THE affairs of Great-Britain and her Colonies are at a crisis. If our justice or our moderation dictate to us the making any concessions, they should be made whilst they can yet be imputed to our moderation or our justice. The present Session of Parliament should determine upon some permanent system in this point. Great-Bri­tain should fix the Pretensions which she will never relinquish, and the Colonies should have certain information of those claims which they must submit to. Until such a system be resolved upon, there will be irresolution on the one side, and repugnance on the other; and no system can be stable that is not founded upon equity and wisdom.

IT is the resolution of the present Ministry, it is said, to impose taxes upon the Colonies, by the authority of the British Parliament, and to compel the Colonies to submission. To examine the justice and the policy of those measures, and to suggest others, which ap­pear to me less exceptionable, in each of those particulars, is my object.

THE Colonies, by their respective Charters, have not uniform­ly the same privileges, or the same constitution. But though they differ in many particulars, they are alike in the following; name­ly, That the inhabitants of every one of them have a right to tax themselves by their representatives, in their provincial assemblies; [Page 2]that none of them vote for representatives in the British Parliament; and that all of them are to enjoy the freedom of British subjects. In the search for arguments against the Americans, the validity of those charters has not passed unquestioned. I shall say, however, but a little in their support, as the attacks have been very weak and very few. From the earliest times down to the present, the disposition of foreign territory belonging to Great-Britain has al­ways been vested in the Executive. It is a power which the Re­storation and the Revolution have left unshaken. From the cession of Tangier to that of Guadaloupe, how frequently has it been exercised? And in the particular instance of Gibraltar, it was ne­cessary to pass a law to restrain it. ^* If then the Crown, at the time when it granted the charters, could have ceded the territory of America to a foreign power, could it not have fixed the terms on which its present and future inhabitants should continue the sub­jects of Great Britain? Where it could have relinquished all the authority possessed by Great-Britain, certainly it could relinquish a part of that authority. Where it could make a total alienation to enemies even, surely it could make a modified grant to subjects. But suppose that the Crown had not been legally possessed of that power, is there not a term after which uninterrupted possession confers a right? Have not the Colonists possessed their charters much longer than that term? Have they not dedicated their lives and fortunes to the improvement of that country, from a depend­ance upon the validity of their title? Have not the British Parlia­ment seen and acquiesced in their doing so? Has not Great-Bri­tain, in her exclusive trade, received a valuable consideration? Surely then it would be monstrous injustice to deprive them of rights so purchased and so confirmed. It has also been urged by some, that the Parliament can revoke these charters when it shall think proper; for that it can take away from any city or corporate town, in England, its charter, notwithstanding any length of time it may have enjoined it. I answer, that if an English city or cor­porate town had so purchased their charter, as the Colonists have purchased theirs, and had so long possessed it, it would be unjust in the Parliament to rescind or violate it. But the comparison is totally unfair; for the charter of an English city or corporate town, and those of the Colonies, besides other material differences, have this essential one, that the former give a Right of representa­tion in the British Parliament and that the latter do not. If therefore the charter of a British city or borough be rescinded by Parliament, it is rescinded in an assembly which is the represen­tative of that city or borough. Where a part of England only is concerned, the legislature of England may claim unlimited power, as a body to which all the rights of Englishmen are made over and entrusted. But the charters of America are agreements made be­tween England on the one part, and the Colonies on the other. [Page 3]The House of Commons of England is the representative of one of the contracting parties only, namely [...]; and therefore cannot act for both. They have none of them any share in elect­ing it; it cannot therefore legislate for them. It is a party, and cannot therefore be a judge.

