EVEN the most ignorant perceive this to be a crisis of the utmost importance to Great-Britain, and to North America: but it doth not appear that the most sage have yet formed a plan of proceedings that is likely to give content to both parties. With deference to the senti­ments of others, and with a sincere desire of rendering a service to my country, permit me to offer a few thoughts on the subject, and to throw some hints in your way, which I do not perceive to have been as yet started by any political writer. It is most deeply to be lamented, that passion and prejudice, pride and self-interest, have evidently too much influence over the minds of most men, to suffer them to decide impartially and equitably in such delicate conjunctures as the present. We want now to discover, and to establish a princi­ple of lasting union between our colonies and the mother country; while the measures of admini­stration, the deliberations in parliament, the sen­timents of political writers, and the language of the people at large, all tend to prove, that the most probable event will be mutual jealousy, ani­mosity, and strife.

[Page 26] It is the misfortune of this country, surely without necessity, that schemes of reformation, and plans of a great and comprehensive nature, for the general benefit of the people, are rarely or never formed before hand in the peaceful closet of a provident minister; and, it is as unusu­al for them to attain their completion by dispas­sionate contemplation, and the calm determi­nations of wisdom. On the contrary, we suffer every trivial error and irregularity to ripen into mischief before we think of reformation; when we undertake it at last with minds heated to fermentation, and we perform it with rashness and violence. Let not, however, on this great occasion, any thing so intemperate and faulty mark your deliberations, nor leave a stain upon your measures. Reflect, that the fate of empires is now in suspence, and that the balance is in your hands. No patriots of any age or country ever had a nobler opportunity of immortalizing their same; nor, what is infinitely more to be desired, of obtaining the inward reward of self-approbation for having given happiness to milli­ons. Remember your duty to mankind; re­member your duty to God. Let not the breath of anger or resentment sully your councils; let not jealousy or ambition poison your breasts, nor hang upon your tongues. Be calm, contem­plative, candid, prudent, wise; let justice and benevolence rule your hearts; in one word, be Christians! embracing with love and charity your American brethren; and consulting their happi­ness equally with your own.

The two grand questions now to be decided are; 1. Whether or not the British parliament or [Page 27] legislature, hath the right of sovereignty over North America? And, 2. Whether or not a British parliament hath a right to tax the North Ame­ricans (1)?

Although the latter question be properly in­volved in the former (2), since taxation is a part of legislation, yet being extremely simple and well understood, I shall consider it first, in order to get rid of it; so as it may not embarrass our discussion of the other, which it will be neces­sary for us to treat with all possible perspicuity. As for those who, with great warmth, maintain the right of parliament to tax the North Americans, surely they are rather to be pitied than argued with! Must they not be totally ignorant of the principles of that inestimable constitution, under which they have the happiness to live? How then shall we expect them to be acquainted with the principles of the law of nature, from whence they flow? When I meet a man inclined towards this opinion, I do not contradict him; and I beseech him to avoid disputation above all things. I beg of him also to divest himself totally of every previous inclination for seeing the point in this or in that light; to consult immediately the great Mr. Locke, and other authors of note, and after a careful examination of the arguments for and against the question, to decide upon it himself impartially and honestly. I remind him likewise, that it is his interest, as well as for the advantage of his country, that he should discover the truth: but a matter of total indifferency on which side it lies. If this fail to set him right, I do not dis­pute with him myself, nor do I assume the counte­nance or manner of an opponent; but I intimate [Page 28] to him, that, were he of my opinion, it would afford him great satisfaction of mind; since it gives me a consistency of sentiment, by which I see every right of legislation perfectly consonant with the freedom and the happiness of mankind; and I then simply state my reasons for holding it. I have ever found this appeal to a man's own heart and understanding, the most successful way of en­lightening the one, and improving the other. Very few indeed of those with whom I have thus reasoned, on the present subject of American tax­ation, have gone away unsatisfied, or found a ne­cessity of reading, in order to be convinced: but ignorance and obstinacy, heated by former de­bate, have sometimes rendered my endeavours ineffectual; and such as were notorious for a vi­cious ambition, or servility to the ruling powers, have generally remained immoveable, though without producing one just or wise argument in support of their sentiments, or rather their asserti­ons. Such men are not aware how much they lay open to the light that part of their characters they always mean to hide; and that there is as much dishonesty in that disposition which denies an evident truth, as in that which gives a false evidence, or takes a purse. It would have re­quired no learning, but only common sense and common honesty, to have known that a man hath no property, in that which another 'can by right take from him without his consent,' had not the world been pestered with writers of corrupt hearts, who, for wicked ends, have brought this clear proposition into dispute, and involved it in a casuistical jargon, which persons of plain sense, and too busy or too indolent for reflection, are apt [Page 29] to mistake for learning and superior skill; and to compliment it, first with doubting, and then de­nying upon trust, what they once understood and believed. But I trust, that characters so weak as these, so profligate as those, will have no in­fluence with the British legislature; that its deli­berations will be carried on with too much wis­dom and too much dignity to give a hearing to the drivelings of shallow and impudent praters; or to suffer the unseemly violence of surious and tyrannical spirits, to discompose that serenity and divestment from passion, which ought ever to be observed in the presence of his Majesty, and in the awful councils of the nation. Here I must express my concern, that it should seem to be thought by very sensible men, that it is necessary to appeal to ancient times, in order to ascertain the right of a free subject not to be taxed without his consent, either in person or by representation. With as much reason might we go about to prove, that no ancient King had a right to take from every subject at his good pleasure, an eye or an ear. It is sufficient that we know any maxim in our law, to be at the same time a maxim of the law of nature, or demonstrably deducible from its fundamental principles. What is it to the pur­pose, whether such a maxim was received and acquiesced in only yesterday, or a thousand years ago? Truth is not the less truth, though man­kind were in ignorance of it until lately. No mathematician, in demonstrating an astronomi­cal problem, thinks it necessary to prove the pro­perties of a triangle, a circle, or an ellipsis; why then should the politician waste his time and em­barrass his argument, with proving principles and [Page 30] axioms universally assented to by all just reason­ers? not but that a maxim carries more weight and authority with it, as this of the necessary con­nection between taxation and representation, when we find it has been the uniform sentiment of all ages; and references to antient times, and to various histories, serve very properly to illus­trate political arguments; sometimes facilitating their reception among the timid and suspicious, who are apt to shrink at bold and honest truths, to which they have not been familiarized.

TO every man of candour, I apprehend it must be evident, that 'Parliament hath not the rights of sovereignty over his Ma­jesty's American subjects.' Every species, in­deed of declamation and sophistry, have been made use of in order to shew that it hath, because it gratifies the pride of Englishmen in general, to think that, that legislature, in which they feel themselves to have a share, should govern half the world: but there are not wanting an ho­nest few who think more justly and more gene­rously. Amongst this number, a writer who sub­scribes himself A. B. in the Public Advertiser of the 2 [...]d, deserves the thanks of every friend to freedom. Except in his idea of the country of America, having been by the prerogative the property of the crown, which, in the sense of the passage, signifies the King exclusively, I en­tirely agree with him in sentiment. He hath clearly and elegantly refuted the notion of par­liamentary sovereignty; he has, with a generous warmth becoming an Englishman, appealed to the manly sense and to the virtue of his country­men (1). It would be an endless, as well as an useless work, to follow the many daily writers along all the mazes they wander through, in or­der to assert the sovereignty of parliament, and to justify administration in the harsh measures they are now carrying into execution. Notwithstand­ing their laboured and fine-spun performances, there is in reality no difficulty in the case. We [Page 32] have no need of profound learning, nor an inti­mate acquaintance with antiquity, nor even of the history of the respective provinces and their different origins; neither do we want copies of grants, charters, or acts of parliament, in order to judge of the question before us. If we com­prehend but the most well known principles of the English constitution; if we comprehend but a few of the plain maxims of the law of nature, and the clearest doctrines of Christianity, all which are so simple and plain, as to be under­stood by hundreds, nay thousands, of plain men who know not that they are possessed of so use­ful a treasure, we have knowledge enough on this occasion. The only requisite wanting be­yond this, is a heart strictly devoted to truth and virtue, without which we shall never under­stand any doctrine that does not soothe our pas­sions.

The gospel of civil as well as religious salvation ‘is hid from the wise and prudent, and revealed unto babes;’ that is, unto those who are not puffed up with vanity and false learning, nor blinded by pride, ambition, and self-interest, but whose minds are in a state of humility and inno­cence. But we have our political Popes, who would fain have us distrust our common sense and our feelings, and believe implicitly in their infallibility; nor do I doubt, but they would prove as faithful guardians of civil, as the Roman Pope is of religious, liberty, was it once put into their hands.

It is a capital error in the reasonings of several writers on this subject, that they consider the li­berty of mankind in the same light as an estate [Page 33] or chattel, and go about to prove or disprove their right to it by the letter of grants and char­ters, by custom and usage, and by municipal statutes. Hence too we are told, that these men have a right to more, those to less, and some to none at all. But a title to the liberty of mankind is not established on such rotten foundations: 'tis not among mouldy parchments, nor in the cob­webs of a casuist's brain we are to look for it; it is the immediate, the universal gift of God, and the seal of it is that free-will which he hath made the noblest constituent of man's nature. It is not derived from any one, but original in every one; it is inherent and unalienable. The most antient inheritance cannot strengthen this right; the want of inheritance cannot impair it. The child of a slave is as free-born, according to the law of nature, as he who could trace a free ances­try up to the creation. Slavery in all its forms, in all its degrees, is an outrageous violation of the rights of mankind; an odious degradation of human nature. It is utterly impossible that any human being can be without a title to liberty, except he himself hath forfeited it by crimes which make him dangerous to society.

Let us then [...] no more of a right in our present-constituted parliament to govern the Americans, as being derived from any former exercise of this sovereignty, from the original dependence and protection of the emigrants and infant colonies, or from the tenour of grants and charters! The respective governments in Ame­rica [Page 34] are no longer dependent colonies; they are independent nations.—Not that I allow they ever were otherways than free (although depen­dent) in the most absolute sense: All their ori­ginal constitutions either were, or ought to have been on the true principles of freedom. They are not to be deprived of it as a man would lose an estate, by a flaw in their title; for I have already proved, that their title can have no flaw. Those who are so fond of placing them meta­phorically in the relation of children to a parent state, and thence are childish enough to argue for a blind filial obedience, should recollect, that the power of a parent, even during childhood, doth not extend to any act of tyranny or injustice; and totally ceases when the child arrives at years of maturity. Then, as to the property of a child, a parent cannot take it from him even with his consent; and as soon as his independency puts it in his power to give it to his parent, he hath also the power of with-holding it if he think proper. In short, during infancy, he must be protected agreable to the laws of equity; when arrived at manhood, he is free, and becomes his own protector. But analogy not being the safe road of reason, we resign it again, after this short excursion, to those who carelessly range the fields of politics for amusement; but are not soli­citous, as we are, of reaching the abodes of truth and freedom.

