheets were committed to the press, several vessels have arrived from London, and brought intelligence that the act of parliament for levying a stamp duty on the colonies is actually pas­sed." Whether 'tis or 'tis not passed, would not alter the course of my argument. I have not a sylla­ble [Page 28] to say against the jurisdiction or authority of par­liament, never having entertained the least doubt of it, nor to my remembrance ever expressed any: But on the contrary; have ever expressed my opinion of its existence and extention through the whole Em­pire in the strongest terms, as I have above most a­bundantly shewn. Nor shall I presume to say a sin­gle word on the expediency and public utility of this measure, after the administration have so long had it in contemplation. I humbly, dutifully, and loyally presume, and could give my reasons for it, if I pleas­ed, that the supreme legislative of Great-Britain do, and must know infinitely better what they are about and intend, than any without doors. Those who can entertain any doubt of this, are referred to the new Regulations considered, for ample conviction. But the Editor, if he pleases, may, and according to his system, he will have a right "modestly to represent his poverty and inability to pay taxes," instead of spending his time in wool-gathering and abusing the colonies; instead of teaching people to spin and ma­nufacture wool before they know where to get it, as he & the Dr. have been employed for these 12 months, with regard to the good people of R.-Island, for no possi­ble end but to excite the jealousy of the British manu­facturers, and that the colonists might incur the dis­pleasure of the administration. The Editor with his topping "independent spirit" and pockets full of R.-Island old tenor, strutting in the fleeceings of his cli­ents, who furnish him with a sheep-pasture, he will never resign but for a government, can with but a bad grace plead for favor or promotion, in forma pan­peris. The terrestial Dr. at his elbow would give him the lie, and tell him he was a simpleton, for that many of his countrymen who have visited Ame­rica, [Page 29] could depose, and that safely, that one good farm on Rhode-Island, is worth all the Highlands in some British countries. We must not plead poverty till there is an end of the scandalous consumption of Holland's Tea, and West-India produce in this country. The bane of the northern colonies has been Holland and West-India goods. With regard to some of those of New England, there has been another very impoverishing drain, —they have ever bought great part of their bread, and it seems at present impossible to persuade them even to attempt to raise it. These are the fine projectors, whose heads are full of present manufac­tures. Those are a very fit object for those who neither have, nor can in less than fifty years have the materials to work if permitted; especially wool, which has made such a noise. The province which has by far the greatest proportion of sheep in Ame­rica, has not more than sufficient wool to furnish its inhabitants with hose; mitts they must go without.

I have had some peculiar opportunities to get the exact number of the inhabitants, and am as well informed as I think possible, of the quantity of wool. I have reasons for not inserting either here. But whoever has a mind to make the least inquiry in any province but one, will find the people must go with bare feet, unless they can procure European made stockings. The manufactures of Great-Britain, are out of danger at present from the manufactures of America. I wish there was no greater danger from any other countries. Having made a short digression from the Defence, tho' not from the Editor, to show the absurdity of any project for an American woollen manufacture. I return to the Herculean task, which the Editor and some few others it seems still think he has [Page 30] imposed upon me of clearing myself from a contra­diction, or the heinous crime of retracting my er­rors, when convinced of them, which last seems in the opinion of the Editor, to be by far the most aggravated transgression of the two, tho' he is pleas­ed to give a sneering commendation, which has much more of the hissing and grinning of Pandemonium, than the angelic joy shown on the return of a prodigal, or penitence of any other sinner. I will now shew not only that the Editor has not pointed out any contradiction in the Vindication, but also that it is positively consistent with itself, and also with the doc­trine advanced in the Rights of the colonies asserted, and with the truth. The Editor has not pretended to cite any passage, either from the Rights asserted, or the Vindication, against him, that contains any thing that is an express denial or even a direct question of the just power right and authority of the parliament over the colonies. He cites the former part of the passage above-mentioned, page 22, and compares it with these words taken from the Rights of the colo­nies asserted, "When the parliament shall think fit to allow the colonists a representation (i. e. as the Editor takes it, and as it was meant) a representation in fact in the house of commons, the equity of their taxing the colonies will be as clear as their power is at present of doing it without, if they please." Now let the Editor keep sight of the dictinction he made, which I grant is a just one, and almost the only one I have known him make, and his difficulty to recon­cile me must vanish. I have to do only with him at present. 1. "The jurisdiction of parliament." 2. "The exercise of that jurisdiction." With re­gard to the first, he has endeavoured to show that "it is attached to every English subject, wherever he be."

