THOUGH I am at present on a journey of business in America, yet, being one of the people of Great-Britain, to whom you address yourselves in congress, I thought it my duty to peruse your address with as much at­tension as the nature of my present business would permit; and having so done, I beg leave to address you in answer to it. But as the nature of my business will not permit me to de­vote so much time to it, as would be necessary to transcribe your particular passages, verbatim, and then to answer them at large; I would request that your address to us may lay be­fore you, while you read what I shall write on the subject.

When a nation, led to greatness by the hand of liberty, turns advocate for slavery, there, doubtless, must be great rea­son to suspect, either, that virtue is fled, or that negligence in the appointment of rulers has crept in; but I must not be so hasty as to charge Britain with this, till I proceed farther into your address.

[Page 4]Our ancestors, in almost every age (if you mean since they have been a distinct kingdom) have indeed, during both foreign and civil wars, maintained their independence (if you mean with respect to any other state in point of government) and I am happy in agreeing with you, that they transmitted their rights and liberties to us their posterity: Neither am I surprized, that you, who are descended from the same ancestors, and en­titled to the same rights, ‘should refuse to surrender them to men, who found their claim on no principles of reason, and who prosecute them, with a design, that by having your lives and property in their power, they may with the great­er felicity enslave us.’ The cause of America, is indeed an object of universal attention; and it is really become very serious; but I am in a great measure unacquainted with the oppressions, abuses, and misrepresentations, which you speak of; and though you assure us, that you are led to address us, by a dutiful respect for our general welfare, yet, till I get fur­ther on in your address, I shall not join with you in those ap­prehensions of slavery, which you say is intended for you and for us.

I, and I believe, all my fellow-subjects in Great-Britain, consider, that you are, and ought to be as free as us, and that you are entitled to all the benefits of English subjects, a trial by jury, and a hearing in your defence. I think, with you, that the legislature of Great-Britain, is not authorized to establish an impious religion, or an arbitrary form of govern­ment; but till I have advanced farther, I cannot join with you that these sacred rights have been so frequently and flagrantly violated.

The proprietors of the soil of Great-Britain, are, indeed, lords of their own property, subject only to the regulations of the legislature; but the legislature has power to dispose of any part or all of it, without the consent of the owner; and this power they do exercise, when they judge it necessary for the pub­lic good; had they not, we never should have had that elegant avenue to Black Frier's bridge, or the numerous navigable ca­nals made, and now making, all through the kingdom; but I would not be understood to say, that they ever exercise it with­out giving the owner its honest value, unless he be obstinate and will not receive it, which I might say is sometimes, tho' not very often, the case.

The proprietors of the soil of America, are no less lords of their property than we are of ours, neither is there any reason that you should submit it to the disposal of our parliament, pro­vided [Page 5] our parliament be not your parliament also. The in­tervention of the sea that divides us, can in my opinion cause no disparity of rights, neither can any reason be given, why English subjects who live three thousand miles from the Royal Palace, should enjoy less liberty than those who live three hundred miles from it; and, vice versa (for it cannot be a good rule unless it works both ways) no reason can be given, why they should enjoy more.

Reason looks with indignation on such distinctions, and as I am a freeman I cannot perceive their propriety. But yet you say, that the parliament asserts, that it has "authority to bind you in all cases without exception, whether you consent or not." I grant that it does assert that it has full power and authority to bind you in all cases whatsoever. And now let us consider on what this assertion is founded.

First, the parliament consider you to be a part of the British empire or state: Entitled to all the privileges of British sub­jects, capable of holding any office of profit, trust, or honour, in Great-Britain, and of setting in parliament: Entitled to the protection of the British fleets and armies, and to every benefit which accrues to members of that society.

And Secondly, the parliament consider themselves to be the legislature of that empire, (consequently to be our parliament, and your parliament, and the parliament of every other British subject,) whose duty it is to make laws, to regulate the mem­bers of that empire, for the common good of the whole, and to affix and determine for each of the respective parts, such orbs, as that the motion of one part, shall not retard the motion of another part; and to make provision out of the whole, for the support and maintenance of a sufficient force, to protect, se­cure, and defend, every of the respective parts, in their respec­tive orbs, against the force of all its enemies, whether foreign or domestic, so that the whole shall form one regular, strong, and lasting system.

It would be absurd to suppose, that an empire composed of several parts, should be without an imperial legislature to re­gulate and bind the whole; for without such a legislature, the whole could not be considered together, and regulated as one empire. To suppose then that America is not to be bound by the statutes of the British legislature, and that too in all respects, must confound every idea of its being part and parcel of the British empire▪ must invalidate your claims to the be­nefit which accrue to members of that empire or society; and totally destroy your title to the protection of the British [...] and armies.

[Page 6]It is true, it might nevertheless be a part of the dominions of the King (but not of the imperial crown) of Great-Britain, in which case you would be in the same state (with respect to our society) as his Majesty's subjects in Hanover are; but give me leave to ask, are his Majesty's Hanoverian subjects entitled to partake of the benefits of the British society in any respect whatever? Surely not.

Would you say, that your Royal charters give you the rights and privileges of English subjects, and declare that you shall always be esteemed as members of the British society? But even if the King's charter was sufficient for such a purpose, each of you, as are not in charter-governments, could not make this plea.—But let me ask again, is it in his Majesty's power to give his foreign subjects (for instance his Hanoverian subjects) the privileges of Englishmen? Surely not: He may, it is true, give them privileges among themselves, similar to those which are enjoyed by his British subjects, but cannot make them partakers of the privileges of the British society. He cannot make them capable of holding any office in Britain, or of sitting in the British parliament, neither can he entitle them to the protection of the British forces. Nothing but the legislature can give them those privileges, or receive them into that society; nor could any thing be more absurd, than to suppose, that any person should be capable of sitting in parlia­ment, but such as are a part of that society, over which the parliament presides. That the Americans do both claim and enjoy this privilege, I could give many instances, but I shall mention only two, viz: Mr. Beckford and Mr. Trecothick, both of which served the office of Lord Mayor of the city of London, 1770, and both were Representatives for the city of London in parliament, both those Gentlemen were Americans. Seeing therefore, that the Americans are capable of sitting in parliament, they must be a part of that society, over which the parliament presides.