The Americans, in common with the whole race of man, have indisputably an inherent right to [Page 35] liberty; and to be governed by such laws as shall best provide for the continuance of that liberty, and for securing their property. These are the hinges on which turn the welfare and happiness of society; these are the true, the only ends of civil government. But how are they to be ob­tained under the sovereignty of a British Parlia­ment? Are not the legislators of every free state to be bound themselves by the laws they make? And, must they not tax their own purses, toge­ther with those of their constituents? Is there any safety for the people without these ties upon their legislators? Will a member of the British parliament be bound by any law enacted for, and confined to, America? Must the purses of the Americans be at his mercy, while his own shall be exempt from every taxation he may vote? What English school-boy, so ignorant of the constitu­tion, as to admit these absurdities! He must first go out into the world, and, by the help of a little political sophistry, unlearn his common-sense, and even his A B C.

The secure enjoyment of liberty and property, in which consist the welfare and happiness of a people, being the true ends of all civil govern­ment; this is the foundation alone on which we must argue concerning who have a right to go­vern. The answer is obvious and short. The rights of sovereignty reside in the people them­selves; that is, they have a right to chuse their own governors. Minds that do not feel the force of self-evidences may deny the truth of this sim­ple [Page 36] proposition: but they may be assured, that if they set themselves about controverting it, they will only bewilder themselves in their own sub­tleties without telling us any thing that will be­nefit mankind. Don't we all acknowledge, that the Americans are a free people? But how are they free, if they cannot choose their own gover­nors; if their laws be not enacted by their own representatives? In what doth our freedom con­sist if not in these very rights as the essence of it? In these rights which we have so often asserted, for which we have so often bled! That people cannot be free who are not governed by their own consent. Those who are governed by their own consent, choose their own governors. This is in­dispensably requisite towards the welfare and hap­piness of every people; it is an unalterable law of nature; that is, it is the law of God.

AT the same Time that I hold that "Par­liament hath not the Rights of Sovereignty over his Majesty's American Subjects," and that "these rights reside in themselves," I do not mean to promote an ungrateful forsaking of the mother country by her children, to sever and estrange the sons from the fathers; but where filial duty and obedience ceases, to substitute in its stead a brotherly affection, a manly and inde­pendent friendship, which naturally takes place where the parent hath truly loved and exercised his authority for the sole end of promoting the welfare of the child, without a view to self interest, or the gratification of pride, ambition, or other vicious passion. I would consider the American governments, like that of Ireland, as sister kingdoms; and I would cement a lasting union with them as between the separate branches of one great family. (1) We know that it is impossible to effect such a family union, if the arrogance of the elder branch expect to govern the others, or even demand their homage; and how much more so, if it demand the use of their purses at its own discretion, as a return for former assistance, or under pretence of maintain­ing the honor and interest of the whole combined family. But while every one is left independent, [Page 42] and no other influence is made use of but that of sincere brotherly affection, a reciprocation of good offices, and a fair representation of the general advantage of the whole, there is little doubt but that all will be ready to contribute their respective shares, and that due respect and de­ference will ever be paid to the elder house. Fa­mily pride, no less than those advantages which result from unions of such a nature, will produce this effect, except we be ashamed of our family. I hope a selfish and tyrannical spirit in the Eng­lish, will not make the Americans ashamed of their descent: but illustration is misleading us a­gain into the tempting, but unsure, path of ana­logy. Let us quit it once more before we lose fight of the direct road.

Every one of those writers, who endeavour to support the pretensions of parliament to the sove­reignty of America by any shew of abstract rea­soning, have, so far as they have fallen under my observation, either sat out upon defective premises, or from good ones, have drawn salse conclu­sions; as needs must be in this case, until truth become a changeling. Plain [...] and an in­genuous mind, are sufficient to guard any one a­gainst their sophistry: but we have need of a lit­tle more penetration, and to be somewhat con­versant in affairs, when we would dispute with a different sort, who plunge headlong into the depths of politics, and hurry us unprepared into all the intricacies of commerce; placing at once before our eyes, in an indirect point of view, that [Page 43] multiplicity of wheels within wheels, pulleys upon pulleys, and springs upon springs, which be­long to the complicated machines of government and trade, instead of directing our attention to the first principles of motion, and the few master springs on whose movements all the rest depend in a regular order and subordination. By these means they endeavour to confound, when they cannot convince us. But these are dishonest arts, the common tricks of designing men in every sphere. They are too stale and hackneyed, however, to impose upon men of sound and cul­tivated understandings. These know, that go­vernment and trade, as well as every science whatever, are established on a very small number of sundamental principles of the utmost simpli­city, since they must be self-evident, or they are no principles at all; and they know also, that those who mean honestly, do always ultimately refer every maxim, by clear inferences, to some one or other of these simple, self-evident princi­ples. All the subtleties and refinements, all the ar­guments that the wit of men can invent, will never be sufficient to justify and species of arbitrary do­minion, while we retain a knowledge of this short and simple proposition—"the good of so­ciety is the end of civil government." nor will they ever justify a discretionary taxation by a prince or government, the people being unrepre­sented, so long as we know, that "a man hath no property in that which another can by right take from him without his consent."

[Page 44] One of the most specious arguments made use of in support of a sovereign power in parliament over the Americans, is that drawn from a suppos­ed necessity of equipping a powerful armament at a short notice, for the protection of the whole em­pire, as these gentlemen will have it: hereupon we are asked, if his Majesty is to have imposed upon him the arduous task of first obtaining a ma­jority in two Houses of Commons in Europe, and about thirty provincial assemblies in America, be­fore he can raise the necessary supplies? and the interrogators seem to plume themselves much up­on the impossibility of carrying on the executive part of government under such restraints. Let me in return ask how we draw supplies from Ireland? Are they voted in the British House of Commons? Then, in the first place, I answer that if an empire be too large, and its parts too widely separated by immense oceans, or other im­pediments, to admit of being governed on the principles essentially belonging to all free govern­ments, it is an overgrown empire, and ought to be divided before it fall to pieces. The welfare and happiness of mankind supercede every other possi­ble claim or pretension to govern. When we find ourselves subject to a distant power, which cannot possibly govern us on any other principles than those of tyranny, we have an inherent right, by the law of nature, and it is an indispensible duty to ourselves and to our posterity, to shake off such an unjust yoke, and to erect a free government amongst ourselves. Those degenerate English­men, [Page 45] who are now seeking to enslave the Ameri­cans, would ill brook the government of the Em­peror of Germany, if by any means he should lawfully inherit the crown of these kingdoms, and make Vienna the seat of government. Would they suffer themselves to be taxed by German ministers or German diets? Would they not say to their sovereign, ‘either come and reside a­mongst us, or delegate to your Vice-roy all the prerogatives of the crown, and leave us, in con­junction with him alone, to tax and to govern ourselves according to our own just laws, and the rights of a free people?’ Can any language be plainer? Can any doctrine be more intelligible or more equitable? But, in answer to the above interrogatory, I have another answer as intelligible as this.

Establish the mode of governing which these persons contend for, and there will still be the same inevitable delay, with regard to the Ameri­can supplies, as they would have us believe is pe­culiar to the mode which the people there claim a right to exercise. For though a British Parlia­ment might vote them with their usual alacrity, yet we must send to America to collect them. And if our armament cannot go on without first sending so far for this collection, its operations might as well be suspended a few days or a few weeks longer, in order to obtain it on British, rather than on Prussian, principles. But the truth is, we should not defer the equipment of any necessary arma­ment one moment on this account (2). Do we [Page 46] at present wait for the assembling of Parliament, and a vote of supplies, before we arm in any just cause in which the safety, the interest or honour of the state is concerned? Doth not the executive branch of government, by virtue of its own pow­ers and in discharge of its duty, put the state in a posture of defence upon every alarm without loss of time, and then apply to parliament for its ap­probation and support? Is it ever with-held in a just cause? hath the government no resources, no ways and means of its own, for discharging or contracting for the future discharge of, these prompt expences of the state? If the uncertainty of meeting with like support from America, as they find in Great-Britain, should be a clog upon our ministers in their warlike projects, might it not be fortunate for the people of both countries? Would it not make them extremely cautious and prudent how they involved us in continental poli­tics and in German wars? No ingenuous man will, however, entertain a serious doubt of the readi­ness of the Americans to contribute their share to every necessary expence of government, so long as they shall find themselves in possession of their freedom (3).

They must contribute their share; that is to say, they must preserve their own existence as a people, and defend their own property, under any form of government whatever. When men tell us, that an enlightened and free people are refrac­tory; that they will not contribute their propor­tion of taxes; that at the hazard of their lives by [Page 47] the sword or the halter, they oppose and seek to subvert the government, and this for a succession of years; they tell us, with a moral certainly, though perhaps without meaning it, that they feel some real oppressions, some real invasions made on their rights or liberties; for no other causes ever did, or ever will, produce a general and permanent opposition in the whole body of a people towards their governors. When we re­mark likewise, that, in the present contest, there is no religious zeal of persecution; no national antipathy or rancour, but quite the reverse; no introduction of a new code of laws by a foreign conqueror; no imaginary pretender to weaken the allegiance of the people towards their sove­reign; nor indeed any one cause of dissatisfaction, but the avowed one; and that, on the part of the people, clearly justified on the obvious principles of the English constitution, can we hesitate a mo­ment to pronounce what ought to be done? We ought to allow the Americans to tax themselves as an inseparable adjunct to freedom.

SOME theorists make a proposal to allow the Americans a representation in the British Parliament, in order to justify our taxation of them; but from the small number of such re­presentatives, which I have understood to be pro­posed, and their being restricted from voting as some would have them, in any but American questions, I should fear that this proposal proceed­ed from a sense of shame, as not appearing to pre­serve even the common forms of justice, rather than from a strict and sacred regard to justice it­self; or on a supposition, that this representation should be an adequate one, how would it be pos­sible for the American representatives to serve their constituents in a proper manner. Could they, during every recess of Parliament, visit their respective counties, as the members can in Great-Britain? Could they, by a post letter, in a day or two, communicate to, or receive from, their con­stituents [Page 50] all necessary intelligence? or, could they meet and consult with them on all emergencies at a short notice? Must they reside a thousand or fifteen hundred leagues from their estates and compting-houses, in order to serve their country in parliament? Surely so weak a system of go­vernment must have been the visionary suggesti­on of a dream! But we may rest assured, that while the Americans are themselves awake, they will never consent to it. Will they trust their property, their freedom, their dearest rights, their every thing, in the hands of exiles, sent half way to the Antipodes, in order to sit in council for their government! Sent to reside in a luxurious, extravagant country, immersed in dissipation and corruption, and exposed to every temptation to betray them! Believe me, they are not so sense­less. In the imaginations of these visionaries, the vast Atlantic is no more, I presume, than a mere ferry.