THE opponents of the Americans admit, that they are intitled to the privilege, of British subjects; that they are a free people. Could we determine what these privileges are, and what this free­dom, the dispute would be at an end. The American asserts, that he is deprived of the most essential privilege of a Briton, and a free man, if the colony to which he belongs can be taxed by an assembly in which it is not represented. The advocate for admi­nistration, answers, that there are many natives of Great-Britain herself who are not represented; for that there are many who have not votes in the choice of representatives, and that the Colonists have no cause to complain, when they are in the same condition as many of the natives of Great-Britain. Would a Colony pretend to a better constitution than the mother country, from whence she derives it? As this argument has been frequently repeated, I sup­pose it to be a favourite one with administration; and as it is the only method that has been tried to reconcile their assertion, that "the British Parliament has a right to tax the Colonies," with their concessions, that the Colonies have the privileges of Britons, and are a free people; let us listen to [...] American pleading his own cause, in answer to [...] argument: ‘I do not claim a better constitution than my mother [...]: you have misrepresented my claims. I have said that a right of suffrage in the choice of our representatives is the [...] of British privileges; but I have [...] said, that [...] Briton enjoys that Right; nor do I require that every Colonist should enjoy it. There are many Britons who have no vote in [...] of the House of Com­mons, so are there many Colonists who have no vote in the election of our provincial representatives; alledge, if you will, that in being taxed by your Parliament, you are taxed by an imperfect representative; in being taxed by our provincial assem­blies, we are taxed by a representative as imperfect. Our free­dom therefore, in point of [...], when we are taxed by our own assemblies, is not greater than yours; it is only equal to it; our constitution is an image of your. But if we are to be taxed by your Parliament, our constitution no longer resembles yours, and our freedom is annihilated. If there be many Britons who have not a vote in the choice of their representatives, there are also many that have. The possession of a 40 s. freehold, in Britain, confers the privilege of a vote: the possession of the whole continent of America, does not confer that privilege. Do you not know the infinite difference between a nation where all have not the power of voting for their representatives, and a nation where [...] have that power? The [...] is your condi­tion, [Page 4] and therefore you are a free people; the former is what we claim; the latter is the condition of slaves, and that is what you offer. We claim the right of suffrage, as the privileges of Britons, and you tell us we have it, because we are like those Britons who have it not! We claim the same constitution as Great-Britain, and you offer us only the defect of that constitu­tion, but deny us its advantages. England cannot be taxed but by an assembly, where her land is represented by Knights, her monied interest by Citizens and Burgesses, and therefore she is a free nation. Is then America on a par with England, in point of Freedom? If she can be taxed by an Assembly, to which her freeholders send no Knights, and her cities no Citi­zens. You say that your right of suffrage is partially distributed, in Britain; give us then a right of suffrage as partially distribut­ed in America. For this representation, partial and imper­fect as you call it, your Magna Chartas have been demanded, your patriots have bled, and your monarchs have been dethron­ed. Was this for nothing? yet this you deny to the Ameri­cans, though you say to us, Ye have the privileges of Britons.’