[Page 31]"The common law has established it as a rule or maxim, that the plantations are bound by British acts of parliament, if particularly named: and surely no Englishman, in his senses will deny the force of a common law maxim. In a word, the force of an act of parliament, over the colonies, is predicated upon the common law". ^* I have said in the Vin­dication, It is certain that the parliament of Great-Britain hath a just, clear, equitable and constitutional right, power and authority, to bind the colonies, by all acts wherein they are named". I have also asserted that the "parliament of Great-Britain hath a just and equitable power and authority to impose taxes on the colonies, internal and external, on lands as well as on trade. This is involved in the idea, &c.

The passages cited in the Vindication from the rights of the colonies asserted, of which he supposes I am author, are as full to the jurisdiction of parliament, as any the Editor has written. So far we are now certainly agreed by the Editor's confession in the defence, viz. That the jurisdiction of parliament is out of any question between us, and it was ever out of any doubt with me.

2. Point is in the exercise of parliamentary juris­diction. With regard to this the Editor allows, pag. 21. That arguments may be urged for or against particular measures, and that those arguments may be drawn from the topics of " expediency, utility, propriety and reason" or of their opposites". "And this with a spirit of freedom". I would hope he means fair to his readers. He should have confined this liberty to the time when measures and bills are pend­ing. After they have received the sanction of par­liament, much less is allow'd to be said than before. [Page 32] The safest way in such a case is humbly to acquiesce in the decisions of parliament, and the disposals of providence. This I most sincerely and without re­serve do, and advise all men to do the same. The supreme legislative of Great-Britain, and the do­minions, if the stamp act is passed, relating to Ame­rica, have, as they have an undoubted right to do, imposed internal as well as external taxes on us, and as they have tho't it expedient, reasonable, nay absolutly necessary, in the present circumstances and exigencies of the state, laboring under a debt of 130 millions. I wish, and begin to hope, it may on the whole be for the interest of all parts of the Empire.

But with regard to the Editor, I would ask him, if while a bill is pending, arguments may be urged from reason, expediency, &c. for or against it, why not from equity, equality and inequality? May not the propriety or impropriety of a measure be go­verned by the equity, reasonable equality, or unrea­sonable inequality. This is all I contend for, which is short of the Editor's claim, who reserves the li­berty of writing and publishing, for any thing that appears, after a bill is passed the parliament, which is more than I think ought to be allow'd with the great freedom at least, which he contends for. My reason is, such freedoms allow'd, with regard to the right, exercise of a jurisdiction, in par­ticular instances, would bring government, and all courts into contempt. If the editor therefore thinks I have been inconsistent, he must think he has been much more so, as I shall shew in the in­stance of the persecution he complains so loudly of as an infringement of his liberty and the liberty of the press. One can't but smile at the courage and consistency of this hero. When 'tis for his interest [Page 33] the colonists have no rights, no liberties nor privi­leges independent of charters. He calls the gover­nor of the colony by name a calf, and in effect with him the whole general court the same, and traitors into the bargain, for approving the governor's book, which I take it was published with their assent, if not at their desire, tho' this is only my own conjec­ture, as the piece is said in the title page to be pub­lished by authority. The scene changes, the general assembly resent the insult, the printer is sent for, I suppose more to frighten him than any thing else; the champion Editor fell into panics which he has not got rid of since. The affair was managed with candor, the governor not appearing, which I suppose was the reason that the lieutenant-governor, who was not so immediately attacked, presided. After a rea­sonable sweating, the printer was very prudently per­mitted to return to his beloved trembling Editor. Instantly the Newport-Mercury began the vindicati­on of injured liberty and property. The tribunitian veto then sounded as loud in this notable paper, as formerly the clanking of chains and the marching of dragoons. But this lasted only three or four weeks, when the noble courage of the Editor revived again, and having found his great independent soul, which on this tragical occasion, fame says lay two or three days hid in a hay-mow or a hen-roost, he set about his defence, in which he describes with serene plea­sure his hair-breadth escape. It will be at least grant­ed to be possible, that the general assemblies have a just power and lawful authority to commit for contempt. If they have such a right, I reason thus from Martinus against M-r-t-n and company.— The assembly had a good, clear, just and equita­ble right, power and authority to have committed [Page 34] M-rt-n and his printer to limbo, for calling them a parcel of fools, coxcombs, calves, knaves, smugglers and rebels. If they had so committed them, it could not have been complained of as against justice or equity, they having a right to commit. But yet a commitment would have been against reason and pru­dence, as it might either have made them too consi­derable, or have cramped the liberty of the press. The end being answered as it was hoped by the pannic, they were dismissed. What is there contradictory in all this? What is there wrong but the Editor's still persisting to abuse a government that has disco­vered so much lenity towards him? Sure I am, that if my superiors in Europe or America have taken any umbrage at any thing I have said or written, I am sorry for it, and whether they forgive me or not, I promise I will do my utmost not only never to of­fend them again, but in all things try to convince them I am not the man, the malice and ill-will of some have induced them to represent me. I have been so large in proving that the Editor has not shewn any inconsistency in me, that most I flatter myself will be of the mind, I have proved that the whole I have advanced on the subject is consistent. But to convince all, even the most obstinate, I must offer a word or two more. The passage cited by the Editor above, taken with the context and whole tenor of the book, and if the Editor pleases with the Rights of the colonies asserted too, prove that the argu­ment was placed, not on a denial or suggestion of the want of power and authority in the parliament to tax the colonies. All that I ever pretended was, that an American return of members seemed to me but a reasonable indulgence, upon the exercise, or rather resumption into their own hands, of that part [Page 35] of supreme legislation which, consists in raising taxes for the support of government, the protection and defence of the whole empire. I never said nor tho't the colonists could demand or claim ex debito justitiae, as Lord Coke has it, an actual representation in the house of commons. Upon the reasonableness of an actual American representation I placed my foot, and built my only hope and desire, and that not for myself, nor for the Americans only, but because I thought it would be for the interest of the whole empire, and be one means of answering some very great purposes, and among others, that of most perfectly conciliating the obedience and reve­rence of every individual in the empire to the su­preme legislative of Great-Britain, a grand object, which has been justly tho't worthy the views and contemplation of Majesty itself, and is by our most gracious Sovereign accordingly recommended for the advice and assistance of his greatest council, in his last speech, from the throne, truly worthy a British-born Prince, and a patriot King.