From what has been said, it appears, that your title to those privileges does not flow from your charters in the least degree, but is in fact this; you were a part of the British society previous to your emigration; you emigrated under the seal of the empire, or imperial seal of that society (which surely could not be of any the least validity in Hanover, or elsewhere out of the empire;) nor did you emigrate to form a new society, but to [...] a part of that society, to which you had ever belonged; and such of you as emigrated from other nations, were received into the British society by virtue of an act of parliament.

[Page 7]Seeing then that you were at that time under the authority of parliament, and that you have ever remained a part of the same society; and seeing also, that the parliament never relin­quished its authority over you, how is it possible that you can be exempt from it now? Would you say, that you emigrated to a country over which the parliament or imperial legislature had no authority? But this, as I said before, destroys every idea of its being part and parcel of the British empire:—For, to be a part of the empire, lying out of the jurisdiction of the imperial legislature, would be a most palpable absurdity, fairly affronting to common sense.

But let us consider whether the authority of the parliament, or imperial legislature should in reason extend hither or not— The legislature at the expence of the nation, fits out a fleet, and sends it on discoveries: They discover a new country, and take possession of it in the usual manner, by hoisting the flag of the nation thereon:—Quere, then does it become the private domains of the King? or does it become a part and parcel of the imperial dominions, the same as though it had not been separated from the old dominions by the sea? Surely the latter. The intervention of the sea can cause no desparity, reason would look with indignation on such distinctions.— Should it be obtained by consent from a foreign nation, (which was the case with several of the colonies) the only difference would be that the expence must be the greater.

But it is said, that the English constitution is such, that the subject shall not be bound by any laws, or pay any taxes, without his consent, given either by himself, or his representative, by him chosen for that purpose: That America has no vote in such elections, and therefore cannot be constitutionally bound by such laws.

But in this the English constitution is grossly misrepresented: The English government being a mixed one differs from a monarchy (or any other single constitution of government,) only in this, that in a monarchy, the Prince is in himself the supreme legislature, (as is the Nobles in Aristocracy, and the elected in a Democracy,) and in our mixed government, the supreme legislature is composed of all three, viz. the King, the Lords, and the Commons in parliament; and the constitution is this, that the two first of these branches shall be hereditary, and that the third shall be chosen, by and out of the com­mons: To wit, that the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, & shall send two members each, which shall be elected by a ma­jority of such of the freeholders of the county, as choose to [Page 8] attend and vote at the election. That such and such cities and towns shall send two members each (the city of London sends four) which shall be elected by a majority of the free­men of such city or town: That such and such towns shall send two members each, which shall be elected by the majority of the corporation in such town; and here give me leave to observe, that some towns which contain several thousand inhabitants, have not twenty voters; and many large towns (of which Birmingham, Sheffield and Manchester are three, the smallest of which is larger than the largest city or town in America) send no members at all; and a large part of South­wark, whose houses were pulled down by authority of parlia­ment, to make that elegant avenue to Black-Fryars bridge, is also without the privilege of voting; and upon the whole, there is not one thirtieth part of the people of Great-Britain, that are entitled to vote in the elections. This is the English constitution, with respect to the commons representatives in parliament, notwithstanding the many misrepresentations of it among the common people of America.—Neither do these commons represent that part in which they are elected, more than they do any and every other part of the empire:— Forty of them make a house of parliament; and the King, the majority of the lords, and the majority of commons repre­sentatives, are by our constitution the representatives of the whole empire, and by that constitution are empowered to make laws, which shall be binding, on every part of the empire▪ Not only on every subject of the empire, but also on the per­son of the King, and on the Imperial-Crown itself.—For how came we by our present gracious sovereign? by an act of par­liament, which placed the crown on the head of his royal ancestors.

Here we see that upwards of twenty-nine thirtieth parts of the people of Great-Britain are in the same situation as you are, with respect to election, and representation. —They con­sent no more to the laws which are made, or to the taxes which are laid by parliament than you do,—The only thing to which they in reality give their consent, is this, they consent to be British subjects, —To be considered as a part of the British society, and to be governed according to the consti­tution thereof: Which is, in effect, consenting to be governed by such laws as shall be made, and to pay such taxes as shall be laid, by those whom the constitution has empowered to make the laws, and to lay the taxes. And this kind of consent is as much given by you as by us. Shall we say then, that this is [Page 9] unconstitutional? Surely not. It is the very constitution itself. That this part of the constitution might be altered for the bet­ter, I would very readily grant, and I should be happy in see­ing an equal representation of the commons of the whole em­pire in parliament; but I could never suppose it consistent with reason or the common good, to be without a supreme sovereign legislature over the whole, which should have au­thority to bind every part of the empire; for without that, it would be impossible that the whole should be regulated for the common good, which is the most essential point in govern­ment.—This equal representation, however, cannot be had without an alteration in that part of the present constitution: and by the bye, a constitution of an empire is too great a thing to be tampered with.—Alterations in a thing of such vast importance, should never be made, but with the greatest and coolest consideration, and never attempted while the heats of party prejudices actuates the mind, lest, instead of being mended, it should be made far worse.