IN this reply, which I have put into the mouth of a Colonist, I have examined, pretty minutely, the real extent of American li­berty, under the present measures. I have shewn the dissimilarity of their condition to our own, and to that of a free people. I shall now shew the similarity of their condition to that of those nations whom we call slaves. The author of the Letter to Lord Hillsbo­rough, [Page 6]says, "Libertas recipit magis et minus, that there are degrees of freedom." I allow it. In what does perfect political liberty consist? Some authors define it to be, "the power of do­ing what the laws permit." If I do not mistake the meaning of this definition, it is clearly erroneous. To do what the laws of Turkey permit, certainly is not liberty. Perfect political liberty consists rather, — in the not being subject to any laws, but such as we have consented to by ourselves, or by our representatives. If Britain is but imperfectly represented, it has but an imperfect free­dom. But considering the imperfection of every thing human, it may well boast of the excellence of its constitution. There are other nations, the lives and fortunes of whose inhabitants are de­pendant upon the will of some person whom they do not elect, and whom they cannot remove; or upon some other country, in the government of which they have no share, France, Spain, and Turkey are instances of the first; Corsica, while it was under the yoke of Genoa, of the second. All such governments are absolute or despotic, and the people subject to them we call enslaved. Be­tween their situation and our own, there are indeed many degrees. But I defy the author of the letter to Lord Hillsborough, to shew, that any of those degrees would be enjoyed by the Americans, if measures should be carried to the extremes which we now hear of. I do not say that there is not a medium, between a good constitu­tion, and simple despotism; but I say the Americans would not possess that medium. He objects to the advocates for America, their asserting, "That if dependance be enforced in any the least degree, the Colonists are slaves." Let him not object it to me; my assertion is that they are slaves, if the British Parliament as­sumes unlimitted power over them, in every particular whatsoever. If a people can be deprived of their lives and their property, by another person, or another nation, is it not evident that such a people is not free? whether it be by a nation, or by a monarch, is not material. The masters indeed are disserent, but the govern­ment is equally despotic. The Helots of Sparta were as much slaves, as the subjects of the Grand Signior. Now I defy any person to mention one single power, which the Spartan Republic assumed over the Helots, which England does not assume over her Colonies. I would not insinuate that Great-Britain will not govern with greater humanity: but if her power be mildly administered, it will indeed be a milder despotism, but it will not therefore be the less a despotism. Should we thus address ourselves to a colony of France or Spain: You live under an absolute government; transfer your allegiance to us, and you shall enjoy those privileges which Great-Britain diffused through all her dominions. Might it not answer us in these words; "I am not burthened with taxes in near so great a proportion as your Colonitis, but I would consent to pay more than I do, if I were to enjoy a greater degree of free­dom. What then are those privileges which you offer to me? We might say to them, One of the principal privileges shall be this, [Page 8]that you shall not be taxed, except by your own representatives, or else by the parliament of Britain. Might they not then reply to [...]? I find then that my representatives are not to be a part of that British Parliament which is to tax me; were I subject to the absolute dominion of an assembly elected by the provinces and cities in France, should I be one whit more free, than in being subject to the absolute dominion of its monarch? When you spoke to me of privileges, I imagined that you meant that right of suf­frage, which is the boast of the British constitution. You give it to me indeed, in one place, but you will tax me in a place where you will not give it to me. When our own Sovereign has taxed his subjects as much as he thinks proper, he will scarcely refuse them the privilege of taxing themselves again, in any manner they please. If you can demonstrate to me that our monarch assumes one single power over us, which you do not assume over your co­lonies, I will hearken to your proposals, but if you cannot, your government is as arbitrary as that of France, we are less taxed, and as free as your Colonies.

HAVING examined the real condition of the Colonists, under the present supposed measures, with as much attention as I am capable of, I can find in it no circumstance, which should prevent my asserting that they would be as destitute of freedom, as any nation ever was, or ever can be: now whatever those rights and privileges may consist in, which confessedly belong to the Ameri­cans, they certainly do not consist in slavery, which is the want of every right, and the deprivation of every privilege.

I HAVE shewn that the comparison between the Americans and those Britons who have no suffrages, is false; and that if it were true, it would not be argumentative. I have shewn what the free­dom of the Americans does not consist in, and I will now endea­vour to shew what are those privileges which for our own sakes we must allow them. I cannot help observing in this place, that every one who has written against them, has confined his endea­vours to the proving which of the British privileges they ought not to possess; but not one of them has mentioned those privileges which they ought to enjoy. It is a little suspicious that those au­thors whose profest design is to convince and to conciliate the Co­lonists, have never once enumerated those advantages which they are still to enjoy under parliamentary government. Surely nothing would be so likely to pacify them, as a recital of the blessings which are still to remain to them.

BUT to return; in order that the Americans should enjoy British freedom, it is not sufficient that they should adopt that part only of our constitution, which departs from the principles of British li­berty. They must possess that part which is excellent, as well as that part which is defective, or their liberty is not an image of [Page 9]ours. It is not therefore sufficient that an American land-holder should be on a par with a Briton who has no landed property, or with a British Papist. But that an American freeholder should have the same power over his own property, as a British freeholder has over his own. If any man shall object to me, that I have placed the Colonists in a situation too equal to their mother-country; I an­swer him, that I have done so, only with respect to their own vested and acquired property ^*; and that Americans have as much right to the property of America, when once acquired and vested, as Britons have to the property of Great-Britain.