It was determined in parliament last year that ex­ternal taxes should be raised on the colonists. I suppose that internal taxes are granted and imposed before now. This it was easy to foresee any time these seven years would soon be the case. It is in­contestable that we are virtually and in law repre­sented in the house of commons, and in the whole parliament. But after all this, there may be a ques­tion, whenever the administration shall please to make one of it, namely, whether notwithstanding the undoubted power and authority of Great-Britain to tax her colonies, and altho' they are already vir­tually represented in the house of commons, and as part of the whole with the whole in the supreme [Page 36] legislative of the whole, yet as the American do­minions are such a vast portion of territory, and contain so many good and loyal subjects, it is or may not be expedient and for the public utility to indulge them with the election and return of a few members. But this being a matter not of right but of favor, if desired, must be humbly asked as such. For tho' as Lord Coke says, the return of members in Eng­land is a matter of right in, and not of grace to, the privileged boroughs, &c. yet the case of the co­lonists is different. These never had a right to re­turn members. Therefore it must be an indulgence when granted. The general assembly here tax and think they have a right to tax their out towns. Those towns do and must think themselves rightly taxed, when they have all other privileges but that of returning a member. Whether and when they shall receive this priviledge depends on the determination of the assembly. And when once granted it becomes a right, and they are ever after entitled to a writ ex debito justitiae. The case is just the same between Great-Britain and her colonies. The parliament of Great-Britain has a right to tax London. London has a right to return members. These are distinct independent rights. Some great towns there return no members, yet are taxed. These when it shall be tho't proper, will be actually represented; and when the administration thinks it reasonable, it can permit an actual repre­sentation of the colonies. There can be no de­cree without a judge, who that is we have seen. The parliament will ever consult the good of the whole. To make my meaning clear to the meanest capacity; the jurisdiction and authority of a court is one thing, the manner of exercising that jurisdiction is another. [Page 37] This matter shall be exemplified from the court of a justice of the peace, to the high court of parliament. A justice has a legal, just and equitable authority, to try a cause of 40 [...]. He tries the cause, gives judg­ment erroneously. His judgment is yet a just judgment and an equitable judgment, if his error was thro' a blameless ignorance of law, or of some fact, one of which is to be presumed. Here are three things, 1. A right to hold courts, or of jurisdiction. 2. This right of jurisdiction actually and honestly exercised. 3. A right of appeal in the party against whom an errone­ous judgment is given. This will hold in the higher executive courts, 'till we come to the dernier resort of the common law, the house of Lords. Even the chan­cery of Great-Britain is but a kind of appeal from strict law, to more free, generous and equal princi­ples of justice, reason and good conscience. There is something similar with regard to the parliament. Government knows of no appeal from their decisi­ons, it is true, they being as to the subject next in power and authority to God. Their jurisdiction, power and authority, thro' the whole state and its dependencies, is uncontroulable. They exercise it on such objects as they think fit. All that can be done is a meek and patient acquiescence in their deter­minations, with a humble hope that as all humane decisions and determinations depend ultimately upon a knowledge of facts and circumstances, when new light from thence appears, that the supreme legisla­tive, ever watchful and vigilant for the good of the whole, will appeal of itself to its own further expe­rience and information, and alter such former laws as they shall think fit. On this process is founded all repeals, additions to and amendments of laws, which are but so many further researches of the universal [Page 38] mind of the state, for its own preservation, prosperity and grandeur, which are ever the same thing with the good of the whole, Magna est lex et praevalebit. Sulus populi suprema lex est & esto.