It is alledged too, that if the Parliament have authority in America, they can, if they will, lay on such burdens as would inevitably enslave you;—but surely it is time enough to complain, when they lay on you more than your propor­tion, which none of you have ever yet pretended to accuse them of.

The history of your Buccaneers, will furnish you with am­ple accounts of the piracies in your seas formerly;—What else but the British fleets protects your trade now from those pirates? Or what else protects your coasts in time of war from the enemy?—A time of peace is the only time to prepare for war;—What kind of title then would you have to the pro­tection of our fleets in time of war, unless you pay a propor­tion of the expence of the preparations which are made in time of peace? Would it not be extremely unjust, that the Parliament should lay taxes on us, to build ships, or to sup­port a fleet, to protect your trade from pirates in time of peace, or to defend your coasts from the enemy in time of war, was it not that you were a part of our society, under their authority and protection, and that they laid a part of the expence on you also?

Doubtless, the Parliament could, if they were so evil minded, destroy or enslave you:—But what kind of reasoning is this?—So also if a man be permitted to walk about at large, he could, if he was so evil minded, kill another man that he might meet with:—If, therefore, it be said, that the Parlia­ment [Page 10] ought not to have authority, lest it should mis-use it; it will follow, by the same rule, that every man ought to be kept pen'd up in some little apartment by himself, lest he should fall foul on his neighbour. Strange times these! But let us for a moment suppose both these absurdities to happen (for the one is just as reasonable as the other) who, in the first case is to regulate the state? and in the second case, where in the name of good luck do we find the gaoler?

But let us enquire, whether you did not always, till of late, consider yourselves to be under the supreme authority of Par­liament, and whether the Parliament did not also consider you in the self same light?

The first colonization patent worth notice, was (if I re­member right) granted by King James the first, to the Vir­ginia company, in the year 1606, which covered all the lands from Carolina to Nova-Scotia; and though that Prince would willingly have been absolute over those countries, yet so far were the then House of Commons, from supposing that the parliamentary authority did not extend to Virginia, that we find the Virginia affairs in that House so early as the year 1614; wherein the Commons firmly asserted the authority of Parliament over those countries, and only three of the mem­bers who made the least doubt of its authority, and these quickly altered their opinions.—So great an unanimity is scarcely ever to be found in that House.—And so far were the first settlers from supposing themselves to be out of the autho­rity of Parliament, that we find in the House of Commons, a petition to Parliament from the inhabitants of Virginia, so early as the year 1621.—But as this, and the next reign, is generally spoken of with dislike in many parts of America, especially in the New-England governments, I will look into the Common-Wealth Parliament, under Oliver Cromwell, in the time of the great rebellion. In this Parliament we find in act passed in the year 1650▪ declaring, to all intents and purposes the authority of the Parliament over the colonies; and so far were the people of New-England from denying their authority, that (though the southern provinces declared for King Charles the second) they (in New-England) joined with the Common-wealth's-men; and even to this day, many of them, (who are now most inveterate against Parlia­ment) speak of Cromwell with the highest veneration and esteem.—In the charter for Pennsylvania, which was granted about two years after the Restoration of King Charles the second, the King gives up the idea of absolute dominion (which his grand-father in all probability aimed at, in Virgi­nia) [Page 11] but he expressly reserves the power of taxing them, with either "the consent of the Proprietor, or chief governor, or Assembly, or by act of Parliament in England."—In this reign, nay, in the first session of Parliament after the Resto­ration, we find an act regulating the shipping trade of the colonies, in which the words "Englishmen and English ship­ping," are explained to mean all the shipping and all the sub­jects of the British empire, in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America.—And in the twenty-fifth of this reign, an act was passed, laying duties in the colonies on sugar, tobacco, cotton-wool, indigo, ginger, logwood, &c. So far were these Parliaments from doubting their authority over America. But as this reign is spoken of by some of the people here, with no great esteem, I will leave it, and look into the reign of King William and Queen Mary, after the glorious Revolution; a reign which is generally spoken of, with the highest approbation in America.—In the seventh and eighth of this reign, we find it enacted, that every seaman, in every of the ships belonging either to his Majesty, or any of his subjects, in any of his dominions, shall give six-pence per year out of their wages, to the revenue of Greenwich Hospi­tal; which tax has been ever since, and now is, levied in the colonies, by virtue of this act.—In the act "for preventing frauds and regulating abuses in the plantations," which passed the same year, all former acts respecting the colonies are renewed and enforced, and the ships in the colonies are subjected to the same regulations as the ships in the ports of England, and the revenue-officers have the same powers to to visit and search ships, as the officers of the customs in Eng­land, and the like assistance is given to them, with power to give this or other custom acts in evidence, and the judges to allow thereof.—Owners of land too, are by this act, prohi­bitted from selling them without licence from his Majesty, to any other person than a natural born subject.—But the main matter expressive of the authority of Parliament in all cases, is the ninth section of this act, which says, ‘All laws, by-laws, usages or customs, at this time, or which hereafter shall be in practise, or endeavoured or pretended to be in force or practice, in any of the said plantations, which are in any wise repugnant to the before mentioned laws or any of them, so far as they do relate to the said planta­tions, or any of them; or which are any ways repugnant to this present act, or to any other law hereafter to be made in this kingdom, so far as such law shall relate to, [Page 12] and mention the said plantations, are illegal, null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever.’ —So far was this highly and justly esteemed Prince, and the other branches of his Parliament, from doubting their authority over the colonies.—I might mention other acts, in this, and every subsequent reign: among others, the act for esta­blishing the post-office, which is expressly declared to be for the purpose of raising a revenue in America, and which, not­withstanding, met with high approbation here:—The acts laying duties on wine, sugar, molasses, &c. which also met with no opposition.—In short, there is scarce a ses­sion of Parliament since William and Mary's reign, to the present time, but what contains more or less of the supreme authority over the colonies; but I forbear saying any more of the acts or opinions of the Parliament, and shall next consider the opinions of the colonies, so lately as the year 1755.—The colonies were at this time, under the most direful apprehen­sions of being destroyed by the French.—The Assembly of the Massachusetts-Bay, in a message to Governor Shirley, the fourth of January, 1754, say (among other things) that the French have made such encroachments, and taken such mea­sures, ‘as threaten great danger, and perhaps in time, even the entire destruction of this province, (without the inter­position of his Majesty) notwithstanding any provision we can make to prevent it.’ —The Assembly of Virginia too, in the same year, address his Majesty, informing him, that they have raised ten thousand pounds;—that that sum is not sufficient, but that they are unable to raise more, and therefore pray his Majesty to extend his royal beneficence.