Those who have thought proper to indulge themselves in the way of declamation, tell us of the mighty things done for the Americans by the mother country, and make a great cry of their re­bellion and ingratitude. Nay, they are silly enough to urge these obligations as so many irre­ [...]gable reasons why the Americans are bound to obey the British parliament: on this foundation they build our right of sovereignty. But who ever heard of a suit prosecuted in any English court of justice for ingratitude? Is a frugal son, out of his little competency, and to the prejudice of his own children, obliged, [Page 51] by any law of England, or of nature, to mi­nister to the extravagancies of a proud, luxuri­ous parent, and in what degree that parent shall direct? Do the obligations of friendship deprive the person obliged of his future freedom and inde­pendency? Doth not an attempt to enslave, can­cel, in a moment, every former obligation? These declaimers should keep in mind, that voluntary good offices are moral and religious, not civil or political, obligations. We may safely admit the whole catalogue of them in their full force, with­out thereby affording parliament the most sha­dowy pretension to the rights of sovereignty over the Americans: but, in justice to the character of that people, we must positively deny their ex­istence; for they have been amply repaid in a profi­table commerce to this country. Men must surely be lost to a sense of common decency, who would impose upon us as truth, that the part which go­vernment hath ever taken, in settling and assisting the American colonies, was solely or primarily to benefit the settlers; whereby they have been laid under this vast load of obligation to the mo­ther country, which nothing less than a surren­der of their liberty can cancel. Every honest, un­prejudiced man, who will reason, and not wran­gle, must acknowledge, that government's first object was, as indeed it always ought to be, to extend the commerce of this kingdom. This was the end: the countenance and assistance giv­en to American settlers, was only the means, and therefore could be no more than a secondary con­sideration. [Page 52] When the colonies were in danger of falling a prey to France, was it pure affection and generosity towards them, or jealousy of that am­bitious power, which caused Great-Britain to take up arms [...] Did not her own existence depend on the preservation of her American colonies? so that, though we do not mean to say affection, for her kindred had no share in moving her to draw her sword, yet, we presume, it will be admitted, that her own safety, her own interest, her own honor, were the only motives that could have engaged her to proceed such lengths, at that juncture; and this will the more evidently appear, when we consider, that according to her notions of her right to the sovereignty, she saw the protection of her colonies, literally in the light of self-defence, and the more heartily undertook it accordingly. Surely, it must be a very bad title to dominion, which is built upon an error of her judgment, and a political selfishness. Had the Hanoverians or Dutch, the Prussians, Portuguese, or Hungari­ans; Had even the very French, with whom she fought, at that time stood in the place of her American colonies, she would, on the same prin­ciples, have been as lavish of her blood and trea­sure in their support, as every one of them hath heretofore experienced; and yet our opponents in argument, would not have maintained, that services of this kind, done to any such state, would have entitled this kingdom to the same right of ruling and of taxing it, as they contend for upon the same principle in the case of Ame­rica. [Page 53] America, therefore, is not ungrateful; but is not rather Great-Britain unwise, ambitious, and tyrannical? The obligations, in fact, were mutual, and as equivalent as the nature of things would admit; so that it would be a very nice, perhaps an impossible, but certainly an useless speculation, to decide which party hath been most benefited. The attempt is insidious, and he who makes it, is no friend either to America or Great-Britain.

Many definitions of government have been given us, and a multitude of arguments employ­ed, in order to shew the well known necessity of one central supreme power being somewhere lodged in every empire, which shall be all suf­ficient of itself to perform the whole of legisla­tion, and consequently taxation, as an essential part of it. But this will make nothing for the claims of parliament to the sovereignty of Ame­rica. On the reverse, it only points out more strongly the error which most people have fallen into in their notion of the British empire. They will have it, that the British empire comprehends within it all his Majesty's dominions in America; whereas the American governments, except that of Newfoundland, are independent nations, hav­ing within themselves the rights and the actual powers of legislation, which cannot be taken from them, and lodged in the hands of British legisla­tors, without a manifest wrong, and the subvert­ing of so many free governments. Here we shall be told, that our Kings, in granting them [Page 54] their original charters and privileges, only exer­cised a prerogative which they derived from the constitution; wherefore the Americans are still dependent upon, and owe allegiance, not to the King alone, but to the state of Great-Britain. But still I maintain, that the inherent rights of mankind, above all, their freedom, are not to de­pend on casuistical niceties and logical distincti­ons, (which, by the way, must be false, when they would disprove these rights) but are theirs inde­pendently of all the Kings, all the governments in the universe. Kings and constitutions of go­vernment are the creatures, not the creators, of these rights. They are held immediately of God himself, who gave them. Had the original charters to the American settlers been granted on the express and sole condition of acknowledging the sovereignty of parliament, even all that would not have bettered our present title one jot; for freedom, notwithstanding all that sophistry may say to the contrary, cannot be alienated by any human creature; much less can he enslave his posterity; and, therefore, such a contract could only be binding, so far and so long as freedom should not be infringed by it; but, with regard to a virtue in it, of depriving a future people, many nations, of their freedom, it would be null and void in its own nature to all intents and pur­poses; and 'tis a mockery to our common-sense, to plead it as an authority to this end.

It is a mistaken notion, that planting of colo­nies, and extending of empire, are necessarily [Page 55] one and the same thing. Even the intention of the planters will not make it so, where the rights of mankind, and the nature of things are not adapted to it; where growing colonies are so situated and so circumstanced, that, in the nature of things, they cannot be governed by the parent state on the principles of justice and freedom; it is surely paying little respect to our understand­ings, and shocks every feeling of a free mind, to assert, that they must nevertheless submit to its oppressive rule, Having denied that America, when we drop the popular language, and speak correctly, is a part of the British empire, it will naturally be expected I should say what are, and where are its limits, The British empire, then, I hold to be confined to the British Isles (I), and to the various settlements and factories of our trade in the different parts of the world, including the government of Newfoundland; together with the garrisons of Gibralter and Minorea. As to the West india islands, they, as well as the continen­tal colonies, certainly have a right to their inde­pendency, whenever they shall think proper to demand it, as they contain within themselves every necessary of legislation; but, if it be their choice, to acknowledge the sovereignty of the British Parliament, as I apprehend it may, be­cause, I believe, it will be their interest, I see no objection in that case to its being exercised. If it be true, as I believe all writers agree, that they would be depopulated, was it not for annual sup­plies of white men as well as blacks, this, and [Page 56] some other arguments, drawn from West-Indian manners and sentiments, seem to indicate, that it is not in their nature, nor perhaps in their wish, to support an independency; nor ought we to for­get, that their soil itself points out to them de­pendency, supplying only the means of effemi­nacy, luxury, and intoxication, while for bread, and the necessaries of life, its inhabitants must de­pend upon other countries. It matters not how much, in the nature of trading settlements, our first colonies might have been, (though were not in fact) nor at what period they might be said to become independent nations: it matters not that they were orginally planted and protected by the government of this country, (I admit this plant­ing; I make no reservation of those who fled from persecution and want) nor what were the inten­tions of government in so doing; for, having in them (the people of those colonies) the inherent and unalienable rights of freemen, they had therein the rights of independency, whenever they should think proper to assert them. Doth a man, who furnishes a young indigent relation with every necessary, who settles him in a trading accompting-house, who supplies him with mo­ney, and supports him with every species of pro­tection whereby he prospers in the world, and raises a fortune; doth the man, I say, to whom he owes all this, obtain thereby a right, a legal title, to take from him, without his consent, a single shilling of this fortune? men of slavish principles would have us believe, that the rights [Page 57] of private persons, of subjects, being mean and insignificant considerations, are level with the ca­pacities of, and may be conprehended by the people; but that the sublime and mysterious rights of empire are only to be judged of, and de­termined upon, by those who govern, and by those to whom these mysteries are confidentially revealed, in order to be treated of with due pro­fundity and unintelligibility, not to enlighten the people, but to impress them with a proper respect for things so awful and sacred. True enough it is, that what hath too frequently been written concerning them, hath not been level with the capacities of the people, nor with any other capa­cities; for no man can understand what hath no sense or meaning, what is palpable nonsense.

IT is demanded, with an air of confidence and imaginary triumph, ‘Were not the first sett­lers in America British subjects? Did they not settle under the sanction of grants and charters? Hath not the kingdom, at all times, put itself to great expences in their support, and favoured them with many peculiar advan­tages in trade? Was not the last most expen­sive war undertaken solely on their account? Can any one be so absurd, as to imagine the kingdom intended to nurse and erect so many independent nations instead of enlarging her own dominion? Ought not the Americans to repay us part of the expences of the war in particular, in order to enable us to discharge some part of that enormous debt it occasioned? and contribute their proportion towards the general expences of the whole empire?’ To most of these questions, my arguments have already answered. Now, let me ask, in my turn,—Have any of the nations of the earth, especially the free one [...], become what they are, in conse­quence of the intentions, and by a regular plan for that purpose, of the governments of those countries from which they are respectively des­cended? When we speak of the Greeks as an Egyptian colony, or of the Carthaginians as a colony of Phoenicians, do we the less consider them as free nations? or imagine that the mother [Page 59] countries had a right to govern or to tax them, because the first settlers had once stood in the relation of subjects to those states? Let the inten­tion of government, in planting a colony, be what it may, 'tis impossible it should take away an inherent unalienable right; such, for instance, as freedom. But what Britain principally in­tended, she hath certainly obtained— [...]n exten­sion of commerce. Again, let me ask, hath not Providence usually carried on its gracious designs of making great nations, and peopling new regions, contrary to the councils of the wise ones of this world? While we are plotting and contriving, toiling and sweating, treating and waging war, in order to gratify our own self-interest and pride, by extending our com­merce, and enlarging our empire beyond all bounds, Providence takes care to frustrate our foolish and wicked projects, and often brings about the reverse of what we think to insure by the depth of our policy, and the strength of our arm. Let us take care that we do not provoke it to make us a scorn and a reproach to America, instead of its arrogant ruler. By adhering strictly to the principles of justice, and the rights of mankind, we may firmly unite and cement toge­ther our own interests with those of our sister nations in America, and remain ourselves to the end of time, a powerful and independent state: but let us dread, by a violation of these sacred duties, to pull down upon our devoted heads the mighty ruins of an over-grown empire. Let it be the peculiar glory of this free, this enlightened. [Page 60] this christian kingdom, to extend the influence of her religion and laws, not the limits of her em­pire! Nor let her entertain one anxious thought concerning the hackneyed notion of the progress of empire westward. Who are these presump­tuous unfolders of the decrees of fate, these re­vealers of the hidden councils of God, that doom Great-Britain to a speedy fall, when empire shall have fixed it's seat in America? Are the dispen­sations of Divine Providence so uniform and regu­lar, as to become the object of science and proud philosophy?—to be foretold by man, or calcu­lated like the movement and appearance of a co­met? Our philosophical prophets pretend to judge from similar causes producing similar effects: but they ought to know, that in all essentials, there is yet very little or no similitude between the state of Great-Britain and any antient empire what­ever: and I am not without faith, that there will always be wisdom and virtue enough in this hap­py island, to prevent its ever coming within that predicament. It behoves her, however, for in­struction, to have a constant retrospect to them and their fate. Let her maturely reflect on the infatiable avarice and ambition, the enormous, the gigantic wickedness of bloody Rome. Let her consider also the Grecian, the Persian, and Assyrian empires, and carefully mark the grand causes of their overthrow. They were all erected on the rotten foundations of Idolatry and tyranny, (the very seed-plots of hell) they all fell the vic­tims of their own mad ambition, and a lust of rule, that nothing could satiate less than the do­minion [Page 61] of the whole earth. Where is the simili­tude! Our religion, being a divine revelation, is confessedly perfect; and the law of nature, no less divine, being the immoveable basis of our politi­cal fabric, the very soul of our constitution, this also is perfect. I say perfect, absolutely perfect; for, whenever it hath the appearance of being otherwise, it is only from the want of a right in­terpretation, or a close adherence to its true prin­ciples. It is this immutable, this divine standard, we have to refer to in all our deviations, that hath preserved our constitution through all ages, and improved it till it is become the admiration and envy of all nations (1). This is a principle of re­novation and recovery from all corruption and de­cays; this is a principle of immortality! No other constitution ever had the same, or at least never preserved it until it was sufficiently understood, and properly valued by the people. This has, under a most singular Providence, been our pe­culiar blessing. I trust it will be the blessing of our posterity to the latest generations; and that, when we shall have given birth, and the birth­rights of freemen, to as many independent states as can find habitations on the vast American con­tinent, that Britain still will be great and free; the respected mother, the model, the glory of them all! and I will, I must indulge the fond hope, that the pure religion, and the perfect con­stitution of Britain, will gradually spread them­selves over all America; and in every other part of the globe (2) so enlighten and operate upon the minds of men, as to become the chief instruments [Page 62] in the Hands of Almighty God of bringing about, in his due time, that universality of christianity, that harmony and happiness among the nations of the earth, which are intimated in the prophetic writings. Those prophetic intimations them­selves, the peculiar fitness of the causes to the ef­fects, together with a great variety of circum­stances, that seem evidently tending towards this point, convince me, that it may be rationally hoped for; while all the arguments brought to shew the probability of America becoming the seat of a mighty conquering empire, to which Britain shall, in length of time, be a province, appear to my apprehension, to be destitute of any foun­dation of the smallest degree of probability.