The Editor boasts of his "freedom from a das­tardly, temporizing spirit that dares not speak out what every body knows to be true." One would think there was no great heroism in telling all the world what they knew before. The Editor has quite mistaken his talent again, it certainly lies in speaking out boldly in many instances what neither he or any body else knows or believes to be true. I don't say this is the case in the revival of the trite observations upon the illicit trade between the colo­nies and Holland, and other parts of Europe. He says this is a "vast prejudice to Great-Britain and her manufactures," and he might have added, of in­finite damage and hurt to the colonies themselves. Not only the interests of the fair trader, but the character, the lives and health of the whole continent have eventually been sacrificed, or subjected to great danger, for the emolument of a few contraband tra­ders in this way, and their patrons in each province. Many in a province have never been able to thrive, it would soon spoil the business. But why does not the Editor speak out, and tell all he knows of this trade? I defy his noble courage to do it. A word or two from so important a personage, might be very seasonable. Why does he not tell the ministry of the only possible method to stop smuggling from Europe, and that without any severity? Let him give not only the out-lines, but the whole of a bill for this purpose on the back of a card, that would execute itself, and render it as impossible for him and his friends to trade from any part of Europe but Great-Britain, to [Page 39] advantage, as from the moon. If he knows not how to effect this, which e'er long must be effected, let him learn a modest silence. The Editor has confessed, that money is nearly if not altogether his summum bonum. He says he is not "so ignorant of the world as not to know that money is almost become the supreme good; and the obligations of conscience and duty, are but feeble restraints, when prospects of great gain present themselves! This is true every where." He then gravely proceeds to prove it is true of every one. After this, the reader may if he can, doubt whether God or mammon is the most desirable object of, and most served by this hero.

The Editor's contemptable flirt at a Prosodian, and his auceps syllabarum, reminds me of what I have seen in a MS. the antiquity of which indeed does not pretend to vie with the [...]ndelian marbles, but I will venture to affirm it is of as good authority as half those that furnished Martynus Scriblerus, the first, or Dr. Bently the second, with their variae lectiones. ^* In this MS codiel. syllabarum is read fa­bularum, which I take to be the truth, and agreeable to the emendation suggested, have restored the text. And 'tis submitted to the impartial public, whether 'tis not now compleat. The whole passage is so perfect a description of some lawyers, not only in Cicero's time but at this day, that I have ventured to prefix the whole passage to these remarks, where if they properly belong, in the name of truth let them remain, I desire the reader not to transfer them. If any have a better claim to them than I and their in­delible indefeasible known claim, can in a court of equity be supported, let them go, I am not over fond of them. For the sake of meer readers of Eng­lish [Page 40] and Guthries, no English translation of Cicero, I freely render it thus. "And so my Lord Editor, you think a learned lawyer is in himself nothing, unless to compleat and give the last polish to his edu­cation, and fit him for practice and accumulation, he is properly taught to become all things to all men and women too. He must, according to you, be a fine gentleman, a sly, artful petty-fogger, fraught with a good stock of low-cunning and brass, a master of grimace, a spouter of plays, a bawler of forms, with a voice sit for the common cryer of a court, adeptus veré, at repeating mass mattins and other musty for­mularies: To crown all, he should be a delicate chanter of Lillibullero, and other songs ancient and modern."