Of the Origin and Design of GOVERNMENT in general, with concise Remarks on the ENGLISH CONSTITUTION.

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas, they are not only different, but have diffe­rent origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness possitively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one en­courages intercourse, the other creates dis­tinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an into­lerable one: for when we suffer, or are ex­posed to the same miseries by a Government, which we might expect in a country without Government, our calamity is heightened by [Page 2] reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of Kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of Para­dise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistably obeyed, Man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to fur­nish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do, by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows, that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some se­qestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest; they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one [Page 3] man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and re­lief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the common period of life without ac­complishing any thing; when he had fell­ed his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death; for tho' neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish, than to die.

Thus necessity like a gravitating power would soon form our newly arrived emi­grants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unne­cessary while they remained perfectly just to each other: but as nothing but Heaven is im­pregnable to vice, it will unavoidably hap­pen that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound [Page 4] them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attach­ment to each other: and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Some convenient Tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which the whole Colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of REGULATIONS and be enforced by no other penalty than public dis-esteem. In this first parliament every man by natural right will have a seat.

But as the Colony encreases, the public concerns will encrease likewise, and the distance at which the members may be se­parated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at [Page 5] stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they pre­sent. If the colony continue encreasing, it will become necessary to augment the num­ber of the representatives, and that the in­terest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number: and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elec­tions often: because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the Public will be secured by the prudent reflexion of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent in­terchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of go­vernment; and the happiness of the governed.

Here then is the origin and rise of govern­ment; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the [Page 6] world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and Security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; how­ever prejudice may warp our wills, or in­terest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, 'tis right.

I draw my idea of the form of govern­ment from a principle in nature which no art can overturn, viz. That the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disorder­ed, and the easier repaired when disorder­ed; and with this maxim in view I offer a a few remarks on the so much boasted con­stitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was over-run with tyranny the least remove there­from was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and in­capable of producing what it seems to pro­mise is easily demonstrated.

Absolute governments, (tho' the disgrace of human nature) hath this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their [Page 7] suffering springs; know likewise the reme­dy; and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new Republican materials.

First.—The remains of Monarchical ty­ranny in the person of the King.

Secondly.—The remains of Aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the Peers.

Thirdly.—The new Republican materials, in the persons of the Commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

The two first by being hereditary are in­dependent [Page 8] of the People; wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the State.

To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning or they are flat contradic­tions.

To say that the Commons is a check upon the King, presupposes two things.

First.—That the King is not to be trusted without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of Monarchy.

Secondly.—That the Commons by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the Crown.

But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check the King by with-holding the supplies, gives after­wards the King a power to check the Com­mons by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the King is [Page 9] wiser than those, whom it has already suppos­ed to be wiser than him. A meer absurdity!

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of Monarchy; it first ex­cludes a man from the means of informati­on, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required.—The state of a king shuts him from the World, yet the business of a King requires him to know it thoroughly: wherefore, the dif­ferent parts by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.

Some writers have explained the English constitution thus; the King say they is one, the People another; the Peers are an house in behalf of the king; the Commons in be­half of the People; But this hath all the distinctions of an house divided against itself; and tho' the expressions be pleasantly arrang­ed, yet when examined they appear idle and ambiguous: and it will always happen, that the nicest construction that words are capa­ble of, when applied to the description of some thing which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within the com­pass of description, will be words of sound [Page 10] only, and tho they may amuse the car, they cannot inform the mind: for this explanation includes a previous question viz. how came the King by a power which the People are afraid to trust and always obliged to check? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise People, neither can any power which needs checking be from God: yet the provision which the constitution makes, supposes such a power to exist.

But the provision is unequal to the task, the means either cannot, or will not ac­complish the end, and the whole affair is a Felo de se: for as the greater weight will al­ways carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that will govern: and tho' the others, or a part of them, may clog, or as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavours will be ineffectual: the first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.

That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution needs not be men­tioned [Page 11] and that it derives its whole conse­quence merely from being the given of plac­es and pensions is self-evident, wherefore, tho' we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute Monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the Crown in possession of the key.

The prejudice of Englishmen in favour of their own government by King, Lords and Commons, arises as much or more from na­tional pride than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some other Countries: but the will of the King is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the People under the more formidable shape of an act of Parliament. For the fate of Charles the first, hath only made Kings more subtile—not more just.

Wherefore laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that it is wholly owing to the constitution of the People, and not to the constitution of the Government that the Crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey.

An enquiry into the constitutional errors [Page 12] in the English form of government, is at this time highly necessary; for as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under the in­fluence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice. And as a man who is attached to a prostitute is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a rotten constitu­tution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.

Of MONARCHY and hereditary succession.

MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance: the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure be ac­counted for, and that without having re­course to the harsh ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches: and tho avarice will pre­serve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.

[Page 13]But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of Men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of Heaven; but how a race of Men came into the World so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.

In the early ages of the World according to the Scripture chronology there were no Kings; the consequence of which was there were no wars; it is the pride of Kings which throws mankind into confusion. Holland without a King hath enjoyed more peace for this last century, than any of the Monar­chical governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first Patriarchs hath a hap­py something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish roy­alty.

Government by Kings was first introduc­ed into the World by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the cus­tom. [Page 14] It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honours to their deceased Kings, and the Christian World hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impi­ous is the title of sacred Majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!

As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of Government by Kings. All ante-monar­chical parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical go­vernments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of Countries which have their governments yet to form. ‘ Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's’ is the scripture doctrine of Courts, yet it is no support of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a King and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.

Near three thousand years passed away [Page 15] from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a King. Till then, their form of govern­ment (except in extraordinary cases where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of Re­public administred by a judge and the elders of the Tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any Being under that title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the ido­latrous homage which is paid to the per­sons of Kings, he need not wonder that the Almighty ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of Hea­ven.

Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The his­tory of that transaction is worth attending to.

The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched against them with a small army, and victory thro' the divine interposition decided in his fa­vour. The Jews elate with success, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, ‘ Rule [Page 16] thou over us, thou and thy son and thy son's son.’ Here was temptation in it's fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but an here­ditary one, but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, ‘ I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you, THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU.’ Words need not be more explicit; Gideon doth not decline the honour, but denieth their right to give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive stile of a Prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper Sovereign the King of Heaven.

