Columbta ©mtoeisfip intfaGitpoflftolwfe LIBRARY SELIGMAN LIBRARY OF ECONOMICS PURCHASED BY THE UNIVERSITY tx •■ Vi V--_ > .!; ' ^ I G OP; TH$ BRITISH LEfilSLAT^S TO TAX THS AMERIC AN CO LON IE 8 V INDICATE D} AND THE MEANS of ASSERTING that RIGHT P R O ? 6 S E D. The Second Edition, with Additions. Bonum Civem ilium- dicimus, qui juflisiraperantium prompte paret, qui ad bonum publicum omnibus viribut cotmititur, ac pod illud privatum bonumlutentcr babet; imo qui nihil fibi bonum credit, nifi idem bonum quoque fit civitati; qui denique adverfus alioVcives commodumfefe gerit. ■ PorriNp. De Ofiic. Civil. LONDON: Printed for T. Becket, Cotnerof the ADElPHIj,- - ' in the Strand. MDCCLXXV. ;.X. :' v c/j-cY, ■ ..... . . ■ T THE RICH OF THE BRITISH LEGISLATURE, SJV. T HE outrages and afts of violence, lately committed by fome of the American colo¬ nies, on account of taxes impofed upon them by the Britifh Legiflature, feem to render it extremely requifite to examine the Right of that Legiflature to impofe thofe taxes; and to eftablifh fuch prin- a dutiful obedience now illegally refift, but may reftore harmony and brotherly affedtion among Britifh fubjedts, through every part of the Britifh empire. All thefe difturbances among the colonifts having been founded upon falfe fyftems of policy, fyftems diredtly contradiftory to the principles of the Britifh conftitution, it may pro¬ bably be a means of reftoring, jnot only quiet to the colonies, but tranquillity to the minds of the colonifts, to prove that they have never loft die happy ftate of free fubje&s; and that the adts of the mother-country regarding them, which they now complain of, are confident with the funda- A z mental copies as may not only enfure to government from thofe who ( 4 ) mental jniicfplcs of our conftitution, erring only on the fide of indulgence towards them. To il- luftrate thefe propofitions, we muft examine prin¬ ciples with precifion, and not fuffer ourfelves to he led away with popular opinions, when thofe opinions can neither be grounded on the letter, nor on the fpirit, of the Britilh conftitution at pre- fent fubfifting. A fundamental principle that has ever been re¬ garded as fuch by all writerson government is, that in every civilized ftate there mufl.be, fomewhere, a Supreme all-controling Power. In the Britilh ftate this fupreme power is by the conftitution fixed in the united wills of the kings, lords, and repre- fentatives of the people in parliament aflembled. Are the colonifts fubjedt to this fupreme power ? They themfelves acknowledge that they are in every thing, excepting taxation. But the prin¬ ciples of our conftitution, when fully underftood, will, I believe, evidently prove, that the Britilh parliament, compofed of the three eftates above mentioned, is fupreme, not in one branch of le- gillation alone, but in all branches, in taxation as in every thing elfe, withoutany refpe&to theappro- bation or difapprobation of the individuals of the fociety over whom it prefides, when their general welfare is vifibly the objeft of it’s decrees. The colonifts indeed contend, that the right of taxation in a free nation, fuch as ours, is always inherent in the individuals of the fociety, and that nothing can be done in regard to the impofing of taxes by the legiflature itfelf, without the confent of thol'c indivb ( 5 ) individuals, or the confent of their a&ual repre¬ sentatives. In favour of this unconftitutional doftrine very few arguments :have been alleged; but the affertors of it (however they may .have vapoured in a tone of defiance,) have leaned the whole upon two or three general propofitions, which, to every unclouded undemanding, need only to be mentioned, to carry their x>wmrefuta- tion along with them. It is in the very-ejfence of a freeman, we are ‘told, to difpofe of his own property as-hepleafes. ‘the >law of nature, it is faid, declares-the fruits of every ■’man!