Here we see the inability of America to defend herself against the French and Canadians (exclusive of the sea-coasts▪ which must be defended by fleets) and now let me ask, how could his Majesty give them any assistance, without his Par­liament? And would it not be the highest injustice, for the Parliament to take our money, and give it to the King, for your use, provided you was not a part of us, and equally with us, under their authority and protection?

The Massachusetts Assembly in another message to Gover­nor Shirley, in April 1754, say, ‘It evidently appears, that the French are far advanced in the execution of a plan which hath been laid more than fifty years, for extending their settlements, &c. and for subjecting the whole conti­nent to the crown of France.—That the French have but one interest, and keep one point in view.—That the English [Page 13] governments have different interests, are disunited, some of them have their frontiers covered by their neighbouring governments, and not being immediately affected, seem unconcerned.’

The Congress, from the several colonies which met at Al­bany, in July 1754, among other things say, ‘That the said colonies being in a divided disunited state, there has never been any joint exertion of their forces or councils to repel or defeat the measures of the French, and particular colonies are unable, and unwilling to maintain the cause of the whole.’

I have not time to transcribe these pieces at large, but I would humbly recommend my readers to procure and peruse them.

Here we see an example of the absolute necessity of there being in every empire, a supreme power that shall command the whole; but the main matter which I shall mention, as declaratory of the opinions of the colonies, with respect not only of the authority of parliament to bind you, but also of the necessity of putting that authority in execution, we shall find in the proceedings of the convention of Committees from the several provinces, who met at Albany in the year 1755. Governor Shirley (who was held in the highest esteem, not only by his province of Massachusetts-Bay, but by the other colonies also) presented a plan to these Committees, proposing a proportionable assessment on their several colonies, and in order to compel all the colonies to comply, he proposed as part of his plan, that application should be made to parlia­ment, for an act to empower the Committees of the several colonies, to tax the whole, according to their respective pro­portions; and to this the Committees agreed. And I find in the journals of the New-York Assembly, March 27, 1755. When this plan was laid before a Committee of each of their houses, they resolved, that governor Shirley's scheme was well conceited, and that (if his Majesty's general should approve thereof) that colony joined therein; and when the Committee reported it to the house, the house resolved the same, Nemine Contradicente. So far were these Committees, and this Assem­bly, at that time, from supposing that they were out of the authority of parliament.

Thus my fellow subjects have I considered the grounds, on which the parliament founded those assertions, which you so much dislike: I have shewn the absolute necessity of there being a supreme power to bind the whole empire; not only [Page 14] on doctrinal principles, but also by giving a proof of it, in a matter, which has within your own memory, happened among yourselves; and which in all probability may happen again, and often: I have shewn also, that that supreme power must be in the British parliament, so long as you are a part of the British empire: I have also shewn, that the parliament ever claimed it, from the first settlement of the colonies until now, and that they have ever exercised it, in some point or other; and I have also shewn, that you were of the same opinion with them, even so lately as the late war; from whence your claim of exemption is but of a very short date. I must therefore conclude, that their declarations can by no means be consider­ed as "heresies in English politics."

Though I so firmly assert the authority of parliament, yet I persuade myself, that when the heats and prejudices of the present times abate, you will not accuse me of being an ene­my to America. I could heartily wish to see (as I said before) an equal representation of the commons of the whole empire in parliament. I should be happy in seeing representatives from Birmingham, Sheffield and Manchester, &c. and the old depopulated boroughs cease to send. I could also wish to see members from America, in both houses of parliament, so that America might have its share in the general legislature, which revolving often into the hands of the electors here, would give you the same security for your liberties, as your fellow subjects in England have; but your unhappy case in 1754-5, was there nothing else to be considered, would be sufficient to convince one of the absurdity of being without a supreme legislature to command the whole.

After this equal representation, I should even then, be far from wishing the parliament to exercise her authority in in­ternal taxation. If I might wish it, they should only regulate the state, and (appoint Committees if they were not sufficient­ly acquainted themselves,) to ascertain the proportion which each colony ought to pay, and make laws, compelling the se­veral Assemblies to raise it, and on failure thereof (but not otherwise) to empower officers to assess it, in some certain man­ner which they should judge most meet, according to the se­cond plan which governor Shirley in the year 1755, proposed for that purpose; and then the Assemblies should raise it in any manner they should think best. My reasons for this, is, that the parliament could not (at least would not be so likely to) know on what to lay an internal tax, so as that it might be the least burthen possible on those who are to pay it; which [Page 15] is the most essential thing to be considered in laying a tax.— But with respect to commercial duties, these cannot be laid with judgment, by any other than the general or supreme legislature, because no other can see how to regulate commerce in such an extensive commercial empire, so that it shall on the whole, produce the greatest trade and advantages; which is also the most essential thing to be considered in laying those duties.