We are told, that empire hath been observed to make its progress westward; that every empire hath had its infancy, its youth, its vigour, its declension, its death; and that they necessarily follow each other with the same certainty as in the frail life of man; and lastly, we are re­minded, that Great-Britain hath past her meridi­an, and empire is now rising fast in America. To the first, I answer, that empire must needs have travelled westward from its source, except Europe had remained a desart; that it also travell­ed East, South, and North, as well as West, witness China, Indostan, Abyssinia, Russia; and that it hath already been in America, witness Peru and Mexico; and that it hath also taken retro­grade courses, witness Turky and the Persian em­pire under Nadir Shah; and with regard to mo­dern Europe, I can see no probability why it [Page 63] may not remain to the end of time, divided in proportions, not much differing from the present. To the second argument, I have only to say, that analogical reasoning is always very fallacious, and that there is no analogy between things mortal and immortal. To the third, I must repeat, that Great-Britain, having in her constitution the principles of renovation and recovery, from cor­ruption and decay, and the seeds of immortality (which no other state ever had) is in no great danger of a declension, so long as this World is likely to last; and that the British North American states having, all of them, christianity void of persecution, as a light from Heaven; British freedom as a soul, and a spirit of com­merce as the breath of life; it must be thought next to an impossibility that any one of them should ever swallow up all the rest, and then ex­tend its conquests beyond the Atlantic and Paci­fic Oceans. The times for "heroes and demi-gods" are past; and the phrenzy for universal em­pire is somewhat out of date and out of counte­nance. They prevailed, and only could prevail, when the minds of men were in a proper tone for such extravagances; when the advantages of commerce, the true principles and ends of govern­ment, and the religion of peace and pure virtue, were either wholly or very imperfectly known: besides, no searcher into prophecy hath yet disco­vered in the womb of time, an empire that is to be so formidable to the liberties of the world; and, if it be true, that the species, as well as the indi­viduals of mankind, obtains knowledge, wisdom, [Page 64] and virtue progressively, its latter days will, ac­cording to the nature of things, and by means of the divine assistance that hath been vouchsafed it, to all appearance, be more wise, peaceable, and pious, than the earlier periods of its existence. To this end let every one labour; and his own happiness at least, if not the general happiness of mankind, will most assuredly be his reward.

WHEN we talk of asserting our sovereign­ty over the Americans, do we foresee to what fatal lengths it will carry us? Are not those nations encreasing with astonishing rapidity? Must they not, in the nature of things, cover in a few ages that immense continent like a swarm of bees? Do we vainly imagine, that we can then hold the reins of government, and hurl our thunders on the heads of the disobedient? Where are we to stop? or, shall we pretend to circumscribe America populations? To say, 'thus far shall ye go, and no farther?' No! Swollen in­deed must we be with the pride of dominion, and drunk with the fumes, if we can foolishly ima­gine these things (1). It is high time that we opened our eyes to the unintentional encroach­ments we have been making upon the liberties of mankind, and to the necessity of setting bounds to our dominion. Without the American conti­nent, the British empire will be large enough in all reason. But if government persist in main­taining our sovereignty there, it may possibly oc­casion our own destruction, but can be produc­tive of no good to us, either present, or future. After all that has been done to alarm the Ameri­cans for their rights as free men, and calling up their attention to a thorough investigation of them; after the flame of opposition hath been [Page 66] kindled in every breast, and now annimates them as one man, it will be in vain to steer any middle course; to adopt measures for light oppressions, and compelling obedience to laws moderately tyranni­cal. We must either relinquish at once our claim to sovereignty, or fix on their neck with strong hand the galling yoke of slavery. We must either conquer ourselves or them. Justice, wisdom, humanity, and religion leave us without a doubt which to prefer; and, should the latter be determined on, woe be to Great-Britain! We may, indeed, by means of fleets and armies, main­tain a precarious tyranny over the Americans for a while; but the most shallow politicians must foresee what this would end in (2). It would expose us to the certain attacks of all our Europe­an rivals; and, when we found the necessity of courting the assistance of the Americans, we should deservedly find them the bitterest of our enemies. With the nations of Europe we con­tend for commerce, for glory, and some imagina­ry objects; with those of America, the contest would be for the dearest rights, the very dignity of humanity. After the struggles of interest and prowess, a tolerable reconciliation may take place, but eternal enmity and hate always succeed those between a free people and their tyrants. From the spirit of freedom, which hath in all ages glow­ed in the bosoms of true Englishmen, and which hath brought to its present perfection our glori­ous constitution in defiance of every attempt to crush it; we ought to know, that until we can extinguish this spirit in the breasts of the Ameri­cans, [Page 67] and eradicate from their very nature its first and noblest principles, self-preservation and free-will, that all our efforts to bow them down in subjection to our authority must finally be ineffectual, and will recoil sooner or later perhaps with tenfold retribution upon ourselves. There are some politicians who think, that present expediency is a sufficient justification of any mea­sures; and who, from the ideas of re-imbursing ourselves for the charges of the last war, of sup­plying the present exigencies of the state, and se­curing our power over the American commerce, make no scruple to bid us draw the accursed sword, and enslave our children and our brethren. But, be it known to them, that though our very existence as a nation, depended on violating the express laws of God, it must not be done. And if their ignorance, which may be implied from the folly of their proposal, hath not yet made the discovery, let them be told that policy, na­tional as well as individual, must have justice and the laws of God for its basis, or, 'tis the policy of villains, the policy of sots and fools. Can the legislature of Great-Britain, I once more ask, govern the Americans on the true principles of freedom? For the reasons I have already given, I believe it to be impossible (3). As to their re­imbursing us the sums of money spent on their ac­count in the last war, they will do it, if we act wisely and justly, in the only way it is possi­ble they should, and in the only way we expected of them when we undertook the war; that is, by a commerce beneficial to this kingdom. And by [Page 68] leaving them to their own independency, the charges of government may be greatly retrenched.

Thus far had I written, when the political tracts of a reverend Dean fell into my hands. They amply supply all the examples and expla­nations necessary to illustrate my principles, and and shew to a demonstration the absolute neces­sity, in a political light, of relinquishing our claims to the sovereignty of America; to which the whole tenour of my letters point, and with which they are to conclude. But I am far from subscribing to this gentleman's doctrine as to the rights of sovereignty. If I could acknowledge the truth of that, I should very much doubt of the propriety of his proposed separation of Ame­rica from Great-Britain; for giving up one's right, cannot be thought a good rule for promoting his interest. But in this case, as is very frequent, his common-sense hath been obliged to subdue his learning before he arrived at truth. While metaphysical refinements teach him to think, that Britain hath a right to govern America, the in­vincible force of truth extorts from him an ac­knowledgment that she must, if governed by true policy, relinquish it. 'Tis a pity so able a writer had not discovered that the Americans have a right to choose their own governors, and thence inforced the necessity of his proposed separation as a religious duty, no less than a measure of nati­onal policy. In so doing, he would have been consistent; there would then have been no ob­scurity nor would his sentiments of right and ex­pediency have been at variance; but his conclu­sion [Page 69] would naturally and evidently have flowed from his premises, supported by that trite, but true and most excellent maxim, that honesty is the best policy. But, perhaps, some may be of opinion, that the propriety of a separation is more strongly enforced, by its appearing to be the on­ly result he could possibly arrive at through the medium of opinions that pointed the direct contrary way, The same opinions have, in all other writers, led them only to consider, by what means the unity of the whole British empire (taking in America) might be best preserved; how the supreme legislative power might be best supported, and enforce obedience to the utmost bounds of this vast dominion. Every project for this purpose (without a single exception) being embarrassed with a sundamental incompatibility, a radical error in suppossing a right, where, in truth, there is none, hath been visionary, oppres­sive, sanguinary, and totally impracticable; so difficult it is to strive against the stream of nature and truth.

The Dean, with more good sense, with an ex­tensive insight into the human heart and the springs of commerce, and with the temper of a philosophic, uninterested looker-on, hath nobly abandoned the full persuasion of his own mind on the point of right; and, while he thinks we are entitled to govern, foresees and demonstrates the fatal consequences of attempt­ing it. He accordingly advises us to separate in good humour, and trusts to our mutual interests for its producing, in fact, a real and [Page 70] sincere union, and this, he says, is "the only means of living in peace and harmony with them."

In the whole course of his work, wherever the dispute of right is not immediately in view, his reasonings flow spontaneously, and in spite of himself, from the feelings of right in his own heart. In page 12, he says, ‘For I am not for charging our colonies in particular with being sinners above others, because, I believe, (and if I am wrong, let the histories of all co­lonies, whether antient or modern, from the days of Thucydides down to the present time, confute me if it can; I say, 'till that is done, I believe) that it is the nature of them all to as­pire after independence, and to set up for them­selves as soon as ever they find that they are able to subsist without being beholding to the mother-country. And if our Americans have expressed themselves sooner on this head than others have done, or in a more direct and daring manner, this ought not to be imputed to any greater malignity, or ingratitude in them than in others, but to that bold, free constitution, which is the prerogative and boast of us all. We our­selves derive our origin from those very Saxons who inhabited the lower parts of Germany, &c.’What can more fully prove the right of independence in colonies, too far removed to be governed on the principles of freedom by the mo­ther country, than this universal, this uniform, invariable feeling of all mankind, in all ages, than that ‘it is the nature of them all to aspire [Page 71] after it.’ Shall we reject the unvarying testi­mony of nature speaking home to our hearts, and pin our faith upon the fine-spun, cobweb subtle­ties of our learned casuists and court-lawyers? or shall we, with more safety, rely upon the letter of an old musty charter, penned before this ques­tion was so much as thought of? Hath nature left herself so much without a witness to the truth in the human breast, that we must give ourselves wholly up to the direction of such blind guides as these? Fie! fie! If much learning hath not made us mad, it hath at least in this, and many simi­lar cases, made us ignorant. It is to be lamented, that such a blaze of truth, as there is in the above observation, did not discover to the writer the fal­laciousness of his original position of parliamen­tary right to govern the colonies; when all the while, it is the express, the sole purport of this work to prove, that parliament in continuing to assert this right, cannot promote either the wel­fare of Great-Britain or America.