IN order that taxation and representation may not be united in America, the adversaries of America deny that they were united in Britain. And attempts have been made to produce instances of their disunion, taken from different periods of the British constitu­tion. It is not material to my cause, to examine whether those attempts have succeeded. If America be entitled to English privi­leges, the English constitution, she is entitled to that constitution, as it stood at the time when the colonies were planted. She is not to have the constitution that existed in the time of William the Conqueror, or of the Saxon heptarchies, or of the Roman govern­ment. If England communicated to America her constitution and her privileges, we communicated them such as she herself at that time enjoyed. It was the constitution of England at that period, that every man possessed of 40 s. a year, by that free tenure which we call a freehold, should have a vote in electing a member of that assembly which alone could tax his property; besides certain per­sons invested with privileges in cities and boroughs. This was and is the bulwark of English liberty; without this we should be slaves. This then is the constitution which is communicated to America: let not therefore her property be taxed, except in an assembly to which her freeholders and electors send a representa­tive. In the Saxon constitution, the privilege of voting was dif­fused much more universally; it belonged to all who held by a free tenure; that is, to all the subjects of England; for those who hold by other tenures were not subjects, but vilani, or slaves. So entire was the union at that time, between representation and tax­ation: but to this constitution the Colonists have no pretension, as it was not the constitution of England at the time of their establish­ment. By the 8th of Hen. VI. the right of voting was confined to such freeholders as had 40 s. a year, and thus the more opulent freeholders were entrusted with the rights of all the rest. It ap­pears to me that England by this change had two kinds of repre­sentatives. The richer freeholders represented the others, and the [Page 10]House of Commons represented them. Thus the opulent freehol­ders were representatives of election constituted by their circum­stances; and the knights were representatives of legislation, ap­pointed by suffrage. If there be any justice in this opinion, all the subjects of England were either actually or virtually represent­ed. But if there be not, and if it be admitted that England was and is partially represented—Give a representation as partial to her Colonies. If Britain be imperfectly repesented, she has but an impersect freedom; but if the Colonies have no representation, they have no freedom at all. If Britain has not the best constitution, which human invention could have suggested; is it a reason that America should have the worst?

IN the memorable contest with the II—e of P—rs about the right of originating taxes, the C—ns urged with great force their exclusive right to that privilege. They thought it unreasonable, even that any part of the taxes should be encreased or diminished, or that the rates should be examined by the P—rs, "whose proportion in all taxes, in comparison to what the com­monalty pay, is very inconsiderable." I believe the same assembly think these words to contain good sense at this day; and it is un­doubtedly very reasonable, that those who give the most, should have the greatest share in modelling the gift. Such were the max­ims that were formerly adopted by that great assembly, and such were the reasonings on which their greatest privilege is established. Why then do they now think it reasonable, that those who pay not an inconsiderable, but no proportion, should not only originate a tax, but pass it into a law Compare the spirit of their former maxims, with that of their present. "It is unjust in you, my L—ds, to begin a taxation, of which you pay only a small pro­portion." Yet we will impose a tax upon America, of which we pay no proportion at all. "It is unjust that you, my L—ds, should even originate a tax upon men, of whom you are but the lesser number, though the rest may afterwards refuse it if they please." But is it just for us to enact a tax-law for the Colonists, which they shall not have a power to refuse, although we are not any part of them? "The right of proposing taxes belongs to us as representatives of the people who pay them, and yet we will tax a people of whom we are not representatives." Bills of supply are looked upon, not only as laws, but as free gifts; and, on account of this difference in their natures, they are subject to different forms. The lords cannot originate them, although they also are legislators. And it is not the royal assent, which is given, but the royal thanks. The 9th of Henry 7th, enacts, that the King shall thank both Lords and Commons; but if our Parliament shall tax the Colonists, to whom are the r—l thanks to be addressed? Is he to thank his British subjects, for giving him the property of the [...] Is he to thank the English, for money which they [Page 11]do not pay, or the Americans, for a free gift, wrested from them against their will? Which of these mockeries would be most un­worthy the great scene on which they are to be acted?