Though the latter end of the late war, conducted under the able Earl of Chatham, was exceedingly victorious, yet I can­not conceive the peace to have been so inglorious a one, as some may imagine. It might perhaps have been made more beneficial to this empire, if the war had been continued longer; but the fate of war is so uncertain, that there was a perhaps also, that it might have turned out otherwise. You well know that the war was extremely expensive and long, and the burthens of it began to be very sensibly felt.

I have made diligent search for the plan, which you say was at this time formed for enslaving America, but I have not been able to find, that it ever had any existence, but in ungenerous imaginations.

Prior to this Aera, it is true, nothing but small duties on merchandize, had been laid in America, but as the riches of any part of the empire increases, so also ought their taxes to in­crease, that all parts may pay towards the common security, in proportion to their wealth.

I remember your loyalty in the last war, and if you will take the trouble to read the pieces I before alluded to, you will find, that you then declared, that all the strength of this vast continent (as you now express it,) was insufficient to pro­tect your own frontiers, let alone your coasts!—You prayed Britain to assist you, and to remove your enemy from your backs▪ She, like a tender and affectionate parent, heard your complaints, and granted your requests. She protected your coasts. She sent you part of her fleets and armies to join your strength, and to remove your enemy. Nor was she sparing in her assistance, but finally they were, and are removed.

Many (though not all) of your provinces, (I say it with respect) exerted themselves with that loyalty which did them honour, and though their strength was small, yet it was suf­ficient to shew their willingness.

When the war was ended, and the enemy removed, notwith­standing the sums you had contributed, were but a small part of the expence which attended your own security and protec­tion, [Page 16] yet seeing that you had advanced more than what was proportionable to your abilities, with respect to ours; the par­liament considering you as a part of us, and equally under their protection and authority, refunded the overplus of your pro­portions, as you frankly acknowledge. This, my fellow sub­jects, I conceive to be proof, and that too, a very high one, of the principles, the equity, and the honor of that nation, and its legislature, which you now treat with the utmost ingrati­tude and contempt.

I have already given it as my opinion, that it would be most proper that the Assemblies of the several provinces, should lay their internal taxes themselves. Among these the Stamp-act might be reckoned; but though I shall not be an advo­cate for the Stamp-act, but on the other hand, shall acknow­ledge that the execution of it, might have been prejudicial to the new settlers in your interior countries, who, from their situation, could not have opportunity of getting stamps, with­out hurting themselves much more than the tax could do the crown good; yet, give me leave to observe, that an act like that within proper restrictions, might be a means of much ser­vice to many parts of America, by contributing to lessen a most vile destructive spirit of litigation, under the oppression of which, the New-England governments fairly groan.

The Stamp-act, however was repealed, and that too (I be­lieve) upon the principle of its being likely to be prejudicial to particular parts, which Doctor Franklin explained to the house of commons.

The duty on Paint, Glass, &c. was perfectly consistent with Doctor Franklin's own arguments, while he was solicit­ing the repeal of the Stamp-act. The Doctor (whom I much esteem on many accounts, though I cannot agree with him in all things) at that time, declared to the house of commons, that the parliament had an equitable and just right to lay a duty on the merchandize, which was carried across the seas, because (as he told them) it was their fleets, at their expence, which kept the seas clear of Pirates, and maintained the safety of the carriage. For the truth of this, I refer you to Doctor Franklin's examination before the house of commons, pub­lished about the time of the repeal of the Stamp-act.

Another main argument used by Doctor Franklin, and by most people in America, to wit ‘that no man should pay a tax to which he does not consent, either in his own person, or by his representative;’ would remain in its fullest force, without the least infringement, by this mode of raising a re­venue [Page 17] (unless indeed the duties should be laid on the absolute necessaries of life;) because every man is left to his own choice whether he will purchase the dutiable articles or not, and con­sequently cannot pay the duty without his own consent in person. Did not this fully prove that the grand legislature of the empire was willing, nay was desirous, and determined, to adopt such measures only, as they had the greatest reasons (from the mouth of your agent) to believe, would not be dis­agreeable to your own sentiments? And this was no all, they repealed this act too, so far as it related to what may be called conveniences, viz. Paint, Glass, &c. and left unrepealed in this act, only a very small duty on tea, which is surely one of the superfluities of life. So far were these their proceedings from deserving those aspersions, which you so ungenerously throw out against them, of being unjust, unconstitutional, &c. that they were perfectly agreeable with every of your then arguments.

How inconsistent then, how repugnant to your former words and declarations, has your late ungrateful conduct been!— Surely a spirited nation cannot put up with such insults. But behold you now make new arguments, which were not at that time thought of, and which have nothing but absurdity for their foundation. Unhappy! extremely unhappy indeed, should we all be, if the legislature were like you, so continu­ally changing with the wind!

How any of the revenues here are applied, I know not, but thus much I know, that your trade is still protected from Pi­rates by the British fleets, and these must be supported from somewhere, nor have I any reason to doubt, but these reve­nues are applied for that or some similar purpose.

Though I am ready to believe that you have generally rais­ed money for the support of your particular, internal govern­ments, yet I must take the liberty of observing, that your de­claration is not true in all respects. The Massachusetts assem­bly refused to make the necessary provision for the support of their fortress, notwithstanding they esteemed it both their in­terest and their duty, and were urged to do it very strongly by many of their members;) or else Castle William in the bay of Boston, would not (in all probability) have been taken into the hands of the King; neither do they alledge any thing for their reason, but the exercise of what they themselves acknow­ledge to have been the legal prerogative of the governor, in adjourning the assembly to Cambridge. I could mention other failures, but it is unnecessary. How much you would [Page 18] do for the state (if left to yourselves) is uncertain, your own affairs in 1754-5, pretty evidently show, that you would not agree in it, be the exigences ever so great.