SINCE, my last letter was sent to the Printer, I have a second time looked into the pub­lication therein referred to; and finding it likely to make a strong impression on its readers, as well as that there is the most striking inconsist­ency between its foundation and superstructure▪ I perceive that I cannot well pass it over without a regular though concise examination of its third and fourth tract. These alone being immediate­ly to the point, I shall confine my observations to them, without taking notice of the rest of the book.

In the beginning of the third tract, entitled, ‘A Letter from a Merchant in London to his Nephew in America,’ I am sorry to observe an appeal to the spirit of our constitution treated with ridicule, and an attempt made to substitute in place of this only genuine authority, the letter of the slatutes, or even of Magna Charta itself; for these may all be imperfect, though as I have prov­ed in a former letter the spirit of the constitution cannot. A proceeding of this kind in an anony­mous writer, or one of no credit, would, I con­fess, have given me an alarm of danger, and a sus­picion of some deep design against the cause of truth: it certainly is very far from being a re­commendation of the present work. May we not ask what is meant by removing the appeal from the spirit of the constitution, to something [Page 76] which is called "the constitution itself," (page 93 94) and what that something is▪ It is not defined, nor can I understand what it is, unless it be a something which hath its sole existence in the varying and unsteady letter of the statute law, and therefore may be one thing to-day, and another to-morrow, as it was once tyranny and popery, and is at present freedom and true religion. If the author will be candid, he must acknowledge▪ that his distinction of "the constitution itself," from the spirit of the constitution, is unlogical, and a palpable contradiction. How can any thing be set in contradistinction to its essence? That ‘Magna Charta is the great foundation of Eng­lish liberties▪ and the basis of the English con­stitution,’ I must positively deny. It is in­deed a glorious member of the superstructure, but of itself would never have existed, had not the constitution already had a basis, and a firm one too. And as to this charter being the "foundation of English liberty," that was evidently otherwise; since it was an exertion of this very liberty that produced the charter; extorting it from an en­croaching King, as a meer formal declaration of rights, already known to be the constitutional in­heritance of every Englishman. Besides I have elsewhere observed, that the original and only real foundations of liberty were, by the Almighty architect, laid together with the foundations of the world, when this right was ingrafted into the nature of man at his creation; and therefore it cannot be held, after the manner of an external property or possession, by charters and titles of [Page 77] human fabrick. We ought to be careful to pre­serve a gospel purity in our civil as in our religi­ous constitution; for they are both founded on the word of God. If the religious be more ex­press and clear, the civil is more ancient, and no less divine, though only revealed to us by a ge­neral and fainter impress on the mind and heart of man. If the Dean will not admit the decrees of Popes and councils as of equal authority with the word of God, he will not surely maintain, that a Magna Charta ought to come in competi­tion with the spirit of a constitution, whose basis is internal justice and inherent liberty; a Magna Charta, notoriously known to have been extorted by the sword, and formed and ratified in the heat of a hostile contention. Nor will he, it is to be hoped, plead "the public statutes of the realm," (p. 4.) when they militate against the spirit, or gospel purity of the constitution.

And here I must remark, that his quotations of them, in order to prove the sovereignty of parliament, have not the weight of fair evidence in the trial now before the tribunal of the pub­lic; since they stand in the place, and in the nature of parties concerned. It is these very "public statutes of the realm," arrogating a right to govern and to tax the Americans which are cal­led in question; therefore their testimony goes for nothing, If the cause be given in their fa­vour, then it will be time enough for them to operate; but if it goes against them, they must all be condemned as usurpations. We are now ar­guing what is just and right, and ought to be [Page 78] practised, not what has been practised by those who had the power in their hands; not what they have been pleased, in their declarations to call just and and right. Although Parliament should enact, that reason and truth should no longer be reason and truth, yet plain and honest people would be apt to call them reason and truth still, and to rely upon them with the same assurance they do at present. Hence it is, and ever will be, a truth as evident and as uncontrovertible as any law of nature can be, that "an American," not­withstanding the ingenuity of this author, and all that has been, or can be said to the contrary, has a right to insist, ‘that according to the spirit of the constitution, he ought not to be taxed without his own consent, given either by himself or by a representative in parliament;’ I will not add "chosen by himself;" because that, with regard to each individual, were we disposed to cavil, would lead us into useless and puerile disputations, (p. 93.) Every man of sense admits of the pro­priety of virtual representation, so far as it an­swers the ends and purposes of a real one, but no farther. I am sincerely sorry to observe a writer, so much entitled to respect as the Dean of Gloces­ter, employ his talents in an endeavour to mislead us into an opinion, that the Americans are virtually represented in the British parliament. It were a suitable and an innocent exercise of parts in a young disputant at college; but will it bear to be gravely debated upon by a political writer! Well might a noble Lord exclaim, ‘for as to the distinction of a virtual representation, it is so [Page 79] absurd, as not to deserve an answer; I there­fore pass it over with contempt.’ And if au­thorities are to have their weight, that, I pre­sume of this noble Lord, who presided with so much dignity and lustre, in the noblest court of equity in the world, will be allowed to preponde­rate against the Dean's, at least in the judgment of every one who reads the tracts before us. If our author had duly weighed the a guments he has quoted from Judge Foster, in his 4th tract, (p. 27.) he would have found, that they made nothing for such a virtual representation as he con­tends for. The Judge, it is plain, was not so ir­rational as to think of the welfare of two separats nations (for so we may surely esteem Britain and America, think as we will of empire) inhabiting, with respect one to the other, ‘the ends of the earth,’ as being a fit object of consultation to a single national assembly; and that the deputies of one of these nations could be esteemed the re­presentatives of the other. As to the imagination of Great Britain and America being one empire, these are only words that serve to blind, to amuse, and to confound inconsiderate reasoners.

How often must it be repeated, that pride, ambition, and lust of dominion, are not, on any pretence whatsoever, to be gratified at the expence of nations; and that the sole end of civil govern­ment is to promote the good of the people? If an empire become too wide and unwieldy for this purpose, I do assert, that by the laws of nature, which are the laws of God, it is no empire, that is to say, not a just empire. It therefore must [Page 80] be divided, unless we admit that tyranny can be rightfully established, which God forbid! In our own case, I only want it to be done in form, as it is already done in fact, in which the Dean agrees with me; ‘for says he, (p. 12) an un­doubted fact it is, that from the moment in which Canada came into the possession of the English, an end was put to the sovereignty of the mother-country over her colonies (1).’ I must now take notice of one argument, in fa­vour of virtual representation, that our author seems to value himself upon, as of sufficient force to decide the general dispute with the Americans, and, at the same time, the much litigated ques­tion of the Middlesex election.—We find it in a note, (p. 29) ‘Surely the nation might have expelled Mr. Wilkes, or have struck his name out of the list of committee, had it been assem­bled, and had it thought proper so to do. What then should hinder the deputies of the nation from doing the same thing? and which ought to prevail in this case, the nation in general, or the county of Middlesex?’ Now, this argument is evidently fallacious; for the House of Commons doth not answer to the ima­gined committee of Judge Fostter, to which it is here compared; for that was a simple democratical council. Our national committee consists of King and Lords, as well as Commons? and therefore, according to the Dean's premises, that "the na­tion might have expelled Mr. Wilkes," it is the necessary conclusion, that nothing less than the na­tional committee, namely, our compleat legisla­ture [Page 81] of King, Lords, and Commons, had a right to strike his name out of the list. I entirely agree with this writer, that the member chosen and re­turned by certain individuals, is the representative of the whole nation; so that what is generally called a virtual, is, in fact, a real representation; but, at the same time, I must say it doth not ap­pear to be very consistent with the spirit of our constitution, (if that expression will not give of­fence) that a Dunwich or an Old Sarum, contain­ing half a dozen cottagers, should have the chu­sing of as many of these national representatives as a Norwich or a Bristol; nor that a Weymouth should return as great a number as the metropolis, whose citizens, according to our author, (p. 99) form ‘a body as respectable as the greatest of our colonies with regard to property, and su­perior to many of them with respect to num­bers.’

Is not this an abuse that calls aloud for reform­tion? Can any thing be more notorious, than that a great majority of the national representatives are elected by a small number of indigent and cor­rupt men, who professedly make a trade of vo­ting, and who gratify, in the very act, a sordid self-interest, in direct violation of the rights and interests of the nation collectively. These electors being primarily the representatives of the nation, may be called the elective representatives; and are answerable to the nation for the exercise of that great trust. If they pervert it from the end for which it was given them, and transfer it to bad men for their own selfish purposes, it is fit [Page 82] they should be deprived of it, in order to the esta­blishing a more just and safe mode of electing the legislative representatives of the nation. But to return; I am of opinion, the Dean might as well have spared his reproaches of "folly and absurdity" upon the positions of the Americans, concerning their want of an adequate representa­tion, (p. 98) and have omitted his comparison of the state of the city of London, although it ‘hath long enjoyed, before the colonies were ever thought of, the three-fold power of juris­diction, legislation, and taxation in certain cases; for, if no man in his senses ever yet supposed, that the city of London either was or could be exempted, by her charters, from parliamentary jurisdiction, or parliamentary taxes;’ it is full as evident that no man in his senses can see any just similitude, with respect to parliamentary jurisdiction and taxation between a metropolis, the very central point of a nation, and an entire kindred nation, which hath arisen in the new world, at the distance of three thou­sand miles from the parent state, and beyond the vast Atlantic Ocean. It is consistent with the security of the liberty and property of the citizens of London, to be subject to parliamentary juris­diction and taxation! but this subjection would not be consistent with the security of the American nations. May not a man in his senses believe, that a kindred nation, or a colony, if you please, may be capable of managing its own concerns; and that it is full as likely to do it faithfully as the legislators of its mother country? May not a [Page 83] man in his senses believe, that such a state hath a right to appoint the guardians of its own liber­ties and properties, and to defend them against all invaders, even the legislators of its mother coun­try, without involving himself in either "folly or absurdity?" Would the independency of any colony or kindred nation in America, necessarily create any such confusion, any such inconsistency in the government of Great-Britain, as would follow from the independency of, and a separate supreme legislation in, the capital city?