* labour j to be his own. Mr. Locke has affirmed (for fomeofhisinadvertenciesarequotedontheoccafion^ ■that the fupreme power cannot'take from any one any part of his. property, but by hisownconfent, otherwife he has no property at all’,—for. I have 'no property in that which another can by right take from'me, when he pleafes, • againjl my confent. It is fit every oie ■who enjoys a Jhare of the proteBion of government , Jhould pay out of his eftate his proportion for maintain¬ ing if, but f ill it mufi be done by his own confent; that is, the confent of the majority, giving it either by themfelves, or by their reprefentatives chofen by themfelves. The colonifts have advanced thofe propofitions as a mod formidable phalanx in defence of the doc- trine, that in a free ftate there can be no taxation but by perfonal affent, or aftual representation. But if that doftrine has no other fupport than what it receives from thofe propofitions, vjtrmift ( 6 ) fall to the ground, and be for ever abandoned; aBd were the freedom, or want of freedom, in our eonftitution to be judged of by it’s conformity to thofe maxims, it mull be declared one of the moll flavilh forms of government upon earth. The firft propofition, ip one breath, deftroys the pretenfions of every Britilh fubjedt to liberty or legal freedom; for if it be in the very ejfence of a freeman to difpofe of his own property os hepleafes , there is notin that cafe a Angle free fubjedt in Great Britain. Where is the noble,, or commoner, that dare fay, he can refufe paying a tax, when the legiflature has ordained it? The eflence of a freeman, that is, of 4 a free fubjedt, (for I fpeak of men united in fociety,) confilts not in this being abfolute mailer of his own property; for that no man in a Hate of fociety can be; but in his being governed by known and eliabliihed laws, formed by the con- fentof a popular alfembly; in his being tried by his peers; in being exempted from arbitrary im* prifonment, and in other privileges, which the fubjedts of no government can boalt of, but the fubjedts of the Bntilh government. What people were ever more jealous of their liberties than the people of Rome, during the virtuous times of their Republic? But did thofe free Republicans ever place the eflence of their liberty in being taxed by their own confent ? They had no fuch idea; and yet they gloried in being a free people; and are acknowledged to have been fuch by all thofe acquainted with their hiltory. Among all the grievances of the people of Rome, we never hear Cl) tear itftated as a grievance that they were taxed with¬ out their own confcnt. When one of the Tribune* of the people railed at the continuance of the fiege of Veii during the winter, and wanted the army to be difbanded, and the Romans to re¬ turn to their own City, it was, according to Livy, ufurpare libertatem, & create mgijlratus, to affume liberty, and eleft magiftrates. In the ideas of the Romans, thofe two phrafes were of the fame import. The commons of Rome, during the time* of the republic, placed the eflence of liberty in chufing their own magiftrates; yet it was not even thofe magiftrates ele&ed by the people, who impofed the taxes. Taxes were impofed upon the Roman people by the Senate; and the lirft tax we read of, in the times of the free Republic, was in the year of the City 349. Livy tells us. Nihil acceptum unquam a plebe tanto gaudio traditur. Nothing is faid to have been received by the com¬ mon people with fo much joy. Tatres bene ceptam rem perfeverantur tueri ; the fenators perfevered in maintaining what was fo happily begun; Certa- men conferendi eft ortum> a conteft arofe who ihould be the firft that ihould pay. About two hundred years afterwards, that is, in the year of the City 535, whenAnnibal, with a vidorious army, was in Italy, the fame hiftorian tells us, Senatus quo die primum eft in Capitolio confultus, decrevit ut eo anno duplex tributum imperaretur ; the Senate, the firft day they afiembled in the Capitol, decreed that the taxes ihould be doubled that year. This very people, while they were acquiefcing in the taxes impofed by the Senate, as the conftitutio- ( a i fial mode of taxation, claimed to themfelvesj and exerciled, the privilege of declaring peace and war, of nominating ambafladors, with many- other high prerogatives; and did not forget j evert, when they were enrolled in the legions,^ that they- ftill were freemen. Apud Romanos liberos, nonfervos militare; Among the Romans freemen, and nofi ilaves carry arms. We fee then, from the moft inconteftible authority of authentic hiftory, that one of the freed: nations upon earth, and at the lame time, one of the moft enlightened, and one of the moftimpatientof any other fubje&ionthan what wasacknowledged tobe legal, did not efteem it tho eflence of a freeman, to give his eonfent either perf©- Daily or by his dirndl reprefentaliye, to the taxes, which the