About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly unaccountable; but so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons who were entrusted with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel saying, behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a King to judge us like all the other nations. And here we cannot but observe that their motives were bad, viz. that they might be like unto other [Page 17] nations, i. e. the Heathens, whereas their true glory laid in being as much unlike them as possible. But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, give us a King to judge us: and Sa­muel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel bearken unto the voice of the People in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me and served other Gods: so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and shew them the manner of the King that shall reign over them. i. e. not of any particular King, but the general manner of the Kings of the Earth whom Israel was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the great distance of time and difference of manners, the character is still in fashion. " And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the People, that asked of him a King. And he said this shall be the manner of the King that shall reign over you. He will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his chariots and to be his horse-men, and some shall run be­fore his chariots." (This description agrees [Page 18] with the present mode of impressing men) " and he will appoint him Captains over thous­ands and captains over fifties, and will set them to car his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers." (This describes the expence and luxury as well as the oppression of Kings) " and he will take your fields and your vineyards and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his ser­vants." (By which we see that bribery, cor­ruption, and favouritism, are the standing vices of Kings.) " And he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid servants, and your goodliest young men and your asses, and put them to his work: and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his ser­vants, and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY". This accounts for the continuation of Monarchy; neither do the characters of the few good Kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the sin­fulness of the origin; the high encomium [Page 19] given of David takes no notice of him offici­ally as a King, but only as a Man after God's own heart. "Nevertheless the People refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said nay but we will have a King over us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our King may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles." Samuel continued to reason with them but to no purpose, he set before them their ingratitude but all would not avail, and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out " I will call unto the Lord and he shall send thunder and rain (which then was a pun­ishment being in the time of wheat harvest) that ye may perceive and see that your wicked­ness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, IN ASKING YOU A KING. So Sa­muel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the People greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the People said unto Samuel pray for thy ser­vants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL. TO ASK A KING". These portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchical government is true, or the scripture is false. And a man hath good [Page 20] reason to believe that there is as much of king­craft, as priest-craft, in witholding the scrip­ture from the Public in Popish conntries. For Monarchy in every instance is the Popery of Government.

To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and tho' himself might deserve some decent degree of honours of his cotempora­ries, yet his descendants might be far too un­worthy to inherit them. One of the strong­est natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in Kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an Ass for a Lion.

Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honours than were bestow­ed upon him, so the givers of those honours could have no power to give away the right of posterity, and tho' they might say "we choose you for our head" they could not with­out [Page 21] manifest injustice to their children say "that your children and your children's children shall reign over ours for ever. Be­cause such an unwise, unjust, unnatural com­pact might, (perhaps) in the next succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool. Most wise men in their private sentiments have ever treated hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils, which when once established is not easily re­moved; many submit from fear, others from superstition, and the more powerful part shares with the King the plunder of the rest."

This is supposing the present race of Kings in the World to have had an honorable ori­gin: whereas it is more than probable, that could we take off the dark covering of anti­quity and trace them to their first rise, that we should find the first of them nothing better than the principal Russian of some rest­less Gang, whose savage manners or pre­eminence in subtilty obtained him the title of chief among Plunderers: and who by increas­ing in power and extending his depredations, overawed the quiet and defenceless to pur­chase their safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no idea of giving hereditary right to his descendants, because [Page 22] such a perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and unrestrained principles they prosessed to live by. Where­fore, hereditary succession in the early ages of Monarchy could not take place as a matter of claim, but as something casual or com­plimental; but as few or no records were extant in those days, and traditionary history stuff'd with fables, it was very easy after the lapse of a few generations, to trump up some superstitious tale conveniently timed, Mahomet like, to cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threatened, or seemed to threaten, on the decease of a leader and the choice of a new one (for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly) induced many at first to favour hereditary pretensi­ons; by which means it happened, as it hath happened since, that what at first was submitted to as a convenience was afterwards claimed as a right.

England since the conquest hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned be­neath a much larger number of bad ones: yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very honourable one. A French Bastard [Page 23] landing with an armed Banditti and esta­blishing himself King of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original.—It certainly hath no divinity in it. However it is need­less to spend much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right, if there are any so weak as to believe it, let them pro­miscuously worship the Ass and Lion and welcome. I shall neither copy their humili­ty nor disturb their devotion.

Yet I should be glad to ask how they sup­pose Kings came at first? the question ad­mits but of three answers, viz. either by lot, by election or by usurpation. If the first King was taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary succession. Saul was by lot yet the succession was not hereditary, neither does it appear from that transaction there was any intention it ever should. If the first King of any country was by election that likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say that the right of all future genera­tions is taken away by the act of the first Electors in their choice not only of a King, but of a family of Kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine [Page 24] of original sin, which supposes the free-will of all men lost in Adam: and from such comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in the first Electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as our innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and as both disable us from re­assuming some former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are parallels. Dishono­rable rank! inglorious connection! yet the most subtile sophist cannot produce a juster simile.

As to usurpation no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and that William the con­queror was a usurper is a fact not to be contradicted. The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English monarchy will not bear looking into.

But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns Mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the fool­ish, the wicked, and the improper, it hath [Page 25] in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey. soon grow insolent—se­lected from the rest of Mankind their minds are easily poisoned by importance; and the World they act in differs so ma­terially from the World at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ig­norant and unfit of any throughout the do­minions.

Another evil which attends hereditary suc­cession, is, that the throne is subject to be pos­sessed by a minor at any age; all which time the Regency acting under the cover of a King have every opportunity and inducement to betray their trust. The same national misfortune happens when a King worn out with age and infirmity enters the last stage of human weakness. In both these cases the Public becomes a prey to every miscre­ant, who can tamper successfully with the follies either of age or infancy

The most plausible plea which hath ever been offered in favour of hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a Nation from civil wars; [Page 26] and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas it is the most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole histo­ry of England disowns the fact. Thirty Kings and two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which time there have been (including the Revolution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen Rebellions. Wherefore, instead of making for peace, it makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on.

The contest for monarchy and succession between the houses of York and Lancaster laid England in a scene of blood for many years. Twelve pitched battles besides skir­mishes and sieges were fought between Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was prisoner to Henry. And so uncertain is the fate of war and the temper of a Nation, when nothing but personal matters are the ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace, and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land: Yet as sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his turn was driven from the throne and Edward [Page 27] recalled to succeed him. The parliament always following the strongest side.

This contest began in the reign of Henry the sixth and was not entirely extinguished till Henry the seventh, in whom the fami­lies were united. Including a period of 67 years, viz. from 1422 to 1489.