WHEN our reverend author is not in a jeering humour, he will acknowledge that it is, in reality, ‘unreasonable, un­just and cruel,’ to tax an unrepresented people (for I deny that America is represented at Westminster) against their own consent. (P. 100.) But ‘strange, exclaims the Dean, that you did not discover these bad things before! Strange, that tho' the British parliament has been, from the beginning, thus unreasonable, thus unjust and cruel towards you, by levy­ing taxes on many commodities, outwards [Page 84] and inwards; nay, by laying an internal tax, the post-tax, for example, on the whole British empire in America; and, what is still worse, by making laws to affect your property, your paper currency, and even to take away life it­self if you offended against them: strange and unaccountable, I say, that after you had suffered this so long, you should not have been able to have discovered that you were without represent­atives in the British parliament, of your own electing, till this enlightening tax upon paper opened your eyes! And what a pity is it, that you have been slaves for so many generations, and yet did not know that you were slaves until now.’ Now, strange and unaccountable as this may appear to the Dean, it has been by means of the very same kind precisely that our eyes have been successively opened to see the just rights of the people, the due limits of authority in their rulers, in every particular in which they are now legally ascertained. A rude and infant nation of husbandmen, having no pressing occa­sion, is not very logical or critically learned in the law, and all its remote consequences. It must move progressively towards the acquisition of knowledge as well as strength. This know­ledge will always be first confined to reflecting individuals, before it will spread at large amongst the people; and many such individuals amongst the Americans, by the Dean's own account, (P. 4, and 5,) have had "their eyes open" these hundred years and upwards. The bulk of a nation must be made to [...]eel, before they reason with tolerable accuracy, or lay much stress upon [Page 85] their governors keeping strictly within the pale of just and legal authority. Even self-evident truths are not discerned, until the attention of mankind is called upon by necessity, or some other powerful cause, to examine the subject in which they exist. The divine right of Kings, and their absolute power too, might have remain­ed in the creeds of all nations to this day, had not too liberal an exercise of these powers taught them to reason by making them feel. No man in any country, ever thought of scrupulously defining the proper powers of taxation, while he possessed no­thing worth taxing; nor of limiting the exercise of such powers, so long as the contributions re­quired were trifling to him, the occasions of raising them apparent to all men, and the appli­cation of them known to, and approved by, every individual. It is, when a state begins to rise into some degree of political consequence, and the operations of its government are become too secret and complex to be penetrated by the vulgar eye, and at the same time grow expensive to the peo­ple, that they, not knowing what is going for­ward, and suspicious of some ill towards them­selves, begin to investigate the legal powers of taxing, and how far they ought to be exercised; nor shall we exceed the truth, if we add, that all their jealousy and vigilance have been little enough, in the happiest age and nation, for guard­ing against the king-craft and tyranny of their ru­lers. While too insignificant to become the objects, or the tools of ambition, they remain in ignorance; it is the alarm of chains, and the [Page 86] dislike of burthens, that ‘enlighten them and open their eyes.’ After what has been said, I should hope it was quite unnecessary to refute the feeble arguments we find in p. 101, 102, 103, drawn from the freedom which an American now is permitted to enjoy, of voting for a member of the British parliament. We must remember, however, that he cannot do this without being a British freeholder, or holding some property which makes him at least a British subject; and it is therefore as a Briton, not as an American, he is represented. But to trace this rope of sand any farther, would really be to mock my readers, and I have already sufficiently replied to all such sorry subtleties. If the true and proper relation, in which this country stands with regard to the colonies, hath not, in all particulars, been accu­rately defined by mutual agreement and declaratory laws; but there are to be found some little incon­sistencies, as there needs must be in such a con­nection so long as Great-Britain, through a love of rule, finds means to evade a fair discussion of the question of right; which, I pray, is the course that a wise and good man ought to pursue, in or­der to reconcile all contradictions, and to obtain a just idea of what is fit to be done for the reme­dying these inconveniences? Ought not the wel­fare of the whole people, without any partiality for countries, to out-weigh, in his mind, every other consideration? Must it not be his polar star, whenever he ventures upon the dark and de­ceitful sea of casuistry? Will he, for a moment, believe in the truth of any position or maxim, [Page 87] how antient, how specious soever, that is evi­dently incompatible with this object? Surely he will not lose sight of the true, the only ends of government, and labour to harden the heart and strengthen the hands of tyranny! Nor will he, surely, disregard the plain and obvious dictates of reason and nature, and, in defence of a bad cause, stoop and strain to catch at every little flaw and defect in forms and precedents! But one false step in reasoning, frequently misleads a good man into opinions and disputations prejudicial to truth. However, when the good of the public shall ul­timately appear to be the end he aims at, we must make charitable allowances for his mistakes. Such allowances I am disposed to make to the au­thor of the tract; but yet as a well-wisher, and in perfect good humour, I must needs say he has indulged too freely a spirit, I will not say a talent, of ridicule; he is too supercilious even to his ne­phew, and is apt to sneer somewhat out of season, and when a satirical opponent might very easily retort it upon him with double force. Neither doth he appear to me quite so cool, dispassionate and impartial, as becomes a man who takes upon him to elucidate a disputed question on which de­pends the welfare, perhaps the existence of na­tions. He must have been a poor casuist, indeed, not to have obtained a victory over an antagonist of his own making: but we need not quarrel with him for beating him, since he shewed him so much mercy and good manners. But doth it not rather savour of disingenuousness, to put the maimed and mutilated arguments of the Ameri­cans [Page 88] into the mouth of a wrongheaded ignorant boy? Had it not been more to the advantage of his knowledge and eloquence, to have impressed conviction upon the mind of an experienced and able man, one who was well acquainted with the history, the laws, and the constitution of both Great-Britain and the colonies? But in that case, decency would have confined him to argument, instead of sneer and ridicule, and to a carriage suited to an equal, instead of that super­cilious superiority assumed over the booby ne­phew; and this would have deprived his letter of its principal force and spirit. ‘But let that pass,’ and let us proceed to what is more to the purpose.

Our author proves, very satisfactorily, that the cause of contention between us and the colonies, is no recent affair—not the factious contrivance of a Lord Chatham, or a Lord Cambden, as the historians of the day would have it, but existed in no small force so early in the last century as 1670, (p, 5,) and in 1696, (p. 6,) gave oc­casion to a very remarkable act, for the very pur­pose chiefly of asserting the sovereignty of parlia­ment. Acts of Parliament do not take place on such occasions until the mischief to be remedied is already at some degree of ripeness; and ac­cordingly it appears, that the colonies had for a considerable time previous to 1696, shewn a dis­position to doubt, to dispute, and in some sort to oppose the authority of the English Parliament. Their eyes began to be open, and nature made them feel their inherent rights as men, long be­fore [Page 89] they could define them. On the other hand, false definitions of law and right, have as long sup­pressed the feelings of equity in the minds of those possessed of the power. Let us make true definitions, and consult our true feelings, and we shall then no longer doubt of the right of in­dependence in the Americans; I say true feelings, because, without we are circumspect, we are continually acquiring false ones, as well as false opinions; and the latter has a wonderful power in generating the former. Witness the daily and perpetual severities we see practised towards chil­dren, to the injury both of body and mind, by in­judicious parents, who yet want neither humani­ty nor tenderness, and who act upon principle. A false system begetting false feelings, while they are injuring and punishing their children, they think they are serving them and consulting their true happiness; and they consequently feel self-approbation for a conduct that ought to inspire horror and self-reproof. Now, with regard to our American children and kindred, let us divest ourselves of every interest, of every passion, of eve­ry prejudice; let us pluck from our hearts that deep-rooted love of rule, and for a moment put ourselves in their places; and then, deliberately and solemnly laying our hand upon our heart, remembering that we are christians, and answera­ble at the awful tribunal of the Deity for our ve­ry thoughts; let us ask ourselves these plain ques­tions: is not the end of government to the Ame­ricans the same as to all other people, that is to say, the welfare and happiness of the society? [Page 90] Can there be welfare and happiness without free­dom? Can freedom exist under a taxation, at the discretion of the legislature of another, and that a distant, a luxurious, a necessitous country? Is it agreeable to common-sense to imagine, that an American representation in the British-Parliament could answer the true ends of representation to the people of that country? or, is it possible, ac­cording to any plan which human wisdom hath yet conceived, that the Parliament of Great-Bri­tain should govern the many and multiplying na­tions of America on the true principles of free­dom, or without a certainty of sinking herself un­der the weight of empire? And is it fit that, on the authority of a few logical distinctions, (ad­mitting they were just, which, by the way, they are not) and for the sake of proudly maintaining an absolute, a deceased claim to an empty sove­reignty, (for so it is confessed to be, by its advo­cate the Dean) that we should forget all these con­siderations, all the ties of consanguinity and af­fection, all the feelngs of humanity, and the di­vine lessons of our holy religion, and enforce the obedience of the Americans to an odious tyranny by fire and sword?

It is matter of the greatest astonishment to me, that a writer, so learned and so clear sighted as the Dean, should have so far over-looked all arguments of this nature, as to have left himself without a just, a moral reason, as well as a political one, for his proposed separation. As to the matter of fact, concerning the possibility of keeping the sove­reignty in our hands he and I are well agreed, [Page 91] as I have already shewn in my quotation from p. 12; nay, we both agree, that we have it not to keep, that it is already gone, never to be reco­vered but by conquest, never more to be held but with greater armies, and at a greater expence than ever this country supported in any war. I have also, in a former letter, q [...]ed, what he says in the same page, (12) in order to shew, that it hath ever been the nature of all colonies, in all ages, to aspire after independence, and made my reflections thereupon, so that we may now hasten to the consideration of his five proposals, and to the conclusion of the task we have assigned our­selves. If I have trespassed upon the reader, by a repetition of the same arguments in different pla­ces, I would observe, that the sew plain and clear arguments, on which this question depends, need to be repeated again and again, and never to be lost sight of; for the enemies of liberty, like the disingenuous foes of religion, are a sort of people, who, conscious that they cannot convince, and de­termined to wrangle, do not scruple to advance the same stale arguments that have been a thou­sand and a thousand times refuted before, and if not refuted again, as often as they have the shamelessness to revive them, they insult their ad­versaries with affected shouts of victory and tri­umph.

But my manner of treating the subject may, nevertheless, need many apologies. I shall, how­ever, only plead, that these letters have been writ­ten as leisure would permit, and sent away to the Printer, without reserved copies to refer to: be­sides [Page 92] which it may be proper to add, that at the time I am writing this eighth, no more than the two first have made their appearance in the paper. As for the presumption of entering on a subject, without abilities equal to the attempt, I shall only offer, in my defence, that I have been prompted to it through a warm, a passionate love of liberty, and a sincere desire of promoting its cause.

Whatever may be my success, I shall never want the pleasing reflection of having done my duty conscientiously, as a member of society, al­though in a subordinate degree to greater work­men: and, I hope, it is not uncharitable to think, that if every writer would resign his pen to the same guidance, we should all be agreed very soon, as nearly as would be requisite, and that mankind would then reap such benefits from po­litical disquisitions, as I fear are not likely to take place, while controverly is carried upon other principles.