ftate required. The fame opinion, in regard to the eflence of his freedom, will be enter- tamed by every Britifh fubjedt, who will take the pains candidly to examine the fundamental prin¬ ciples of our conftitution, and the exercife ©f government, in every period of our hiftory. As to the fecond propofition, 5 Tsat the law of nature declares the fruits of every man’s labour to be hts own, I freely allow the truth of it; but I affirm. That the law of fociety declares diredtly the con¬ trary. The Britifh colonifts, I hope, are not living in a ftate of nature. No; they have, ever fince their firft eftablilhment, formed part of the ftate united under the Englilh laws, and Englilh conftitution; and the fundamental principles of that conftitution, though, perhaps, the freeft * n the world, reftrain not only the colonifts, but ( 9 ) all other Britilh fubje&s from many prerogatives that they might freely enjoy in a ftate of nature. It is a maxim with every civilian, “ Qui civis fit “ libertatis naturalis jafturam facit, ac imperio “ fe fubjicit, quod jus vitas & necis compleftitur, “ & cujus juffu plurima facienda, abs quibus “ quis alias abhorrebat, & omittenda quae vehe- “ menter appetebat.” That is, whoever becomes a citizen, refigns up his natural liberty, and fub- jedts himfelf to a governing power, which includes the right of life and death; and at whofe command he muft confent to do many things which he greatly diflikes, and abftain from many things which he eagerly defires. Puffend. de Offic. Civis, 1 . ii. c. 5. Therefore, in .place of this fe? cond propofition, applicable only to people living without a law of union, I will venture to fubfti- tute another, That in Civil Society no man has a right to a farthing of property till the wants of the ftate.be fupplied. And all that our Forefathers fought for, was, That the King, or the Executive Power, fliould not be the Judge of thofe wants; but the three eftates of Parliament, with whom the fove- reign Power was lodged. How weak and how inconclufive muft the pror pofitions of Mr. Locke now appear! The fupreme power, he fays, cannot take from any one. any part of his property, but by his own confent, other* wife he has no property at all. Here we, have a falfe conclufion from falfe premifes. According to the premifes there is not a fupreme power on earth, but what is iniquitous and unjuft; for tho’ B taxation ( 10 ) taxation in every date is nearly univerfal, vve flrall no wherefind that the affent isuniverfal. A coercive right over the wills of individuals,.we have feen, is inthe very effence of afupreme power; and, indeed, if any individual had a right to refufe his affent to wliat the fupreme power ordained, he would be fupreme over the fupreme, which implies a contra¬ diction. I do not mean, however, that the fupreme power in any date has no limitations; for if it or¬ dains things contrary to the laws of God, or manifeftly deftruftive of the fociety over which it prefides, it ordains what it has no authority to ordain, confequently its fiatutes are void, and individuals may difobey; not that they have any inherent right over the enafting power; but, becaufe, in faft, nothing has been enaft- ed, when an iniquitous ftatute has been promul¬ gated. The weaknefs and fallacy of Mr. Locke’s argu¬ ment, appear from the abfurdity of his conclufion. No part of the fubjeft’s property, he fays, can be taken from him by the fupreme power, but by his out) confent, othenvife he has no property at all; that is, if the fupreme power has a right to fome part, it has a right to the whole of a fubjeft’s property, which i's a fophifm of fuch a grofs conftruftion, that the meereft novice in logic would be afhamed of it; and is the fame thing in point of reafoning, as if he had faid, fome heat is agreeable to the human body; therefore, the higheft degree of heat would not be difagree- able; orlofing a little bjood, is fometimes good for the patient; therefore , loling the whole blood, will ( II ) will ftill be better for the patient; or, the fu- preme power, has a right to .protedt, therefore it has a right to deftroy. Every reader will per¬ ceive, that thefe are downright abfurdities, yet they are diredf: parodies of the argument of Mr. Locke, upon which the feditious have leaned their faith as fecurely, and as blindly, as the Romanifts lean their belief upon the infallibility of the Bifhop of Rome. But itisan