In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but the World in blood and ashes. 'Tis a form of government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it.

If we enquire into the business of a King we shall find that in some countries they have none; and after sauntering away their lives without pleasure to themselves or ad­vantage to the Nation, withdraw from the scene and leave their successors to tread the same idle round. In absolute monarchies the whole weight of business civil and mili­tary lies on the King; the children of Israel in their request for a King urged this plea "that he may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles." But in countries where he is neither a judge nor a general as in England, a man would be puzzled to know what is his business.

[Page 28]The nearer any government approaches to a Republic the less business there is for a King. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name for the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a Republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the Crown by having all the places in its dis­posal, hath so effectually swallowed up the the power, and eaten out the virtue of the House of Commons (the Republican part in the constitution) that the government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding them. For 'tis the republican and not the monar­chical part of the constitution of England which English men glory in, viz. the li­berty of choosing an House of Commons from out of their own body—and it is easy to see that when Republican virtue fails, slavery ensues. Why is the constitution of England sickly? but because monarchy hath poisoned the Republic; the Crown hath engrossed the Commons.

In England a King hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the [Page 29] Nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be al­lowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crown­ed Russians that ever lived.

THOUGHTS, on the present STATE of AMERICAN AFFAIRS.

IN the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense: and have no other pre­liminaries to settle with the Reader, than that he will divest himself of prejudice and pre­possession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves: that he will put on or rather that he will not put off the true character of a man, and gene­rously enlarge his views beyond the present day.

Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between England and Ame­rica. Men of all ranks have embarked in the controversy, from different motives, and with various designs; but all have been [Page 30] ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed. Arms as the last resource decide the contest: the appeal was the choice of the King, and the Continent has accepted the challenge.

It hath been reported of the late Mr. Pel­ham (who tho' an able minister was not without his faults) that on his being attack­ed in the House of Commons on the score that his measures were only of a temporary kind, replied " they will last my time." Should a thought so fatal and unmanly possess the Colonies in the present contest, the name of ancestors will be remembered by future generations with detestation.

The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the affair of a City, a County, a Province or a Kingdom; but of a Continent—of at least one eight part of the habitable Globe. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected even to the end of time by the proceedings now. Now is the the seed time of continental union, saith, and honour. The least fracture now, will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young oak; the [Page 31] wound will enlarge with the tree, and pos­terity read it in full grown characters.

By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new aera for politics is struck—a new method of thinking hath arisen. All plans, proposals, &c. prior to the 19th of April, i. e. to the commencement of hosti­lities, are like the almanacks of the last year; which tho proper then, are superceded and useless now. Whatever was advanced by the advocates on either side of the question then, terminated in one and the same point, viz. a union with Great Britain; the only difference between the parties, was the method of effecting it; the one proposing force, the other friendship; but it hath so far happened that the first hath failed, and the second hath withdrawn her influence.

As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation, which like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as we were, it is but right, that we should ex­amine the contrary side of the argument, and enquire into some of the many material injuries which these Colonies sustain, and al­ways will sustain, by being connected with, and dependant on Great Britain. To exa­mine [Page 32] that connection and dependance on the principles of nature and common sense, to see what we have to trust to if se­parated, and what we are to expect if de­pendant.

I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished under her former connection with Great Britain, that the same connection is necessary towards her future happiness and will always have the same effect—Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument:—we may as well assert that because a child hath thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer, roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more had no European power taken any notice of her. The commerce by which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.

But she has protected us says some. That she hath engrossed us is true, and defended the Continent at our expence as well as her [Page 33] own is admitted; and she would have de­fended Turkey from the same motive viz. the sake of trade and dominion.

Alas! we have been long led away by ancient prejudices and made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the pro­tection of Great Britain, without considering, that her motive was interest not attachment; that she did not protect us from our enemies on our account, but from her enemies on her own account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any other account, and who will always be our enemies on the same account. Let Britain wave her pretensions to the con­tinent, or the continent throw off the de­pendance, and we should be at peace with France and Spain were they at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last war ought to warn us against connections.

It hath lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no relation to each other but through the Parent Country, i. e. that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys and so on for the rest, are sister colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very round-about way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enemy­ship, [Page 34] if I may so call it. France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans but as our being the subjects of Great Britain.

But Britain is the parent country says some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly so, and the phrase, parent or mother country, hath been jesui­tically adopted by the King and his parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe and not England is the parent country of America. This new World hath been the asylum for the perse­cuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descen­dants still.

In this extensive quarter of the Globe, we [Page 35] forget the narrow limits of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of England) and carry our friendship on a larger scale; we claim brotherhood with every European Christian, and triumph in the generosity of the sentiment.

It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we surmount the force of local pre­judice as we enlarge our acquaintance with the World. A man born in any town in England divided into parishes, will naturally associate most with his fellow parishioners (because their interests in many cases will be com­mon) and distinguish him by the name of neighbour: if he meet him but a few miles from home, he drops the narrow idea of a street, and salutes him by the name of townsman: if he travel out of the country and meet him in any other, he forgets the minor divisions of street and town and calls him countryman. i. e. county-man: but if in their foreign excursions they should associate in France, or any other part of Europe, their local remembrance would be enlarged into that of Englishmen. And by a just panty of reasoning, all Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the Globe, are coun­trymen; for England, Holland, Germany, [Page 36] or Sweden, when compared with the whole, stand in the same places on the larger scale, which the divisions of street, town, and county do on the smaller ones; Distinctions too limited for Continental minds. Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of English de­scent. Wherefore, I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother country applied to England only, as being false, selfish, nar­row and ungenerous.

But admitting, that we were all of English descent, what does it amount to? Nothing. Britain being now an open enemy, extin­guishes every other name and title: and to say that reconciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The first king of England, of the present line (William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman, and half the Peers of England are descendants from the same country; where­fore, by the same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed by France.

Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the Colonies, that in conjunction, they might bid defiance to the world: But this is mere presumption, the sate of war is uncertain, neither do the ex­pressions [Page 37] mean any thing, for this Conti­nent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the British Arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.

Besides, what have we to do with setting the world at defiance. Our plan is com­merce, and that well attended to, will se­cure us the peace and friendship of all Eu­rope, because it is the interest of all Europe to have America a free port. Her trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver will secure her from invaders.