WE come now to the consideration of our author's final settlements, and in p. 14, we find him thus expressing himself:— ‘Enough surely has been said on this subject, and the upshot of the whole matter is plainly this:—that even the arbitrary and despotic go­vernments of France and Spain (arbitrary, I say, both in temporals and spirituals) maintain [Page 93] their authority over their American colonies but very imperfectly, in as-much as they can­not restrain them from breaking through those rules and regulations of exclusive trade, for the sake of which all colonies seemed to have been originally founded. What then shall we say in regard to such colonies as are the offspring of a free constitution? And after what manner, and according to what rule, are our own in particu­lar to be governed, without using any force or compulsion, or pursuing any measure repugnant to their own ideas of civil or religious liberty? In short, and to sum up all in one word, how shall we be able to render these colonies more subservient to the interests, and more obedient to the laws and goverment of the mother coun­try, than they voluntarily chuse to be? After having pondered and revolved the affair over and over, I confess there seems to me to be but the five following proposals which can possibly be made, viz.’

[Page 95] I shall not need myself to accompany the Dean throughout this examination, in order to point out the fatal policy of attempting, and total im­practicability of executing, any one of the four first of these schemes, since he has done it so ef­fectually himself as to need no assistance. But though I agree with him in the result, that they are all both impolitic and impracticable, yet I differ widely from him in several arguments in­troduced in the discussion, and no less in the fundamental principles he frequently argues from. When he talks of the mother country governing 'in the manner she ought to do;' (p. 18) and according to the original terms of the constitution, I presume we are to understand the constitution to be some one individual con­tract between the mother country and her race of colonies, some certain deed signed and sealed be­tween them and her in due form. Is this the same constitution he told us of in p. 94, of which Magna Charta was the basis? But if terms or conditions be the marks of our constitution, it may indeed be a colony charter, a marriage act, a stamp act, or, in short, any act of Parliament, or of the crown either, so that it will be a mat­ter of very little consequence, whether it have Magna Charta for its basis, or any basis at all, besides that of the statute in being. Since he lays so much stress on those original terms, by which the colonies are bound to suffer their res­pectable mother to govern as he thinks ‘she ought to do,’ let us warn him not to rely too much upon analogical reasoning, since it is apt [Page 96] to prove too much. If he means that Great-Britain ought to be obeyed by her colonies, be­cause she is their mother, because she produced them, and gave them their law, and that her contracts with them, when in their infancy ought to bind them forever, he would do well to remember, that no civil contract, between a parent and an infant child, affecting the future property of that child, can possibly have any va­lidity, because of the child's being, at the time, in the power of the parent; because it dares not object to it, it cannot reject any terms she may please to dictate. I need not tell our author, that in the eye of the law, and agreeable to the spirit of the constitution, such a contract is esteemed no better than a fraud, or an act of the grossest tyranny.

Before I take my final leave of the four first of our author's proposals, I must make two observations upon what appears on the face of them. In the first place, let me request the reader to mark attentively the obvious sentiment, the unambiguous language of the second pro­posal. When the Dean is off his guard, and when the mistaken principles he adopted, respect­ing the sovereignty of parliament over America, are for a moment out of sight, see how naturally, how unavoidably he allows all I contend for!—Here he admits, by direct and unavoidable im­plication, that parliament hath not the rights of sovereignty over America; he admits, that Ame­rica is not a part of the British empire, or he could not possibly propose ‘to atempt to persuade [Page 97] the colonies to send representatives to sit in the British parliament, in order to incorporate America and Great Britain into one common empire.’ In the next place, I want to know, when, under the idea of an union, he has proposed to consent, that the seat of empire be transferred from Great Britain to America, why ‘every home-born Englishman’ should consider it as ‘such an indignity,’—The answer is plain, because he would become a slave; and while America shall be governed at Westminister, the Americans will be slaves. If our dignity consist in governing other nations against their wills, it is a dignity we ought to be ashamed of; but if it be the genuine offspring, and the associate of our liberty and independence, in God's name let our American kindred enjoy it as well as our­selves.

We now come to the consideration of the Dean's fifth and last proposal of an amicable and friendly separation, concerning which he very justly demands p. 50, ‘and, in fact, what is all this but natural, and even the necessary corollary to be deduced from each of the former reasons and observations?’ For, if we neither can govern the Americans, nor be governed by them; if we can neither unite with them, nor ought to subdue them, what remains, but ‘to part with them on as friendly terms as we can?’ This proposal, and the invincible arguments in its support, make ample amends for all the errors in the foregoing parts of his work. He shews himself to be master of this [Page 98] part of his subject; and it cannot be too much recommended to those whom I address in these letters, and to the people in general, to make themselves well acquainted with what he advan­ces. His much superior knowledge of our American commerce, places the good policy of a separation from America in a much stronger point of light than it was in my power to have done: but I flatter myself, I have sufficiently proved, that we could not have kept that coun­try in subjection without being tyrants. When justice and policy both point the same way, no­thing but determined wickedness, or a wilful blindness can occasion us to take a wrong course. With the favour of the reader, I must here re­peat one of the first observations I made on the Dean's work, as it strikes me afresh with re­doubled force every time I consider it, and and that is, that the proposed declaration of the independence of America, is a conclusion in di­rect opposition to his original premises. In his abstract reasonings on government, and the re­lation of colonies to the parent state, he falls—the common fate of genius on flippery abstract ground, into an error in fundamentals, laying it down as a principle, that 'parliament hath the rights of sovereignty over America;' and consequently, that 'America is actually a part of the British empire.'

These are the principles he sets out upon; but behold the result of all his subtle, all his la­boured reasonings!—At the end of a second work upon the subject, and after exhausting the [Page 99] chaotic treasuries of sophistry for arguments in support of these principles, he concludes with a proposal to the legislature, to declare that par­liament doth not claim these rights. Nay, but a minute before, and, as I have observed when off his guard, he acknowledges that parliament hath not these rights, and even proposes 'to at­tempt to persuade the colonies to agree to an uni­on.' There is something too irreconcileable in the idea as before remarked, of giving up one's rights, in order to promote one's interest; but false principles will ever produce fallacious rea­sonings. How can we possibly say more for an amicable separation from America, than that the absolute necessity of it took, as it were by storm, a mind naturally strong and vigorous, and forti­fied with all the powers of art against the attack! The Dean, in journeying to the great, the im­perial city of truth, whose eternal foundations occupy a rock that overlooks the country around, unfortunately sets off in a mist of prejudice.

Sometimes he takes a direct contrary course; sometimes intervals of a clearer light keep him steady in the right road; but then again, as the density of the mist either totally obstructs his view, or discovers truth in faint glimmerings, he fre­quently deviates into bye paths and hollow ways, to the danger of being lost, even when near his journey's end. At last, however the sun of con­viction bursts forth in meridian blaze, the mist is gone, and he arrives at the eternal city. But after having thus proposed a separation, ‘as the the only means of living in peace and harmony [Page 100] with the colonies:’ and, after having given reasons for it, in opposition to which, I must needs think no man can remain an infidel, who is not at the same time an ideot; our author is, in my opinion, far more faithless, far more hope­less, than at this time there seems cause to be with regard to the execution of his plan. His plan I call it, since he is for aught I know to the con­trary, the first who hath taken the pains to pro­pose it publicly, and to explain its advantages, although it has been for some time past a com­mon sentiment amongst discerning and liberal­minded men, and to propose it was the first motive to the writing, and the main drift of these letters. It has been more particularly a common sentiment (for indeed invention itself cannot hit on any other plausible expedient) ever since the late noble and indignant conduct (1) of the Americans in defence of their almost-undermined liberty, as this affords a sufficient demonstration to all intelligent minds, in which the love of li­berty and justice retained their influence, that the time is come, that they are determined to be in­dependent of Great-Britain, whether it be with her consent or not.

'I frankly acknowledge,' says our author, p. 63, ‘I propose no present convenience or ad-advantage to either administration or anti-ad­ministration; nay, I firmly believe, that no minister, as things are now circumstanced, will dare to do so much good to his country:’ whereas I, on my part, firmly believe, that Lord North is the minister who dares to do this great [Page 101] good to his country. He took the helm in a storm, when no other minister was to be found who could guide it; and he has given us through­out his administration, very ample proofs of his intrepidity? Are we not, at this moment under a general consternation at what may be the conse­quences of his intrepidity? Shall he dare in a single act that has no precedent, to shock this whole nation? Shall he dare to hurl a rash and misguided vengeance on the town of Boston, and bid a bold defiance to all America, and yet want courage to adopt a measure of the greatest wisdom and goodness; a measure which, to execute, he may esteem the glory of his life? The idea is too contradictory for a character so consistent as his.

There are conjunctures in the affairs of king­doms when none but an intrepid statesman can stem a head-long torrent of popular zeal, or avert a gathering storm which threatens his authority. If the urgent necessity of the case shall not admit of temperate measures, but shall demand a daring act of temporary violence, such a statesman, if he be wise and virtuous also, will avail himself of the short-lived calm that succeeds the conflict, and before the discontents of the people can break forth afresh with redoubled and irresistable im­petuosity, he will effectually remove them, by removing their causes, and by giving them a se­curity against future alarms. I hope that the late bill (2) will prove only a temporary violence, and that these moments, which are generally thought to be a sullen calm, foreboding some [Page 102] dreadful political convulsion, may be pregnant with more salutary measures and plans of peace (3) The remembrance of it will, in a moment, be done away, when Great-Britain shall once have done justice to the Americans, by an open de­claration of their independence, and by offering them her friendship. Our mutual jealousies will be buried in oblivion, and, as the Dean foretels, the Americans will then consider us as their pro­tectors, mediators, benefactors.

NOTHING now remains to be spoken of but the act of parliament necessary to that separation, proposed by the re­verend author of the tracts, and seconded in these letters; and that General treaty between Great-Britain and the states of America, which will be the necessary, and doubtless the immediate con­sequence of it. When Parliament shall have du­ly weighed this great, this important matter,—the greatest by far that ever came before any na­tional council whatever!—with the attention it merits, and in the temper recommended in my first letter, we may hope to see a nemine contradi­cente act, whose preamble shall run in some such form as the following viz.