The laws respecting the revenue are much the same (I sup­pose) as they are in England; be they what they may, the fair trader is not endangered by them; but many of our towns are so addicted to smuggling, that they shrink not at vio­lating the most sacred obligations, to answer selfish purposes; and the inward conviction of your guilt, I take to be the only reason why you so highly dread the rod. Your other laws too, I suppose, are much the same as ours.

The carrying offenders from here to England for trial, would doubtless be extremely bad, was it to be used as a gene­ral practice; but surely you will allow that there may be cases wherein it may be necessary; and the acts you complain of expressly restrict the exercise of it to such cases only. If you say, that you are out of the realm, there is a law for it as an­cient as the reign of King Henry VIII; and if you say, that you are not out of the realm, you must allow the validity (at least) of the late acts; so that, be you within or without the the realm, it is not against law: And where people are in a violent heat with party prejudices, every one will grant that a fair trial cannot be expected; therefore, in such cases, it is not against reason. That this is now the case in particular parts of America, I can assert of my own certain knowledge, and therefore I shall not condemn the act; but if it should be made use of, where there is no danger of a fair trial, then, and not till then, will I condemn the exercise of it.

An English Jury will never be actuated by the face of a neighbour, or the appearance of a stranger, neither will they be moved by party prejudice, nor national resentment, nor will the wealth or the poverty of the offender, contribute in the least to his acquittal or condemnation at their tribunal.

I am surprized, exceedingly surprized indeed, that you should offer to palm upon us for truth, so notorious an absur­dity, as that your refusal and destruction of the tea, was to prevent a president of taxation. The Post-Office, the duties on Wine, Sugar, Molasses, &c. were surely presidents of the self same nature. These you continued to pay; and this same duty on tea too, you had heretofore paid. How false! how ridiculous then, are your pretensions! The true reason (I have been assured by a reformed smuggler, who now reflects on it with horror) was this, the smugglers knowing that the India-Company's tea, would have supplied the country, so much [Page 19] better and cheaper than they were heretofore supplied; and knowing of consequence, that their exorbitant profits (produced by perjury and false swearing) must inevitably fall, unless they could blind and deceive the people; they therefore endea­voured to mislead and inflame the minds of the populace against the tea, and succeeded in their base design.

I cannot but drop the tear of pity for such as are innocently suffering in the town of Boston, and I hope they will have compassion shown them. But as his Majesty's ports, are like his highways, free for all his subjects; when that freedom is with impunity destroyed, it (in my opinion) becomes the in­dispensible duty of the legislature to pronounce, that till it can be free for all, it shall not be free for any. The main out cry now is, that they were condemned unheard, but it is granted by most people, that the positive information and com­plaint of the destruction of the tea, and of the inhuman treat­ment of the Person of the King's officer, was sufficient to shut the Custom-house (and consequently the port) till the town should be heard in their defence. If therefore, the act had ordered, that the port should have been opened again, when their innocence should have appeared on fair trial; or as soon as they had made satisfaction, provided they should be found guilty, then this objection would have been obviated; and let me humbly ask the people of Boston, who best know the circumstances, what benefit would have accrued to them from that clause, more than as the act now stands. However, I wish the former part had been inserted in the act, if that would have made them easier. But though it was not, I shall not conclude that justice and humanity are fled, nor can I persuade myself that these proceedings were so irreconcileable to the genius and temper of our laws and constitution, as the proceedings of the Congress were, to the title by which they call themselves his Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects.

When the populace in any country so far misinterpret and mis­use their form of government, as to collect and assemble to­gether, the Taylors, and the Coblers, and the Ploughmen, and the Shepherds, and there treat and resolve, about matters of the highest importance of state,—matter which can never be acquired but with the greatest study and expence, and which they, from the very nature of things must be ignorant of, as of the languages of the East; when these things, I say, are carried so far as, to break out in open defiance to both law and justice, so that neither person nor property can be protected from the hands of violence, nor the offenders brought to punishment; [Page 20] which if permitted to rage long must inevitably breed a gene­ral disorder in the state, if not in time overturn the whole em­pire; it is surely high time that the form of government should be changed, to such an one as cannot be so destructively misinterpreted, and abused. This (I am very sure) has for a considerable time been the case in the Massachusetts Bay, not­withstanding you would endeavour to deceive my brethren in the parent country, by saying it was only because a trespass had been committed on some merchandize in one of their towns.

Your wicked governors, & I cannot say much about; I might have given you some credit as to this, seeing I am not acquainted with it, had I not found other ungenerous and false aspersions; but to be honest with you, as the case stands, I doubt much whether this may not be like some of the rest.

You strangely betray your geographical understandings if you conceive the dominions of Canada, to be extended beyond its ancient limits! The present province of Quebec is far, far smaller than what that government always claimed by the name of Canada. Neither is the laws which you speak of, near so unfavourable for the subject, as the laws of every of your colonies were in their infancy. Pray turn your eyes to the Floridas and see what those new colonies now are. Look into the Virginia charter, which comprehended all the coun­try between Carolina and Nova-Scotia, (under which charter New England first settled,) and you will find that the officers of that government, were appointed by a council of proprie­tors residing in England, and had by the charter, ‘full and absolute power and authority, to correct, punish, and par­don, govern and rule, &c. according to such orders, ordi­nances, constitutions, directions, and instructions, as by our said council as aforesaid, shall be established; and in defect thereof, in case of necessity, according to the good discre­tion of the said governor, and officers respectively, as well in cases capital as civil, both maritime and others.’ This, my fellow subjects, was your constitution once, but happily (since your circumstances are altered) this as well as the Massa­chusetts charter is abolished. Is not the present government of Quebec ten thousand times more secure for the subject than this was? nor is there any reason to doubt, but as soon as a constitution can be more properly adapted to the nature and circumstances of those people, than the present is, the mode of government in the province of Quebec will be altered also.