MUCH declamation has been used, on both sides. The English speak of the blood and treasure they have expended. The Ame­ricans, that they have encountered an inhospitable climate for the purposes of Great Britain, and have dedicated their lives and for­tunes, to her service. There is no weight in any of these decla­mations. Whatever was done by either of them, was done for their own advantage. If Britain has protected the property of America, it does not constitute her the owner of that property. She has, for her own sake, protected in their turns, almost every country in Europe, but that does not make her the proprietor of those countries, or give her a power of taxation over them. If America, in pursuing her own interest, has advantaged Britain, we owe her no obligation. Whilst we each possess those benefits for which we expended our treasure, and for which they encoun­tered that climate, we owe nothing to each other but reciprocal affection. To extend their commerce, our ancestors encouraged the emigration of British subjects. Their industry abroad was thought more advantageous, than their residence in Britain. As an inducement to forego those privileges which they possessed, or might acquire at home, it was agreed that they should carry English privileges along with them. And as an inducement to become the carriers, and the labourers of England, they were en­dowed with a desart territory, useful only by the industry they should bestow upon it, and this was given to them, as their wages. Let not a compact, founded in our interest, puchased by their labour, and confirmed by time, suffer any violation. Let us be content with our commercial advantages, and those superiorities which they willingly submit to. Let us make them labour for us; but let us not take from them their wages, also.

HAVING considered the justice of the present measures; let us now examine their policy; and in this examination, let our senti­ments of equity forget to operate. Let us forget that they have rights, or that we have humanity. Let us suppose ourselves en­tering into an agreement, with a free and a considerable people, and settling the terms of an everlasting union. Or if any one should be of opinion, that neither of these circumstances is applicable to the Colonies; let us suppose them in their numbers inconsiderable, unaccustomed to liberty, overawed by fear, or humiliated by con­quest, and ready to receive any constitution, we please to impose upon them. In such a situation, what reflections should our own interest suggest to us? Though this people be weak, at present, their strength and their numbers may increase ^†; though we our­selves [Page 12]are strong, our strength may decline; though their spirit is depressed, it may revive. They are placed at a great distance from us. We have formidable enemies Their affections there­fore, are of the utmost importance, and there is no method so cer­tain of securing their affections, as the making it their interest to be our friends. We ourselves have a free constitution: if we grant liberty to them, they will be steady to us, because they can­not change for the better; if we assume unlimited and absolute au­thority, they will wish to change, because they cannot change for the worse. The tyranny of a despotic commonwealth is infinitely worse than that of a despotic prince. But it is vain to endeavour to deceive them; though they never have tasted liberty, they will soon become acquainted with its nature. They will perceive the misery of their situation, by the happiness of ours. While their gar­risons are filled with our soldiers, their harbours with our fleets, and their employments with officers of our appointment, and while they derive from us a degree of freedom, we shall be secure, both by our own power, and by their affections. They are weak, by their circumstances, let us not make them strong, by their des­pair. The gradual increase of numbers and of opulence, may add to their force, but that force will sleep, unless it be awakened by injury: and while we retain an absolute power over their trade, that very increase will depend upon our regulations. Whilst they are happy under our government, their strength and their opulence will be strength and opulence to us; but, if we oppress them, they will be our weakness, and our danger. The numbers of a people are not so formidable, as their union, their hatred, their fury. If there ever should come a time when they shall be able to shake off our sovereignty, it will pass unheeded, by a grateful and happy people. But if our dominion be founded only in our strength, it will subsist no longer than their weakness. It is therefore evident that we shall hold America, by a better security, if we do not en­slave it. But will it afford us as much present emolument? This surely is a consideration, much inferior to the other; it may have more weight with a short-lived and a short-sighted administration; but can never have so much with a thinking nation. Yet let even this be considered; we know that this nation has paid considerable taxes, without any compulsion; and we know that free nations can support greater burdens, than nations equally opulent, that are enslaved. No power, no management, has ever succeeded to tax the latter, as highly as the first; and the efforts of despotism have produced only depopulation or rebellion. Thus it is by no means certain, that even our present emoluments would be the less, if we extort nothing from them against their own consent ^*. Besides, with how much less expence can we secure the allegiance of the willing, than of the unwining. Amongst the first, a militia would [Page 13]be serviceable; amongst the latter, it would be formidable to our­selves. Let us also consider with how much greater eagerness our manufactures will be purchased, by a grateful, than by an exas­perated people. We are now at peace with the world; the most rigorous measures may succeed, for the present; but such measures are not the most eligible in themselves, when conducive neither to present advantage, nor future security. The greatest man of his age has told us, that two millions of fellow subjects, deprived of their liberty, would be fit instruments to make slaves of the rest. Surely there is justice in his observation; those whom we reduce to slavery, cannot wish well to our freedom. Let us also consider that without assuming that despotic authority, which is intolerable to human nature, we may yet retain a power amazingly extensive. A power over the commerce of a nation, affects the merchant, the landholder, and the manufacturer. Though we cannot dive into their purses, to wrest from them what they have already acquired, we can prevent their future acquisitions. Nay, we can do more; we can make what they possess already, less valuable by its stagnation. Though the power of granting, belongs solely to themselves, they will yet have but little power to refuse. Let this content us: that the sea, the common benefit of mankind, may be denied them, that the labour of their hands, the strength and the ingunuity which nature has bestowed upon them, shall be con­verted to our purposes; but, for our own sakes, let us not dis­courage that industry which is to benefit ourselves: what we per­mit them to acquire, let that be their own.