allowed maxim, in all found reafoning, a particular! ad univerfale non valet confequentia, that is, whoever makes an unlverfal conclufton from a particular propofition , argues falfely; and certainly no argument could lefs bear the teft of this touchftone, than the ar¬ gument above refuted. I fay the fupreme power has a right to forne part of a fubjedt’s property, becaufe it cannot fubfift without it ; and that it has no right to the whole of a fubjedt’s property, becaufe in that cafe, the individual could not exift. Thofe two propofitions, I think, may Hand for felf-eviderit truths; and if they had been properly underftood fome years ago, would have cut off all caufes of difcontent in the minds of the unprejudiced, in regard to taxes, impofed by the Britifli legifla- ture upon fubjedts, in any part of the Britilh dominions. The corollary that follows, is per- fedtly of a piece with the abfurdity of the propo. fitibn to which it is annexed; and for. what purpofe it has been adduced, I am wholly at. a lofs to explain, as it proves nothing either on one fide or the other. “ I have no property,” it is faid, “ in that which another can by right B j u take ( I* ) “ take from me when he pleafes, without my “ confent.” Where is the perfon that will conteft the truth of that propofition ? I look upon it to be as felf-evident as any axiom in Euclid. When divefted of the implicated form in which the words darken the fenfe, it is no more than this, I have no. right in that, in which I have no right; and yet this futility has been repeated an hun¬ dred times, and is faid to have been produced by a late Lord Chancellor, in the moft auguft affembly of the kingdom, as a weighty argu¬ ment ; fo thoroughly does a factious fpirit ex- tinguilh the fpirit of difcernment, and make trifles, light as air, delufively feem confirmations ftrong. Mr. Locke has further advanced, that whatever one pays for enjoying the protection of government, he muft pay by his own confent, that is, the confent of the majority, giving it either by themfelves, or their reprefentatives chofen by them - felves. This is reafoning altogether unwofthy of Mr. Locke ; for in the fame propofition we have the confent of individuals neceffary and not ne¬ ceffary; the decifion refting in a majority, and not in a majority. As the propofition itfelf is only a repetition of the former, in different words, the fame refutation may ferve for both; and fhews, that fo far from being political axioms, applicable to the Britifh ftate, or to any flate whatever, they are nothing but delufive fophifms, tending to dif- turb the peace of fociety. Their having dropt from the pen of a great man, whofe name will for ever illuftrate this ifland, can give them no authority, when we find them not only includ¬ ing felf-contradi&ions, but leading to conclu- C 13 ) lions inconliftent with the firft principle of all civilized government, in fetting up the will of an individual, as fupreme over the fupreme power*. ( Mr. Locke having unhappily pafled his early years in times of publick confufion and civil diffention, was inadvertently led, in refuting the unconftitutional claim of the Crown, to raife fupplies without the confent of parliament, fp affirm a propolition no lefs contrary to the prin¬ ciples of the Britilh conftitution, than that which he was combating, ahd, at the fame time, al¬ together illogical and fophifUcal, as may appear alrnoft to the difcernment of an, infant. But if ' truth lhould not be found at one extreme, why leap in fearch of her to the other, when it may be prefumed her refideftce is rather in the interme¬ diate fpace, and in the prefenf queftion, file may a&ually be found there. For if by the principles of the Britilh conftitution, the Crown by itfelf has no right to raife any taxes upon the people, it is, on the other hand, no lefs certain, that the fame principles do not allow the right of denial to individuals. From not examining the firft principle' of a focial union in' a civilized goyerrtftient, it has fe'^e‘6 • la the year Of Rofne gij, tffied fhetciOflce of logic was not profefledly taught in that city, cotftaiort fcnft ftevertbelefs, wfiieft is the bell logic, prevented the Cenfor t. Claudius from fallingfuft^ Mr. Locke’s thiftaWe of eb&ctirfrag uriiDeriaily from a particultlf proportion. That -Ctaifor told WCbUbagne, Tbit tbtngb be iiatt remove a citizen from his tribe, be bad not