I challenge the warmest advocate for re­conciliation, to shew, a single advantage that this Continent can reap, by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge, not a single advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market in Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for buy them where we will.

But the injuries and disadvantages we sus­tain by that connection, are without num­ber, and our duty to mankind at large, as well as to ourselves, instruct us to renounce the alliance: Because any submission to, or dependance on Great Britain, tends directly [Page 38] to involve this Continent in European wars and quarrels. As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no political connec­tion with any part of it. 'Tis the true in­terest of America, to steer clear of European contentions, which she never can do, while by her dependance on Britain, she is made the make-weight in the scale of British politics.

Europe is too thickly planted with King­doms, to be long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because, of her connection with Britain. The next war may not turn out like the last, and should it not, the advocates for re­conciliation now, will be wishing for se­paration then, because neutrality in that case, would be a safer convoy than a man of war. Every thing that is right or reasonable pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, 'TIS TIME TO PART. Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural proof, that the authority of the one over the other, was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the Continent [Page 39] was discovered, adds weight to the argu­ment, and the manner in which it was peopled encreases the force of it.—The Reformation was preceded by the discovery of America; As if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship not safety.

The authority of Great Britain over this Continent is a form of government which sooner or later must have an end: And a serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward, under the painful and posi­tive conviction, that what he calls "the pre­sent constitution," is merely temporary. As parents, we can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure any thing which we may bequeath to posterity: And by a plain method of argu­ment, as we are running the next genera­tion into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and piti­fully. In order to discover the line of our duty rightly, we should take our children in our hand, and fix our station a few years far­ther into life; that eminence will present a prospect, which a few present fears and pre­judices conceal from our sight.

[Page 40]Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offence, yet I am inclined to believe, that all those who espouse the doctrine of reconciliation, may be included within the following descriptions. Interested men who are not to be trusted, weak men who cannot see, prejudiced men who will not see, and a certain set of moderate men who think better of the European world than it deserves; and this last class, by an ill judged deliberation, will be the cause of more cala­mities to this continent, than all the other three.

It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene of present sorrow; the evil is not sufficiently brought to their doors to make them feel the preca­riousness with which all American property is possessed. But let our imaginations transport us for a few moments to Bos­ton; that seat of wretchedness will teach us wisdom, and instruct us for ever to re­nounce a power in whom we can have no trust. The inhabitants of that unfortunate city who but a few months ago were in ease and affluence, have now no other alternative than to stay and starve, or turn out to beg. Endangered by the fire of their friends if [Page 41] they continue within the city, and plunder­ed by government if they leave it. In their present condition they are prisoners without the hope of redemption, and in a general attack for their relief, they would be expos­ed to the fury of both armies.

Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Britain, and still hoping for the best are apt to call out. ‘ Come, come, we shall be friends again for all this.’ But examine the passions and feelings of mankind: Bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me, whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? if you cannot do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connection with Britain whom you can neither love nor honour, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time, fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your [Page 42] wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and your­self the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and still can shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a syco­phant.

This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying them by those feelings and affections which nature justifies, and without which, we should be incapable of discharging the social duties of life, or en­joying the felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some fixed object. 'Tis not in the power of England or of Europe to con­quer America, it she doth not conquer her­self by delay and timidity. The present winter is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost or neglected, the whole continent [Page 43] will partake of the misfortune; and there is no punishment which that man doth not de­serve, be he, who, or what, or where he will, that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and useful.

'Tis repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things, to all examples from former ages, to suppose, that this continent can long remain subject to any external power. The most sanguine in Britain doth not think so. The utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot at this time, compass a plan, short of separation, which can promise the continent even a year's security. Reconciliation is now a fallacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connection, And Art cannot supply her place. For as Milton wisely expresses "never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep."

Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our prayers have been rejected with disdain; and hath tended to convince us that nothing flatters vanity or confirms obstinacy in Kings more than repeated pe­titioning—and nothing hath contributed more, than that very measure, to make the Kings of Europe absolute. Witness Den­mark [Page 44] and Sweden. Wherefore, since no­thing but blows will do, for god's sake let us come to a final separation, and not leave the next generation to be cutting throats under the violated unmeaning names of parent and child.

To say, they will never attempt it again is idle and visionary, we thought so at the repeal of the stamp-act, yet a year or two undeceived us; as well may we suppose that nations which have been once defeated will never renew the quarrel.

As to government matters 'tis not in the power of Britain to do this continent jus­tice: The business of it will soon be too weighty and intricate to be managed with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a power so distant from us, and so very ignor­ant of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. To be always running three or four thousand miles with a tale or a petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which when obtain­ed requires five or six more to explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon as folly and childishness—There was a time when it [Page 45] was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease.

Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for go­vernment to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a Continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America with respect to each other reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different systems. England to Europe: America to itself.

I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to espouse the doctrine of Separation and independance; I am clear­ly, positively, and conscientiously persuaded that 'tis the true interest of this continent to be so; that every thing short of that is mere patchwork, that it can afford no lasting felicity,—that it is leaving the sword to our children, and shrinking back at a time, when, a little more, a little farther, would have rendered this continent the glory of the earth.

[Page 46]As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination towards a compromise, we may be assured that no terms can be obtained worthy the acceptance of the continent, or any ways equal to the expence of blood and treasure we have been already put to.

The object contended for, ought always to bear some just proportion to the expence. The removal of North, or the whole de­testable junto, is a matter unworthy the millions we have expended. A temporary stoppage of trade was an inconvenience, which would have sufficiently ballanced the repeal of all the acts complained of, had such repeals been obtained; but if the whole Continent must take up arms, if every man must be a soldier, 'tis scarcely worth our while to fight against a contemptible ministry only. Dearly, dearly, do we pay for the re­peal of the acts, if that is all we sight for; for in a just estimation, 'tis as great a folly to pay a Bunker-hill price for law as for land. As I have always considered the independancy of this Continent, as an event which sooner or later must arrive, so from the late rapid progress of the Continent to maturity, the e­vent could not be far of: Wherefore, on the breaking out of hostilities, it was not worth [Page 47] the while to have disputed a matter, which time would have finally redressed, unless we meant to be in earnest: otherwise it is like wasting an estate on a suit at law, to regu­late the trespasses of a tenant, whose lease is just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself, before the fatal 19th of April 1775, but the mo­ment the event of that day was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen tempered Pharoah of England for ever; and disdain the wretch, that with the pretended title of FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul.