‘Whereas, at the time of the original planting and settling of colonies on the continent of North-America by the people and the crown of these kingdoms; and afterwards, during the infancy of the said colonies, the future ill con­sequences of their submission to, and acqui­escence under the authority of parliament were not, by reason of their then infant and depend­ent state, and the general inexperience in mat­ters of that kind, either foreseen or duly attend­ed to; and whereas, through the growing of these once small and helpless colonies to matu­rity, and their becoming populous, opulent and respectable states, having each within itself the [Page 108] natural rights and proper powers of legislation, the exercise of parliamentary authority hath been found to clash in the most essential points with their respective internal legislatures, and hath tended for a considerable time past, but more par­ticularly of late years, to create dissatisfactions between the said internal legislatures and parlia­ment, and between the people of the said colo­nies and the people of these kingdoms; and whereas these matters having been taken into consideration, and it appearing upon the princi­ples of natural justice, and agreeable to the esta­blished maxims of civil government, that it is in­consistent with the welfare of the people of the said colonies or states, and prejudicial to their natural inherent rights as men, to be governed by the parliament of Great-Britain, or any other power foreign to themselves respectively: be it therefore enacted, &c.’ In the enumera­tion of their names, none of them (fifteen, I think, lying between the Gulph of St. Lawrence and the mouth of the Mississippi) will, I hope, be omitted, but those obtained partly by war and treaty inserted as well as the rest; and that in the clause, it shall be fully expressed, that ‘they are all held and declared to be free and independent states, each to be subject to such law and go­vernment only as now subsists, or shall hereafter be enacted and constituted within itself by its own proper legislature; and that of each and every of the said independent states, his Majesty is, and shall be held to be the sovereign head, in like manner as he is of the legislature of Great-Britain.’ [Page 109] In another clause, I could wish it might likewise be expressed, that ‘the parlia­ment of Great-Britain doth farther declare itself to be the guardian and protector of the whole, and of every of the said states or co­lonies, collectively and individually, against every foreign power whatsoever, as well as the guarantee of the independence of the said several colonies or states, one of another respectively and reciprocally, as well also of the rights and independencies of the several tribes or nations of Indians in amity with, or under the protection of the crown of these kingdoms, until these points shall be more particularly ad­justed by treaty.’ Another clause would proba­bly provide, that ‘commissioners on the part of the parliament of Great-Britain, shall be em­powered to enter into treaty with deputies of the legislatures of each of the said colonies or states, in order that a firm, brotherly, and per­petual league may be concluded between Great-Britain and them for their mutual com­mercial benefit, and their joint security against all other kingdoms and states, as well as for the preservation of that warm affection and harmo­ny which ought ever to subsist between a mo­ther country and her offspring, or kindred states, equally acknowledging one perfect con­stitution and one perfect religion, as their rule of life in temporals and in spirituals.’ The com­missioners will be nominated of course. Other de­clarations and provisions may be contained in this act, as parliament shall see good; but we should [Page 110] hope, as an indispensible requisite towards the se­curity of the general liberties, that it be enacted, that ‘no part of the revenue of any one of the said American states shall, by his Majesty, his viceroy, or ministers, be removed out of, or received into, any other of the said states, or into Great-Britain for his Majesty's use; and that in like manner, no part of the revenue of these kingdoms, shall be remitted to America on that account; but that the revenue of Great-Britain, and of each respective state in America, shall be wholly and solely applied to defray the expences of government, and main­tain the regal dignity in that country in which it shall be raised, and no other.’

Although, by those unhappy persons, who have no just ideas of right and wrong, and who have not intellects for perceiving, that the origi­nal power of Great-Britain over her colonies, is on the point of expiring beyond all help and re­medy, parliament may be supposed to be a loser by the proposed separation; yet all must confess that his Majesty will be a gainer, inasmuch as he will thereby receive fifteen independent king­doms in exchange for as many dependent, and hardly dependent provinces, and become the fa­ther of three millions of free and happy subjects, instead of reigning joint tyrant over so many dis­contented slaves, or losing by revolt so many of his people. What a divine glow of satisfaction must expand the royal bosom on an event so full of bliss, so consonant to humanity and to virtue!—an event more full of real lustre—more aggran­dizing [Page 111] by many degrees than ever before was ex­perienced by any earthly monarch—How poor, how contemptible, how hateful the triumphs of butchering conquerors compared to this solid glo­ry! May such a transcendant glory, be the glory of George the third.

We must not be surprized if shallow and de­signing men, some with real, some with affected ignorance, should cry out, ‘What! enter into treaty with fifteen independent states, and expect them unanimously to join with you in one ge­neral league for mutual advantage and security!’ How chimerical and visionary the project! (1) And I do not doubt, but that the swarm of hireling and prostitute scribblers, whose food is confusion, and whose very existence, like the vermin in an ulcer, is supported by the diseases of the state, will pour forth all their malignity, in order to discre­dit, and to damn if possible, a plan so wise and salutary. But their baneful influence will not, I trust, extend itself farther than to disturb, for a short time, the confused minds of our coffee-house politicians.

It will still be obvious to all sensible men, es­pecially to those who compose the national coun­cil, that when Great-Britain shall have done the noblest act of justice towards the Americans, that the annals of mankind can produce, they will, as one man, fly to her for protection, court her friendship, submit themselves to her advice, and be ready to put into her hands a chart blanche; and so long as she continues to act upon the same principles, she may undoubtedly influence each [Page 112] separate state, and dictate the terms of general ac­commodation without any fear of even future dis­satisfactions. To deny these conclusions, would be to deny that effects follow their causes.

The author of the tracts has already proved, that it is not our power, but the superior advan­tage of our trade, which secures to us the com­merce of the Americans, or that can secure it to us. We shall still have the same power to awe America into a faithful observance of her treaties, that we now have, to enforce a disputed and odi­ous sovereignty, and with this manifest advan­tage, that treating with each state separately, we shall only have one at a time to contend with; whereas we have experienced by our stamp and tea projects, that while we pretend to govern the whole, the whole will unite to resist us.

That bond of union once dissolved, and the na­tural and necessary jealousy of each other taking place, Great-Britain, as the common umpire, will become in effect the general sovereign, so long as she interposes her good offices for maintaining the common independence; and this her own interest will always dictate. Great Britain, will of course take care, in the first place, to recover all her debts in America, which, instead of bad debts, as they are now too justly esteemed to be, will, in the transports of their gratitude for a de­clared and guaranteed independence, be punctu­ally paid, though with their last shilling. Not to mention that fear of offending, (for Great-Bri­tain will then become truly formidable to each separate state) would effectually produce this ef­fect [Page 113] we shall, by the league secure on the most lasting foundation, every advantage of trade with America we now enjoy, and by the separation relieve ourselves from many heavy expences it now costs us; for a proof of which, I again refer to the Dean's work: we may then disband so much of our expensive and unconstitutional stand­ing army, as we now keep up on account of A­merica; and instead of being execrated, as we now are, for that fleet which blocks up their ports, and is commissioned to humble Boston to the dust, and through her sides, to gall every province on the continent, they will readily con­sent to its presence for seeing to the exact ful­filling of their treaties, and they will then look upon it with a friendly▪ an affectionate and re­spectful eye, while they consider it as their sure protector against invasion, their refuge in distress, and the avenger of their wrongs.—Not being able to pay Great-Britain in subsidies of ready money for her protection and friendship, they will grant her an equivalent in exclusive trade; and they will enter into some general stipulation for the mode and the measure of payment for any such extraordinary assistance of ships as they may at any time solicit, or we, penetrating the designs of our common enemies, may send to their assistance.

As for troops, a country containing millions of inhabitants, never can want any: let them rely upon the natural, the best resource—a national militia; but, for heaven's sake! never more let [Page 114] the face of a British soldier be seen in North-America.

A Flanders or a Germany, on the other side of the globe would be a grave wide enough to swallow the whole strength and treasure of this kingdom. The Americans are in no condition to set themselves up as a maritime power, or to support a navy fit to guard their own coasts, but must rely upon Great-Britain for their safety by sea, as indeed it will ever be their interest so to do, knowing by experience, that with regard to them, she is not a conquering, but a commercial state; and having reason to conclude, that a con­federacy of their maritime states would probably terminate, like that of Greece, in wars upon one another, and be perverted to answer the ends of ambition to some one, instead of protection to all. After what has been said, I need not point out (but for the sake of my timid and uninformed reader) that it will be totally unnecessary, and unbecoming the dignity of parliament, to hesitate a moment in passing the act of declaration, for fear the Americans should not afterwards consent to the league. 'Tis absurd to imagine they will act in contradiction to the principles of self interest and self-preservation, merely because they shall be free from controul; nor is it more possible to conceive, how they should object to a treaty with Great-Britain, merely because she had just done them an act of magnanimity and generosity un­parallelled in history, and given them an unde­niable proof, that she was intitled to their un­bounded confidence, particularly in its not being [Page 115] possible she should have any design upon their li­berties. Besides Great-Britain, until she have resigned her assumed sovereignty as the mother country, cannot, on the principles of equity, as before illustrated, give any validity to a contract with her children, while held in subjection to her authority. No! the generous spirit that shall set them free, will disdain the meanness of a proceeding so little and so distrustful; and that wisdom which could form so comprehensive a plan, will despise the crookedness and folly of such a narrow policy.

Thus have I given a faint sketch of the many and great benefits of an American league—the reader's imagination and judgment will finish the picture. If then he can think, that they do not infinitely preponderate against the advantages to be hoped for from persisting to assert our odious sovereignty, and plundering the colonies by ar­bitrary tax-gathers, I have only to say, that he and I can scarcely be made of the same common materials of humanity; but I shall begin to listen to those profound sages, whose acute penetration, assisted by a certain microscopic species of philo­sophy, hath discovered, that the Mosaic revela­tion is a fable, and that, instead of one, there are indeed many different races of men. On the one hand, the most we can expect is a forced and reluctant submission, with some advantages in trade; but these even for a very, very short period. Mean while, discontent and detestation, brooding in the bosoms of the colonists, will na­turally generate a rancorous hate and abhorrence; [Page 116] which, aided by our restless enemies the French, will shortly terminate in defiance and revenge. On the other hand—but repetition is needless. In short, the multiplying millions of America, must either be our deadly foes, or our steadfast friends. Great-Britain, take thy choice!

What remains, but that we renew our appeal to the manly sense and magnanimity of the great council of this kingdom; a kingdom, great and happy above all the kingdoms of the earth; a council the most august in the whole world, as nursed in the bosom of freedom, and trained in the true principles of just government and pure religion, of which they are the guardians! If men, thus favoured of heaven, thus enlightened, thus elevated, shall not set examples of sterling virtue, where, alas! shall we find it? Consult then your own hearts, ye legislators of Great-Britain! Be true to your own feelings, and let the moral sense prevail. If ye are conscious of a love of power, know that 'tis the genuine offspring of the love of liberty. This the root, that the branch. If your hearts be held in the curling branch's close embrace, think how, in the hearts of all men, the tenacious root strikes to the bottom, and twines it's clasping sibres around the very springs of life, never to lose their hold!

Remember that ye are now to decide on the fate of nations—perhaps your own. Remember the great legislator beholds your doings. Be your doings like unto his doings. Be tender to hu­manity; be firm to freedom; be inflexible to justice. Emancipate in one god-like act, a long [Page 117] roll of nations, whose names it is tedious to re­count. In one act, lift up the well-pleasing name of Great-Britain to Heaven, and spread her matchless fame to the ends of the wondering earth. The depth of her wisdom, the transcen­dency▪ of her virtue, shall be unexampled, and this act remain a monument of her great feli­city, an everlasting model of justice, and a theme of praise to all nations, and to all ages. Poten­tates have, unto dethroned Princes restored their ravished dominions; renowned monarchs, sated with ambition, and the abuse of authority, have, in the plenitude of their power, abdicated thrones; heroes and patriots have given freedom to their native countries; but for the present legislators of Great-Britain was reserved the superior, the supreme glory of bestowing in a foreign soil, li­berty on millions!