therefore a right to remove him from all the tribes. . Neque enim G tribu movere poffet, quod fit -nihil aliud quam jubere mutare tribum ideo, omnibus quinque et triginta tribubus onovere pofle, id eft, ciVittteffi HbntStWrqae eripefe. '■ common % ( 14 ) common to regard taxation in the Britiih Hate as m dongratv.it, or as a free gift given at the plea- fure of the individual. Thus Governor Pownal tells us, “ Supplies granted in parliament, are of “ good-will, not of duty; the free and voluntary aft of the giver, not obligations and fervices, “ which the giver cannot of right refufe And again, “ They, that is, the members of Par- “ liament, do not give and grant from the pro- “ perty of others to eafe themfelves.” Both of thefe are falfe propolitions, unworthy of the dif- cernment and abilities, which that gentleman has Ihewn in other parts of the treatife referred to. Whoever will but advert to the firlt principles, and to the forms of the Britiih conftitution for ages paft, muft, I think, allow, that fupplies, granted in parliament, are always of duty, as tvell as of free-will ; and certainly in regard to the laft propolition, the burden of fupplies is always extended to a greater number of' individuals, than ever gave their confent to the railing of them, either perfonally or by their reprefenta- tives. Since the firlt publication of this difcourfe. Governor Pownal has thought an explanatory letter neceffary, to Ihew, that he was not the author of the opinions above quoted from him; but that they are the fentiments of Lord Coke, and of the Englijh Parliaments exprefs, in their own words, upon record I never meant to fay, that the Go- * See the Adminiftration of the Coloaies, Ed. 4. p. 173. t See the Publick Advertifer of March, 1774. vernor ( i5 .) vernor was the .firft author of thofe doctrines': but I quoted his book, as one that was generally read, and one that I had lately perufed. Falfe philofophy, and falfe law, have had hundreds of commentators; but one true experiment, or one incontrovertible fad, deferves more to be re-' . garded, than folios of illuftrations of falfe prin¬ ciples. The propofition that I have laid down. That publick fupplies granted for the fupport of the fate, are always of duty, I will venture: to fay, is founded upon fomething even ftronger than an ad of parliament; I mean, upon the very nature of things, and muft be difproved by fome¬ thing elfe than a mere mifconftrudion of an¬ cient forms, either by thp united voice of many, or by an individual. To the authorities quoted by Governor Pownal, I will add another, I mean, the very words of the royal afient to a money bill, The King thanks his faithful SubjeSs, By the words of fuch a bill, parliamentary fup¬ plies are certainly as Lord Coke fays, exprejfed to be upon free-gift ; but thofe words,'when applied to modern times, I affirm,' are nothing but an empty form, though antiently they were expref- live of the dire8 truth. Parliamentary aids in ancient times were all extra-fupplies, or fupplies over and above what the conftitution had affigned for the fupport of government, and as they vvere at firft probably given upon tonage and pound¬ age, and articles of merchandife, which the nobles held in contempt, thefe laft might fcorn to interfere in the grant, otherwife than by giving their confent, as they themfelves were bound ( I« ) bound to give fupplies of another nature, I mean perfonal and military fervice. When the rude nations that overturned the Roman empire in the weftern parts of Europe, affumed fettled forms of government, plain fenfe dictated to them, that government muft befupported; and as in thofe early periods, much power remained with the Sovereign, a fifth of all the lands was affigned for the fupport of that power, befides other fervices, to which the fubjedts were liable. The king's domains were in that period the chief refource for the defence of the ftate; but, over and above that refource, there was, during the times of our Saxon anceftors, the irinoda necejfitas upon all landholders, clergymen not excepted. This trinoda necejfitas, or the ne- ceffity of the repair of caftles, the repair of brid¬ ges, and the military expedition, in the words of antient charters, nwlli unquarn relaxari potefi, can be forgiven to no man. That is, when the pious Saxon Kings made a grant of lands to a monaf- tery, they declared in their charter, that tho’ they