But admitting that matters were now made up, what would be the event? I an­swer, the ruin of the Continent. And that for several reasons.

First. The powers of governing still re­maining in the hands of the King, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this Continent: And as he hath shewn him­self such an inveterate enemy to liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power; Is he, or is he not, a proper man to say to these Colonies, you shall make no laws but [Page 48] what I please." And is there any inhabitant in America so ignorant, as not to know, that according to what is called the present constitution, that this Continent can make no laws but what the King gives leave to; and is there any man so unwise, as not to fee, that (considering what has happen­ed) he will suffer no laws to be made here, but such as suit his purpose. We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us in England. After matters are made up (as it is called) can there be any doubt, but the whole power of the crown will be exerted to keep this Continent as low and humble as possible? Instead of going for­ward, we shall go backward, or be per­petually quarrelling or ridiculously petition­ing.—We are already greater than the King wishes us to be, and will he not here­after endeavour to make us less. To bring the matter to one point, Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power to govern us? Whoever says No to this question is an Independant, for independancy means no more than whether we shall make our own laws, or, whether the King the greatest enemy this continent hath, or can [Page 49] have, shall tell us ‘ there shall be no laws but such as I like.’

But the King you'll say hath a negative in England; the people there can make no laws without his consent. In point of right and good order, there is something very re­diculous, that a youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall say to six millions of people older and wiser than himself, I forbid this or that act of yours to be law." But in this place I decline this sort of re­ply, tho' I will never cease to expose the absurdity of it, and only answer, that Eng­land being the King's residence, and Ame­rica not so, makes quite another case. The King's negative here is ten times more dan­gerous and fatal than it can be in England, for there he will scarcely refuse his consent to a bill for putting England into as strong a state of defence as possible, and here he would never suffer such a bill to be passed.

America is only a secondary object in the system of British politics, England consults the good of this country, no farther, than it answers her own purpose. Wherefore her own interest leads her to suppress the growth of ours in every [Page 50] case which doth not promote her advantage, or in the least interferes with it. A pretty state we should soon be in, under such a second-hand government, considering what has happened! Men do not change from enemies to friends by the alteration of a name: And in order to shew that reconcilia­tion now is a dangerous doctrine, I affirm, that it would be policy in the King at this time, to repeal the acts for the sake of rein­stating himself in the government of the pro­vinces; in order that HE MAY ACCOMPLISH BY CRAFT AND SUBTILTY, IN THE LONG RUN, WHAT HE CANNOT DO BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE IN THE SHORT ONE. Re­conciliation and ruin are nearly related.

Secondly.—That as even the best terms which we can expect to obtain, can amount to no more than a temporary expedient, or a kind of government by guardianship, which can last no longer than till the colonies come of age, so the general face and state of things in the interim will be unsettled and unpro­missing: Emigrants of property will not choose to come to a country whose form of government hangs but by a thread, and who is every day tottering on the brink of com­motion and disturbance: And numbers of [Page 51] the present inhabitants would lay hold of the interval to dispose of their effects, and quit the continent.

But the most powerful of all arguments is, that nothing but independance i. e. a continental form of government, can keep the peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from civil wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as it is more than probable, that it will be follow­ed by a revolt some where or other, the consequences of which may be far more fatal than all the malice of Britain.

Thousands are already ruined by British bar­barity; (thousands more will probably suf­fer the same fate;) Those men have other feelings than us who have nothing suffered. All they now possess is liberty, what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to its service, and having nothing more to lose, they dis­dain submission. Besides, the general tem­per of the colonies towards, a British govern­ment, will be like that of a youth, who is nearly out of his time; they will care very little about her: And a government which cannot preserve the peace, is no government at all, and in that case we pay our money [Page 52] for nothing; and pray what is it that Bri­tain can do, whose power will be wholly on paper, should a civil tumult break out the very day after reconciliation? I have heard some men say, many of whom I believe spoke without thinking, that they dreaded an in­dependance, fearing that it would produce civil wars: It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly correct, and that is the case here; for there are ten times more to dread from a patched up connection, than from independance. I make the sufferers case my own, and I protest, that were I driven from house and home, my property destroyed, and my circumstances ruined, that as a man sensible of injuries, I could never relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or consider myself bound thereby.

The Colonies hath manifested such a spi­rit of good order and obedience to Conti­nental government, as is sufficient to make every reasonable person easy and happy on that head. No man can assign the least pretence for his fears, on any other grounds, than such as are truly childish and ridiculous, viz. that one Colony will be striving for su­periority over another.

[Page 53]Where there are no distinctions, there can be no superiority; perfect equality af­fords no temptation. The republics of Europe are all, (and we may say always) in peace. Holland and Swisserland, are with­out wars, foreign or domestic: Monarchi­cal governments, it is true, are never long at rest; the Crown itself is a temptation to enterprising ruffians at home; and that de­gree of pride and insolence ever attendant on regal authority, swells into a rupture with foreign powers, in instances, where a republican government by being formed on more natural principles, would negociate the mistake.

If there is any true cause for fear respec­ting independance, it is because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not see their way out—Wherefore, as an opening into that business I offer the following hints; at the same time modestly affirming, that I have no other opinion of them myself, than that they may be the means of giving rise to something better. Could the straggling thoughts of individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials for wise and able men to improve into useful mat­ter.

[Page 54]LET the assemblies be annual with a pre­sident only. The representation more equal. Their business wholly domestic, and subject to the authority of a continental congress.

Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten, convenient districts, each dis­trict to send a proper number of Delegates to Congress, so that each Colony send at least thirty. The whole number in Con­gress will be at least 390. Each Congress to sit and to choose a president by the following method. When the Dele­gates are met, let a colony be taken from the whole thirteen Colonies by lot, after which let the whole Congress choose (by ballot) a president from out of the Delegates of that province. In the next Congress let a Colony be taken by lot from twelve only, omitting that Colony from which the pre­sident was taken in the former Congress, and so proceeding on till the whole thirteen shall have had their proper rotation. And in order that nothing may pass into a law but what is satisfactorily just, not less than three fifths of the Congress to be called a majority.—He that will promote discord under a government so equally formed as this, would have joined Lucifer in his revolt.

[Page 55]But as there is a peculiar delicacy from whom, or in what manner, this business must first arise, and as it seems most agree­able and consistent, that it should come from some intermediate body between the governed and the governors, that is, between the Congress and the People, let a CON­TINENTAL CONFERENCE be held in the following manner, and for the following purpose.