[Page 21]You pretend to complain of the French laws, but give me leave humbly to ask, how you could try the French titles by the laws of England?—The English titles are not affected.— And the French estates are released from all that is disagree­able in the French tenure, to wit, the owner has power to give them by will to whom he pleases.—The criminal law is that of England, ‘both in the description and quality of the offence, and in the method of prosecution and trial.’ Have they not the benefit of their Habeas Corpus then in criminal cases? And what reason have we to suppose that they have not their Habeas Corpus in civil cases? Many of you enjoy it only by virtue of his Majesty's instructions to his Governors, and may not Governor Carlton have those instructions as well as the other Governors?

I am astonished that you should conceive that any other than the church of England, established in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, was the established church of any part of the empire!—How is the church of Rome established in Quebec? Let us read the clause in the act— ‘And for the more perfect security and ease of the minds of the inhabi­tants of the said province, it is hereby declared, that his Majesty's subjects professing the religion of the church of Rome, of and in the said province of Quebec, may have, hold and enjoy, the free exercise of the religion of the church of Rome, subject to the King's supremacy de­clared and established by an act made in the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, over all the dominions and countries, which then did, or hereafter should belong to the imperial crown of this realm.’ —Does this establish the church of Rome? Nay, does it not declare, that the established church of the whole empire is that of which the King is supreme head, which was established in the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth; but let us read on, ‘and that the clergy of the said church may hold, receive and enjoy, their accustomed dues and rights, with respect to such per­sons ONLY, as shall profess the said religion.’ —Is it this part of the clause that establishes the church of Rome? This surely not only leaves every individual who now professes that religion, at his liberty to turn Protestant, but declares, that that moment the church of Rome shall lose that part of her revenue.—So that this gives the individuals of the laity them­selves, full power and authority either to continue in the pro­fession of that religion, or totally to extinguish both it and its revenues, just as they shall think proper.—How, and on [Page 22] what foundation then, in the name of common sense, is the church of Rome established?—This kind of ESTABLISHING is so much like being a part of the empire, lying out of the jurisdiction of the imperial legislature, that common sense itself is affronted at the expression.—Will you say this act made provision for the clergy of that church? I deny it.— The provision was made long before.—But you will perhaps say, this act does not take it away from them; no,—it takes it away from them no faster, than the laity renounce that church,—but it does just so fast tho'; and that too, to enable his Majesty to provide another church for them, as the act expresses it.—But previous to the passing of this act, every Protestant who held an estate, which was heretofore granted under France, was liable to the payment of the revenues to the church of Rome; nor could any thing less than an act of Parliament exempt them from it.—Yet you say, by this act the church of Rome is established! O shame! Shame to your understandings! rather (I should suppose) shame for your en­deavours to mislead the ignorant!—Had these revenues been taken away sooner, what should have been done with it in the opinions of these good Christians? Should it have been applied to the laity? Why to them more than to anybody else? It was always reserved for the support of religion.— Should it have been given to the Protestant Clergy? But let us see how this rule would work in New-England: Suppose the provision for the maintenance of their clergy, was to be given to the church of England,—what would they say? They would immediately say it was arbitrary, unjust, &c. &c. &c. many hard names they would give it.—It is a bad rule that will not work both ways,—surely then the Canadians might have said so had it been their case.

I am still more astonished at what you tell us of the fruits of their religion.—Religion of all kinds ought to bring forth good fruit.—Far be it from me to be so uncharitable as to dislike any person or body of people on account of their re­ligious sentiments, if they will not impose their opinions on others.—My opinion in religious matters is this,—That see­ing all men are answerable to their God, and to their God only, for their religious opinions; so all men ought to enjoy them, and to have the liberty of worshipping their God in what manner they themselves shall think best; provided they molest no other person or body of people, whose opinions are different from theirs.—But, if the actions of the different sects in religion are enquired into, we shall find, by turning over [Page 23] the sad historic page, that it was the — sect (I forget what they call them, I mean the sect which is still most nume­rous in New-England, and not the sect which they so much despise) that in the last century deluged our island in blood! That even shed the blood of the sovereign, and dispersed im­piety, bigotry, superstition, hypocrisy, persecution, murder and rebellion through every part of the empire!—Neither would that sect, during a series of years, in which they held the power they had usurped, so much as suffer the members of the established church of England, to call upon their God in their usual manner!—Yet notwithstanding this treatment, the established church when (after the restoration) it reassumed its former power, and shone forth again in its former lustre, it gave this very sect immediate toleration!

Moreover, we find, thet even long after the restoration, the Massachusetts not only persecuted the industrious sons of qui­etness and peace called Quakers, unto death; but neither would they suffer any person to celebrate a day in commemo­ration of the birth of our blessed Redeemer; but by an act of Assembly of that province, any person who should presume to keep Christmas-day, was fined in an excessive sum! And in some parts of New-England, even to this day, the members of the established church of England, who reside among them (even if there be no church of England within an hun­dred miles) are not allowed the benefits of the sacraments, either of baptism, or the supper of the Lord, altho' they are largely fined if they omit constant attendance on their ser­mons!—They are also to this day, both in Massachusetts and Connecticut (whether residents or strangers) prohibited (under a pretence of purity and piety) from walking or riding out, to view the sacred and adorable works of the great Creator on Sunday! Though that most assuredly contains as much real religion as the hearing of the sacred word: And an im­pertinent tything man or constable, is empowered to interro­gate, and (in Connecticut especially) either with or without a precept, to seize and imprison any Gentleman who does not yield immediate obedience to his tyrannical commands! Is this, my fellow subjects, I say, is this liberty and religion? Surely not.—It is vile tyranny and superstition, bigotry, un­charitableness, persecution, and hypocrisy; (let us remember what is said by the Prophet Isaiah, in a similar circumstance) — It is an abomination unto me, saith the Lord, I cannot away with it.