conferred the lands upon that monaftery; yet it was out of their power to excufe the Monks, front contributing to the Public Supplies, according to the fundamental law of the ftate. Would the colonifts have the grants of lands in America upon a different condition ? After the conqueft, during the feudal times, the obligation upon the fubjedt, to contribute to the defence of the ftate, was not at all diminiflied; for it has been the repeated decifion ( *7 ) decifion of lawyers, that fhorild the King gfant a tenure in the exprefs -word's, abfque: aliquid inde reddendo; yet the law wbuld imply a military duty; and in the Abbot of St. 1 Bartholomew's cafe, in fourteenth of Henry VI. upon a grant made in the words, tenendum cy frankement come le Roy .eft en'jbn corone, it was decreed, 1 that the Patentee was not exempt from military f&iicei ' The piety and fuperftition of fomfe Kings, arid the prbfofion df others, in time, dripped the Crtiwn of almoft all it’s domains;, arid confequently brought it's' abfolute power Within limitations, as the Kings were obliged to becoriie fuitdrs to the peddle, to fupply thhir rieceffities, which were antiefttiy riot VeckOhed to be, arid actually were ricSf, the neceffities of the date; but dccafipnal ddicicricieSj owing to extravagance arid mifma- riagement. By degrees the. King’s Domains be¬ came deft, and the 1 Parliamentary Supplies ift- creafedj till at' length the former yariifhed into nothing, and the power of a negative, which remained with th£ ’popular part of the latter^ ac¬ tually lifted it up td participate' bf the fovereigri- ty, but altered nothing of the fundamental prin¬ ciple’: 'That the ddrninifiering fo/wer of every fate has ■a right to be Supported. ' ThC following foiftotieai fa&s, - little attended to by our hiftoriariSj will evidently prove foe antient'nature of parliamentary grants, which, 1 fay, wfcrfe formerly mere bcncvolencies ol partt- iurient to our Kings, who often fquandered them moft idly, without foe leaft pubhc otye^ beipg ( *3 ) ferved, or without rendering the leaft account. As thofe fubfidies were given by fits and ftarts, with jntermiffions of many years, the people always looked upon them as public plunder: They were the occaficns of perpetual difcontents; and the true fpring of the inftability of the fuccelfion of our Kings; the truth of which may eafily be conceived, if we imagine all our prefent excifes and cuftoms aboliflied for five or fix years, then impofed for one or two years, and again fup- pi .lied for ail undeterminate number of years. This, tho’ overlooked entirely by our politicians and hiftorians, is the true key of the many com¬ motions and revolutions in the Englilh hiftory. Even fo late as Edward IV. Chancellor Fortef- cue gives the following political reafon, why the King fliould at leaft be as rich as any two of his nobles, left, he fays, the people fliould be tempted to • affift a rich nobleman to dethrone the Sovereign, in expedition that the ufurper’s large private eftate, when added to the joyal domains, would be fuffi- cient for the national revenue, without any fub. fidies being demanded from them.-But I lhall proceed to the hiftorical fads. In the fixth year of Edward III. the commons grant to the King one tenth, and one fifteenth, jo as the King will live of his own, without grieving of his Subjefts. I fliould be glad to know what fenfe cr meaning fuch a propofition would have, if made to any of our Kings fince the revolution. In the twentieth year of the fame Kiiig, the Commons petition the King, That the keeping of the fea may from henceforth be at the King's charge, which < 19 ) ' which plainly implies a very confiderable revenue, that the King could then call his own, indepen¬ dant of parliament. Towards the end of his reign, the fame King tells his-parliament, 5 that to all the armaments albeit the fubjeft to their pains coni tributed; yet was the; fame far more infinite charge to the prince ; which is faying, that parliamentary fubfidies made but a fmall part of the national fupplies; In the fiftieth year of the fame King, the commons declare, That if the Kings-revenues had been rightly * managed, he might long maintain his wars, without any charge to the commons; and yet no Englifli King had been involved in longer or more Vxpenfive wars. In thefirft year of Rich- ; ard H. the commons wife, that the King might] ' 'have fuch lands, as his