A committee of twenty six members of Congress, viz. Two for each Colony. Two members from each house of Assembly, or Provincial convention; and five Repre­sentatives of the people at large, to be cho­sen in the capital city or town of each pro­vince, for▪ and in behalf of the whole pro­vince, by as many qualified voters as shall think proper to attend from all parts of the province for that purpose; or if more con­venient, the Representatives may be chosen in two or three of the most populous parts thereof. In this CONFERENCE thus assem­bled, will be united the two grand prin­ciples of business, knowlege and power. The members of Congress, Assemblies, or Conventions, by having had experience in national concerns, will be able and use­ful [Page 56] counsellors, and the whole, by being impowered by the people, will have a truly legal authority.

The conferring Members being met, lot their business be to frame a CONTINENTAL CHARTER, or Charter of the United Colonies; (answering, to what is called the Magna Charta of England) fixing the number and manner of choosing Members of Congress, Members, of Assembly, with their date of sitting, and drawing the line of business and jurisdiction between them: (Always re­membering, that our strength and happiness, is Continental, not Provincial.) Securing freedom and property to all men, and above all things, the free exercise of reli­gion, according to the dictates of con­science; with such other matters as is ne­cessary for a Charter to contain. Immedi­ately after which, the said conference to dissolve, and the bodies which shall be cho­sen conformable to the said Charter, to be the Legislators and Governors of this Continent, for the time being: Whose peace and happiness, may God preserve. AMEN.

Should any body of men be hereafter [Page 57] delegated for this or some similar purpose, I offer them the following extracts from that wise observer on governments DRAGO­NETTI.

But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above; and doth not make havoc of man­kind like the Royal Brute of Great Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honours, let a day be so­lemnly set apart for proclaiming the Char­ter; let it be brought forth placed on the Divine Law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the World may know, that so far as we approve of monar­chy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is Law, so in free Countries the Law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, [Page 58] let the Crown at the conclusion of the cere­mony be demolished, and scattered among the People whose right it is.

A government of our own is our natural right: and when a man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he will become convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a constitution of our own, in a cool deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance. If we omit it now, some ^* Massanello may hereafter arise, who laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the despe­rate and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves the powers of government, may sweep away the liberties of the Con­tinent like a deluge. Should the govern­ment of America return again into the hands of Britain, the tottering situation of things, will be a temptation for some despe­rate adventurer to try his fortune; and in such a case, what relief can Britain give? Ere she could hear the news, the fatal bus­siness might be done; and ourselves suffer­ing [Page 59] like the wretched Britons under the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose independance now, ye know not what ye do: ye are opening a door to eternal ty­ranny, by keeping vacant the seat of go­vernment. There are thousands, and tens of thousands, who would think it glori­ous to expel from the Continent, that barbarous and hellish power, which have stirred up the Indians and the Negroes to destroy us, the cruelty hath a double guilt, it is dealing brutally by us, and teacher­ously by them.

To talk of friendship with those in whom our reason forbids us to have faith, and our affections wounded thro' a thousand pores instruct us to detest, is madness and folly. Every day wears out the little remains of kin­dred between us and them, and can there be any reason to hope, that as the relationship expires, the affection will encrease, or that we shall agree better, when we have ten times more and greater concerns to quarrel over than ever?

Ye that tell us of harmony and reconcili­ation, can ye restore to us the time that is past? Can ye give to prostitution its former innocence? Neither can ye reconcile Britain and America. The last cord now is broken, [Page 60] the people of England are presenting ad­dresses against us. There are injuries which nature cannot forgive; she would cease to be nature if she did. As well can the lover forgive the ravisher of his mistress, as the Continent forgive the murders of Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us these unextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes. They are the Guardians of his Image in our hearts. They distinguish us from the herd of common animals. The social compact would dissolve, and justice be extirpated the earth, or have only a casual existence were we callous to the touches of affection. The robber and the murderer would often escape unpunished, did not the injuries which our tempers sus­tain, provoke us into justice.

O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only the tyranny, but the ty­rant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is over-run with oppression. Free­dom hath been hunted round the Globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her.—Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to de­part. O! receive the fugitive, and pre­pare in time an asylum for mankind.

OF THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA, WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS REFLECTIONS.

I Have never met with a man, either in England or America, who hath not confessed his opinion, that a separation between the countries, would take place, one time or other: And there is no in­stance, in which we have shewn less judg­ment; than in endeavouring to describe what we call, the ripeness or fitness of the Continent for independance.

As all men allow the measure, and vary only in their opinion of the time, let us in order to remove mistakes, take a general survey of things, and endeavour if possible, to find out the very time. But I need not go far, the enquiry ceases at once, for, the time hath found us. The general con­currence, the glorious of union all things, prove the fact.

'Tis not in numbers but in unity that our great strength lies: yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the force of all the world. The Continent hath at this time the largest disciplined army of any [Page 62] power under Heaven: and is just arrived at that pitch of strength, in which no single Colony is able to support itself, and the whole, when united, is able to do any thing. Our land force is more than sufficient, and as to Navy affairs, we cannot be insensible that Britain would never suffer an American Man of War to be built, while the Continent remained in her hands. Wherefore, we should be no forwarder an hundred years hence, in that branch than we are now; but the truth is, we should be less so, be­cause the timber of the Country is every day diminishing.

Were the Continent crowded with inha­bitants, her sufferings under the present circumstances would be intolerable. The more sea port Towns we had, the more should we have both to defend and to lose. Our present numbers are so happily propor­tioned to our wants, that no man need be idle. The diminution of trade affords an army, and the necessities of an army creates a new trade.

Debts we have none: and whatever we may contract on this account will serve as a glorious memento of our virtue. Can we [Page 63] but leave posterity with a settled form of government, an independant constitution of it's own, the purchase at any price will be cheap. But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few vile acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is un­worthy the charge, and is using posterity with the utmost cruelty; because it is leaving them the great work to do and a debt upon their backs from which they derive no ad­vantage. Such a thought is unworthy a man of honour, and is the true characteris­tic of a narrow heart and a pedling politi­cian.

The debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard if the work be but accomplished. No nation ought to be without a debt. A national debt is a national bond: and when it bears no interest, is in no case a grievance. Britain is oppressed with a debt of upwards of one hundred and forty millions sterling, for which she pays upwards of four millions interest. And as a compensation for her debt, she has a large navy; America is without a debt, and without a navy; but for the twentieth part of the English national debt, could have a navy as large a­gain. The navy of England is not worth [Page 64] at this time more than three millions and an half sterling.

No country on the globe is so happily situated, or so internally capable of raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron, and cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing. Whereas the Dutch, who make large profits by hiring out their ships of war to the Spaniards and Portuguese, are obliged to import most of the materials they use. We ought to view the building a fleet as an article of commerce, it being the natural manufactory of this country. 'Tis the best money we can lay out. A navy when finished is worth more than it cost: And is that nice point in national policy, in which commerce and protection are united. Let us build; if we want them not, we can sell; and by that means re­place our paper currency with ready gold and silver.

In point of manning a fleet, people in general run into great errors; it is not ne­cessary that one fourth part should be sailors. The Terrible Privateer, Capt. Death, stood the hottest engagement of any ship last war, yet had not twenty sailors on board, [Page 65] though her complement of men was up­wards of two hundred. A few able and social sailors will soon instruct a sufficient number of active landmen in the common work of a ship. Wherefore, we never can be more capable to begin on maritime mat­ters than now, while our timber is standing, our fisheries blocked up, and our sailors and shipwrights out of employ. Men of war, of seventy and eighty guns were built forty years ago in New-England, And why not the same now? Ship-building is Ame­rica's greatest pride, and in which, she will in time excel the whole world. The great empires of the east are mostly inland, and consequently excluded from the possibility of rivalling her. Africa is in a state of barbarism; and no power in Europe, hath either such an extent of coast, or such an internal supply of materials. Where nature hath given the one, she has with-held the other; to America only hath she been li­beral of both. The vast empire of Russia is almost shut out from the sea; wherefore, her boundless forrests, her tar, iron, and cordage are only articles of commerce.

In point of safety, ought we to be with­out a fleet? We are not the little people [Page 66] now, which we were sixty years ago, at that time we might have trusted our pro­perty in the streets, or fields rather; and slept securely without locks or bolts to our doors and windows. The case now is alter­ed, and our methods of defence, ought to improve with our increase of property. A common pirate, twelve months ago, might have come up the Delaware, and laid the city of Philadelphia under instant contribu­tion for what sum he pleased; and the same might have happened to other places. Nay, any daring fellow in a brig of 14 or 16 guns might have robbed the whole continent, and carried off half a million of money. These are circumstances which demand our attention, and point out the necessity of naval protection.

Some perhaps will say, that after we have made it up with Britain that she will protect us. Can we be so unwise as to mean, that she shall keep a Navy in our Harbours for that purpose? Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavoured to subdue us, is of all others, the most im­proper to defend us. Conquest may be ef­fected under the pretence of friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resis­tance [Page 67] be at last cheated into slavery. And if her ships are not to be admitted into our Harbours, I would ask, how is she to protect us? A Navy three or four thousand miles off can be of little use, and on sudden emergencies, none at all. Wherefore if we must hereafter protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves? why do it for another?

The English list of ships of war, is long and formidable, but not a tenth part of them are at any one time fit for service, numbers of them not in being; yet their names are pompously continued in the list if only a plank is left of the ship: and not a fifth part of such as are fit for service, can be spared on any one station at one time. The East, and West Indies, Mediterranean, Africa, and other parts over which Britain extends her claim, make large demands upon her Navy. From a mixture of pre­judice and inattention, we have contracted a false notion respecting the Navy of England, and have talked as if we should have the whole of it to encounter at once, and for that reason, supposed, that we must have one as large; which not being instantly practicable, have been made use of by a set of disguised Tories to discourage our be­ginning [Page 68] thereon. Nothing can be farther from truth than this, for if America had only a twentieth part of the naval force of Britain, she would be by far an over match for her; because as we neither have, nor claim any foreign dominion, our whole force would be employed on our own Coast, where we should, in the long run, have two to one the advantage of those who had three or four thousand miles to sail over, before they could attack us, and the same dis­tance to return in order to refit and recruit. And although Britain by her fleet hath a check over our trade to Europe, we have as large a one over her trade to the West Indies, which, by laying in the neighbourhood of the Continent lies entirely at it's mercy.

Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval force in time of peace, if we should not judge it necessary to support a constant Navy. If premiums were to be given to Merchants to build and employ in their service, Ships mounted with 20, 30, 40 or 50 guns (the premiums to be in proportion to the loss of bulk to the mer­chant) fifty or sixty of those ships, with a few guard ships on constant duty would keep up a sufficient Navy, and that without bur­dening [Page 69] ourselves with the evil so loudly complained of in England, of suffering their Fleets in time of peace to lie rotting in the docks. To unite the sinews of commerce and defence is sound policy; for when our strength and our riches, play into each other's hand, we need fear no external ene­my.

In almost every article of defence we abound. Hemp flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage. Our iron small arms equal to any in the World. Cannon we can cast at pleasure. Salt-petre and gun powder we are every day produc­ing. Our knowledge is hourly improving. Resolution is our inherent character, and courage hath never yet forsaken us. Where­fore, what is it that want? why is it that we hesitate? From Britain we can expect nothing but ruin. If she is once admitted to the government of America again, this Continent will not be worth living in. Jea­lousies will be always arising; insurrections will be constantly happening; and who will go forth to quell them? who will venture his life to reduce his own countrymen to a fo­reign obedience? the difference between [Page 70] Pennsylvania and Connecticut, respecting some unlocated lands, shews the insignifi­cance of a British government, and fully proves, that nothing but Continental au­thority can regulate Continental matters.

Another reason why the present time is preferable to all others, is, that the fewer our numbers are, the more land there is yet unoccupied, which instead of being lavish­ed by the King on his worthless depen­dants, may be hereafter applied, not only to the discharge of the present debt, but to the constant support of government. No Nation under heaven hath such an advan­tage as this.

The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called, so far from being against, is an ar­gument in favour of independance. We are sufficiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less united. 'Tis a matter worthy of observation, that the more a country is peopled, the smaller their ar­mies are. In military numbers the Ancients far exceeded the Moderns: and the reason is evident, for trade being the consequence of population, men become too much absorb­ed thereby to attend to any thing else. [Page 71] Commerce diminishes the spirit both of Pa­triotism and military defence. And history sufficiently informs us that the bravest at­chievements were always accomplished in the non-age of a Nation. With the encrease of commerce England hath lost it's spirit. The city of London, notwithstanding it's num­bers, submits to continued insults with the patience of a coward. The more men have to lose, the less willing are they to venture. The rich are in general slaves to fear, and submit to courtly power with the trembling duplicity of a Spaniel.