THUS, on every present, and every future consideration, I should think myself an enemy to Great-Britain, should I propose to give worse terms to a people unendeared by former connections, unacquainted with liberty, and destitute of any claim upon our justice, than those which are demanded for our fellow subjects. But it must not therefore be forgotten, that they have long been our friends and brothers; and that another system cannot be establish­ed, without a violation of national faith, a departure from our justice, and, at one time perhaps, the shedding of their blood. We should be well assured of the rectitude of our cause, we should advance to the utmost limits of negotiation, before we draw the sword, against our brothers. We shall prevail, with certainty, in­deed, but we may not prevail, without a contest. And though the force of terror only, may give temporary establishment to our authority, the sword and the executioner only, must maintain it. From men deprived of every thing that they hold most dear, and deprived of it by their friends, what may not be expected? Any thing should be expected, except their submission. What then are the ultimate objects of the most oppressive laws, and most sangui­nary councils? Will they restore us to that brotherly affection, which infused the same soul into every part of our empire, or pro­cure us an certain quiet, a disaffected submission? Let France ex­pect [Page 14] such a submission, from Corsica; by our supineness she will obtain it, and she may well be contented with it. She is accus­tomed to govern by fear; and over a people where heretofore she had not authority, even that in [...]uence will become acquisition. But neither her numerous armies, nor her mighty power, nor her vicinity to that devoted island, nor the paucity of its inhabitants, can insure to her a quiet and an useful possession, while she finds an enemy in the hearts of the people. But by us, if possible, still less is to be expected: with less disproportioned force, we may en­counter a more rooted antipathy. The Corsicans never tasted freedom, under a French administration; she has only prevented their emancipation from the tyranny of Genoa, and will receive them under a milder oppression. But the Americans will be de­prived of a liberty which they have already possessed many years, under the tutelage of Great-Britain. A more violent change, a more intolerable perdition. And are these measures wise, whose very success has but this for their object, and whose failure is ruin? Are these the principles, by which free men should govern free men? Is this that invincible union, and that firm establishment, by which Britain shall hold the West Indies, in her right hand, and the East, in her left! Or is this the wisdom which must heal pub­lic credit of a thousand wounds, and support the weight of a tot­tering empire? There may come a time when the distresses of Great-Britain may require the utmost efforts of a grateful people, and our posterity may find, by a fatal experience, that the sword was but an ill interpreter of charters; and that the characters of freedom, will not be less indelible in the breasts of the Americans, if they be written in the blood of their forefathers. What shall I say of these measures? That they are so impolitic, that we should reject them, though justice did not condemn them; that they are so unjust, that we should reject them, were they ever so politic.