grandfather purchafed to . the eafe of the.commons. Next year they declare,; that if the King’s expences were well looked to, he • Jhould need little to charge the commons^ In 'the fourth parliament; Richard,' in excufe for himfelf, fays, that there was no Prince in^Chriftendom capable of de¬ fending the fea, without aid from his fubjetts, which implies, that tho’ the King could do a great deal,; he could not do all; but Richard II. was noted’ for his bad management and diffipatioin Some years afterwards, the commons requeft'the King, to live within his revenues ', and that all gifts may be employed upon the wars. Thefe domains* .of the- crown, theantient conftitutional fund for national; defence, tho' often fquandered, were-often refuni-' ed; and Edward IV, after having made a ge¬ neral refumption of all lands belonging to the crown* tells the commons, in the Seventh year of his reign, that hi means to live- upon his own, Gz without ( *0 . X without charging them . His extravagance and lavifh. diflipation, however, obliged him afterwards tp have recourfe to his parliamentary bounty; never’ thelefs, it plainly appears, that feveral years of his reign pafied without any aids from parliament. We fliall not be furprifed at this, when we com fider the largenefs of his revenue, in confequence of the refumpuon of the domains of the crown, the amount of which we have from the moft authentic and moft refpedable .authority. Chan¬ cellor Fortefcue, in his treatife on abfolute and limited monarchy, written during the reign of Edward IV. and concluding with a prayer for him, for not vexing his. people with fubfidies, tells us, -the King our foveryng Lord had by tytnes fitheti he reigned upon us, livelood in lordjkippis, lands, tenements and rents, nerehand to the value of the fifth part of his realm, above the poffefiions of the chirche. Such being the fad, then, I fay that he had not the leaft occafion for parliamentary fup- plies; and that the expences of government, in his days, were greater, or more burdenfome, than ' thev are in the prefent period. For, exclufive of the national debt, which is not to be confider- ed as a perpetual burden, the annual expences of government do not at prefent amount to ■ the value of the fifth part of the lordlhips, lands, te¬ nements, and rents, of the realm and her depen¬ dencies. I leave this very Angular fad, unnoticed by all our hiftorians, to the further difcuffion of my readers. We fee from the inftances -above .mentioned,, extraded from Cotton’s Abridgement of the Re-. cords, ( ax ); eprds, that our King? had formerly ah indepen¬ dant national revenue, which 1 the commons have often declared fufficient, with good management, for all the purpofes of national defence; and that parliamentary fubfidies were only good-natured, gratuities,, to fupply the, wants not of the patipn, but of the Prince. But.is the adtual confti- tution of the. Britifh ftate, the fame fabric' with the conftitution three, hundred years ago ?- Npvy*: j fince the executive povVer has no royal domain $ | and is, by the happy fettlemcnt of the revolution, i obliged to'be accountable for, Natiopal Supplies, j it is no longer the Parliament that grants to the crown Ji but %Nation,tbstgiyesto iTjuihFj and ) who Ihould be the judge,,how much foopght to: j give, but;the,great national council? Pariiamen- • tary fepplies are now (mpft happtly for- the n.a- I tiori f); the neceffa^.fiippimydft^o, State; fince it le- I gaily can have no other,j who |hpn -ought to be \ judge of that mejfty y , but the parliament) . Thefe luminous fads, above, mentioned, bring the principles pf the British Cpnfiitutionjlong qh- feured, by illogical arguments, . into, broad day,, and difpel at once the deliifive dodtripe of the j : fadtious, That the individuals of a jlqte may pojftfs all 'j the property .of a r fiate, and tl$ government.pojfefjj no pm j perty at fll^ but what to give it; which is the diredt confequence of the • falfe propofitiqnsof Mr. Locke, and. of ;thp affymed didtums of Lord Coke, qf Lord ’’Qr of Lord C* " dpwn to the Philadelphian Befplvers, Lumptpge- < ther the opinions of all thefe politicians, and they vanifli before tke;fmdeflce pf fedis, like a morning . fog . ( ** > fog before the ftrong beams of the fun. Govern* ment, at this day, has 'juft as good a Right to National Supplies, as it had athoufand years ago, with this only difference, that