Youth is the seed time of good habits as well in Nations as in individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible to form the Continent into one Government half a cen­tury hence. The vast variety of interests occasioned by an increase of trade aud po­pulation would create confusion. Colony would be against Colony. Each being able would scorn each other's assistance: and while the proud and foolish gloried in their little distinctions, the wise would lament that the union had not been formed before. Wherefore, the present time is the true timefor establishing it. The intimacy which is contracted in infancy, and the friendship [Page 72] which is formed in misfortune, are of all others, the most lasting and unalterable. Our present union is marked with both these characters: we are young, and we have been distressed; but our concord hath with­stood our troubles, and fixes a memorable AEra for posterity to glory in.

The present time likewise, is that pecu­liar time, which never happens to a Nation but once, viz. the time of forming itself into a government. Most Nations have let slip the oportunity, and by that means have been compelled to receive laws from their conquerors, instead of making laws for them­selves. First they had a King, and then a a form of government; whereas the articles or Charter of government should be formed first, and men delegated to execute them afterward: but from the errors of other Na­tions, let us learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present opportunity— To begin government at the right end.

When William the Conqueror subdued England, he gave them law at the point of the sword; and untill we consent that the seat of government in America be legally and authoritatively occupied; we shall be in [Page 73] danger of having it filled by some fortunate ruffian, who may treat us in the same man­ner, and then, where will be our freedom? where our property?

As to religion, I hold it to be the indis­pensible duty of government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith: let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that selfishness of principle, which the niggards of all profes­sions are so unwilling to part with, and he will be delivered of his fears on that head. Suspicion is the companion of mean souls and the bane of all good society. For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us. It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness: were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation: and on this liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be like children of the same family differing only in what is called their Christian names.

In page 54 I threw out a few thoughts [Page 74] on the propriety of a Continental Charter, (for I only presume to offer hints, not plans,) and in this place I take the liberty of re-mentioning the subject, by observing, that a Charter is to be understood as a bond of solemn obligation, which the whole enters into, to support the right of every separate part, whether of religion, personal freedom, or property. A right reckoning makes long friends.

In a former page I likewise mention­ed the necessity of a large and equal re­presentation; and there is no political mat­ter which more deserves our attention. A small number of Electors, or a small number of Representatives, are equally dangerous. But if the number of the Representatives be not only small, but unequal, the danger is encreased. As an instance of this I menti­on the following; when the Associators pe­tition was before the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania: twenty eight members only were present, all the Bucks County Mem­bers, being eight, voted against it, and had seven of the Chester Members done the same, this whole Province had been govern­ed by two counties only, and this danger it is always exposed to. The unwarrantable [Page 75] stretch likewise, which that house made in their last sitting, to gain an undue authority over the Delegates of that Province, ought to warn the People at large, how they trust power out of their own hands. A set of instructions for the Delegates were put to­gether, which in point of sense and busi­ness would have dishonour'd a school-boy, and after being approved by a few, a very few without doors, were carried into the House, and there passed in behalf of the whole Colony: whereas, did the whole Colony know, with what ill-will that House hath entered on some necessary public measures, they would not hesitate a moment to think them unworthy of such a trust.

Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which if continued would grow into oppressions. Expedience and right, are different things. When the calamities of America required a consultation, there was no method so ready, or at that time so proper, as to appoint persons from the se­veral Houses of Assembly for that purpose; and the wisdom with which they have pro­ceeded hath preserved this Continent from ruin. But as it is more than probable that we shall never be without a CONGRESS, [Page 76] every well wisher to good order, must own, that the mode for choosing members of that body, deserves consideration. And I put it as a question to those, who make a study of mankind, whether representation and election is not too great a power for one and the same body of men to possess? When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember, that virtue is not hereditary.

It is from our enemies that we often gain excellent maxims, and are frequently sur­prised into reason by their mistakes, Mr. Cornwall (one of the Lords of the Treasury) treated the Petition of the New-York As­sembly with contempt, because that House, he said, consisted but of twenty six mem­bers, which, trifling number he argued could not with decency be put for the whole. We thank him for his involuntary honesty. ^*

TO CONCLUDE, howevever strange it may appear to some, of however unwilling they may be to think so, matters not, [Page 77] but many strong and striking reasons may be given, to shew, that nothing can lettle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration for Independance. Some of which are,

First.—It is the custom of Nations when any two are at war, for some other powers not engaged in the quarrel, to step in as Mediators and bring about the preliminaries of a Peace: but while America calls her­self the Subject of Great Britain, no power however well disposed she may be, can offer her mediation. Wherefore, in our present state we may quarrel on for ever.

Secondly.—It is unreasonable to suppose, that France or Spain will give us any kind of assistance, if we mean only, to make use of that assistance for the purpose of repairing the breach, and strengthening the connec­tion between Britain and America; because, those powers would be sufferers by the con­sequences.

Thirdly.—While we prosess ourselves the Subjects of Britain, we must in the eye of foreign Nations be considered as Rebels. The precedent is some-what dangerous to [Page 78] their peace, for men to be in arms under the name of Subjects: we on the spot can solve the paradox; but to unite resistance and subjection, requires an idea much too refined for common understanding.

Fourthly.—Were a manifesto to be pub­lished, and dispatched to foreign Courts, setting forth the miseries we have endured, and the peaceable methods we have ineffec­tually used for redress, declaring at the same time, that not being able any longer to live happily or safely, under the cruel disposition of the British Court, we had been driven to the necessity of breaking off all connections with her; at the same time, assuring all such Courts, of our peaceable disposition towards them, and of our desire of entering into trade with them: such a memorial would produce more good effects to this Continent, than if a ship were freight­ed with petitions to Britain.

Under our present denomination of British Subjects, we can neither be received nor heard abroad: the custom of all Courts is against us, and will be so, until by an Independance we take rank with other Nations.

[Page 79]These proceedings may at first appear strange and difficult, but, like all other steps which we have already passed over, will in a little time become familiar and agreeable: and until an Independance is declared, the Continent will feel itself like a man who continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day, yet knows it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over, and is continually haunted with the thoughts of it's necessity.