THESE considerations I have presumed to dedicate to the great­est assembly in the world, and to the best of princes. If they car­ry any conviction along with them, the consequences naturally follow. First, that we should leave the Americans to tax them­selves: Secondly, that we should retain to the British Parliament, every power that is not inconsistent with our justice and their li­berty: That a law should be passed, immediately, repealing every act, that taxes the Colonies. I do not propose that it should con­tain any counter-declarations, or that the power should, in terms, be disclaimed. It will be sufficient that they be repealed, and that we do not revive the claim. ^‡ Let it be buried in oblivion; let it hang between the constitutions of both countries, as belonging to nei­their. Let it be suspended, like the sword of the murderer, in the Gre­cian law, which was deposited in their temples, as unfit to be handled; and consecrated, as it were, not for its merit, but offence. And lest, [Page 15]at any time hereafter, it may be disputed where the line is drawn, between American liberty and British jurisdiction, perhaps it might not be improper to declare, in the same law, the suprema­cy of Britain, and its absolute dominion over navigation and com­merce. Can we assert the dependency of the Colonists, in stron­ger terms than those of Mr. Otis, a Gentleman who is certainly well informed of their sentiments, and who has probably a con­siderable share in forming them, ‘That the Parliament of Great-Britain has undoubted power, and lawful authority, to make acts for the general good, which by naming the Colonies, shall, and ought to be equally binding, as upon the subjects of Great-Britain within the realm.’ Should the Colonists complain, that if this power be reserved, they have not the same degree of free­dom, or all the privileges that are possessed by their British Bre­thren, I shall readily confess that they have not: but it was not intended, by their original compact, that they should. If Britain does not reserve to herself an absolute authority, over the trade of her Colonies, not one of the ends will be answered, for which those Colonies were planted: they will not be subservient to the commerce of their mother-country; they will rival and destroy it. And surely we shall not be deemed enemies of their freedom, in adopting the sentiments of its able and interested defender. The power of regulating their commerce, and the right of prohibition, have indeed a most extensive dominion, over the wealth and pros­perity of America; and those demands must be exorbitant, indeed, which can be refused to an assembly possessed of so mighty a prero­gative. But there is a material difference, between stopping the acquisition of riches, and the taking away what is already ac­quired. They have all but a bitter alternative; but bitter as it is, they have an alternative, says Mr. Otis, in the true spirit of liberty, ‘I had rather see this (right of prohibition) carried with a high hand, to the utmost rigour, than have a tax of one shilling, taken from me, without my consent.’

IT is so much the interest of Britain, to promote the com­mercial welfare of her Colonies, that they may form a reasonable expectation, that these interests are safely deposited. But on this self-interest, on the wisdom and equity of the British legislature, and on the conciliating moderation of their own conduct much, very much, of their prosperity will depend. Of this moderation we have as yet made no trial. When we desisted from actual op­pression, we laid its future foundations, and the repeal of the Stamp-Act, was attended with the strongest assertions, of our right of taxation; assertions which an upright administration never in­tended to carry into experiment, but an unhappy compliment, which wisdom and virtue paid to the temporization and prejudice. If impressed with a conviction of their freedom, the Americans have a sense of injury, let not Britons resent the sentiments they have communicated. Let us maturely consider whether we our­selves [Page 16]were not the aggressors. If force is justifiable in destroying those rights, which are derived from time, from compact, and from nature; what is not justifiable for their maintainance and sup­port? If the cause of the Americans be just, their firmness is virtue.