[Page 24]This, my fellow subjects, is a strange kind of liberty in­deed! But it is no more strange than true, that these high and mighty sons of liberty, will allow no liberty either civil or religious, to any but themselves.

But let not the history of the actions of this sect, create too extensive a prejudice in the minds of my readers, against the people or religion of New-England.—Let no man be dis­respected for the country in which he lives, or from whence he came; nor for the religion which he professeth;—men may be a disgrace to their country, or to their religion; but coun­try or religion, can, in my opinion, disgrace no man.—If the person himself be an upright man, that is sufficient, whe­ther his country or religion be the same as mine, or whether it be not. And I have found many individuals in New-Eng­land, both of the clergy and laity, professing this religion, who are as good men as any on the earth;—are free from bi­gotry and uncharitableness,—allow members of the church of England to partake with them in their sacraments, and as highly despise the actions which I have mentioned, as any people in the world.—Neither is there any that wish more heartily than some of them do, to see such hypocrisy, super­stition, bigotry and uncharitableness, totally rooted out from among them.—Let therefore, the rigid alone take the effects of their bigotry to themselves, and let the free and charita­ble of them, be treated with that respect and esteem which upright men of every sect are worthy of.

Behold! my fellow-subjects! while you are telling us, that your liberties are endangered by the religion of the Canadi­ans, you in your address to them say quite the contrary, and bring swift arguments to prove it!—O ye dissemblers! Both Britain and Quebec must be blind indeed, if they do not see your double dealing at the very first glance! Surely, that vir­tue, justice and public spirit of the nation, to which you appeal, will treat such deceitful chicane with the contempt it deserves. But I hope the guilty alone will receive it; I am a little acquainted with some of the New-York Delegates, and am pretty well persuaded that it sprung not from them.

Our union we esteem as well as you, neither do we want that you should be less free than ourselves; we want not that you should be either hewers of wood, or drawers of water; we want only that you should behave like fellow subjects; but seeing your riches are encreasing, and that you can already afford a little, you may not expect that we shall bear all the burthen of protecting you, that we did previous to the late war.

[Page 25]Your association of non-importation, &c. will just be suffi­cient to shew your perverse temper. It appears to have been calculated with the sole view of exciting a general spirit of re­bellion throughout the empire! but you may rely on it, you will lose your diabolical aim. Your former non-importation scheme was scarcely felt in England, though it reduced many of yourselves almost to poverty. And the few labourers in England, who may perhaps, (and perhaps not) be out of their usual employ by this association can still be employed to great profit, in cutting canals to improve our internal navigation, and save the heavy expence of land-carriage. In short, if your trade with us was ten times as large as it is, all the labourers who would be out of their usual employ, till we sought out other markets for our manufactures, might be employed this way to very great advantage.

When you were painting out to us, the disputes to which the town of Boston was reduced, by removing the sea only a few miles from her; you should have considered that your as­sociation, will reduce all your ports into a much worse situa­tion; nor will it be felt by the ports only, but by every in­dustrious farmer, in the country, who, for want of markets, for their produce, must be bereft of their farms, to pay such debts as necessity itself will oblige them to contract. Neither will the farms themselves under these circumstances, sell for a quar­ter of their value. There will be therefore innumerably more sufferers by your association, than were punished innocently in the town of Boston; thousands of whom (to my certain know­ledge) hold your association in the highest detestation and ab­horrence. Your proceedings, therefore, are much more tyran­nical and unjust than those you complain of! yet, they are to be enforced by your committee! who in the name of common sense, among the thousands that are averse to your association, will conceive it any less arbitrary, to have the ports block'd up by your committees, than by a man of war?

I promise you, that was I a resident in America, and your committees should offer to impose your tyrannical association on me, they should have good luck to get off whole.

I doubt not but the magnanimity of the nation has by this time, furnished a parliament of such wisdom, independence, and public spirit, as will cool your fiery dispositions, and re­store harmony throughout the empire. Perhaps they may oblige you to keep your word with respect to your association, though you would not keep your words (delivered by Doctor Franklin) with respect to duties on merchandize, which crossed the sea.

[Page 26]The main end of government in every society, is to produce security to its members: For, without security no man can be happy in the enjoyment of any thing which he possesseth.— We cannot be secure from foreign depredations, unless we keep for our protection, a military and a naval force, similar to the military and naval force of the inimical nations: Our known enemies continually keep a standing army, and a stand­ing navy, we therefore are obliged by the principle of self-preservation to do the like. These cannot be supported with­out taxation; and if you add, that taxation may not be made without representation, and at the same time refuse a represen­tation in the British parliament, you must (in my opinion) seek for your protection, where you place your representation and taxation.

If you take but the trouble to look round you, you cannot but know, that without being under some state or other, you cannot be defended or secured. Look into every nation in the world, you will find Britain the most able effectually to protect you. And though you dislike your situation with her, as the constitution now stands; see if you can find any other on the globe that is half as good? But if you will say that all this may be true (as most assuredly it is,) and yet, that you will not be bound by the laws of the British legislature,— Consider well the consequences, and be not too hasty in de­termining to resist her authority, for that can do nought but make bad worse: Your fiery resolutions, and warlike prepa­rations in New-England, for resisting by force of arms, can only make a laughing stock for the world: Rather request an alteration in the present constitution, and let the present prejudices entirely vanish, before you make your application, and there is no doubt but you will be heard.