the Royal Domain is now become a Legijlative Domain. The trinoda neceffitas of our anceftors, the Saxons, is now the trinoda neceffitas of the affentof the three branches of the fupreme legiflature. Would the colonifts" then lay claim to the ancient free Saxon govern¬ ment, and be wholly exempt from the payment of taxes, we fee that one fifth of their landed pro¬ perty, amounting annually to half a million fter- ling, ought in that cafe to belong to the crown. Would they take the model of their conftitution from the Conqueft to the time of Edward IV, we ftill fee that a fifth of their lands muft belong to the crown, that is, be appropriated to the defence of the ftate. Would they take the principle of the revolution, for the bafis of their liberties; by that principle the fovereign legiilative power alone, is made the judge of what the fubje&s ihall pay to the crown, and on that bafis, they will find their liberties fecure. But if they lean upon the weak fophifm of Mr! Locke, That a man is a Jlave who pays any thing to tht fupport of the Jlate without his own confent, they will lean upon a broken fpear, that will pierce their hand, and bring calamity and diftrefs upon their " country . The antient form ftill remaining of the King’s confirming the parliamentary grants,' with thankp to the people, can alter nothing as to effentials. It is in fad but a courtefy, which we find prac¬ ticed by Edward I, -when peremptorily fummon- (-n 7 Iflg his fubjedtS' to the performance of their duty# When that Prince, in the twenty-fourth year of his reign, was meditating an expedition againft Scot¬ land, he calls upon his grea t vaffals to attend him, ■ at Newcaftle upon Tyne, with horfes and arms. He charges them upon their .duty to appear;, and afterwards adds, that he might have an opportunity- of thanking them.- The words are, vobismanda- , musrogantes in fide & dile&iont, quibusmbis tent- mini-, -itaquod vobis inde^rj/w referre merito . teneamur. See Dugdale’s fummom to parliament. * * Let us fuppofe the Britifh ftate reverted to it’s ancient confti- tution, previous to the times of parliamentarygrants; and thata fifth pafTof all the lands in the Britilh dominions were affigned for. the fupport of government 5 how much, in that cafe, ought to he paid hythe American fubjedts, svhohavehitherto been paying almolt nothing? The fund of the land tax in Great Britain may be reckon; ed twenty-five millionsadd of. Ireland, two millions and ah half, tho’ by iome it has been computed at three millions.. As.the Bri- . tilh fubjedlt in America are reckoned more than equal innumberto thofe of Ireland,- and their lands in general yield them Richer pro- . . dudts, the value of their lands in cultivation may, therefore, be ranked upon the famefcale with that of Ireland; and the icveral - quotas of each will be as follows. : ; The land fund in Gr. Britain, £. aj,ooo,ooo a fifth is £. j,000,000 Ditto in Ireland - , — —:' ; 4,500,000 Ditto — . joo.oqO Pitto in America, ~ : ajoo.ooo Ditto — joo.ooo 1 Thus fuppofing the annual amount of the taxes to bebut fixinillioni, though it actually be near double that fum, the proportionable ihare of the colonifts ought to be half a million ileriing', to pbflefs the re¬ mainder of their property free from all public burdens... But. would this blefied exemption from taxation, otherwife than as by free gifts, in which they.have abfutdly placed the offence of a freeman, actually fecure their freedom ? Wbuld'northe poWer of a monarch with a perpetual independent revenue.of fix millions a year, unaccountable to parliament,, or without a parliament, foon become .more op- preffive to the. fubjedte than the prefent regulated-Tovefeignty of- Great Britain? 1 Ihave, (. 34 ,) I Have infefted the preceding hiftorical details^ to Ihew, that if Governor Pownall had looked deeper into the nature of the Britilh Government, his good.fenfe would probably have led him to have fejefted the idea of taxation, being a free gift. And from them, I think, I am well found¬ ed in affirming, that by the principles of the Britilh Gonftitution,' neither individuals, nor fub- ordinate communities, fuch as the colonies, are juftifiable in affertihg, that all aids from them for Public Services, fliould be their, own free and voluntary gifts. According to the fundamental principles, ahd to the whole texture of the Britilh conftitution, Public Supplies granted for the fup 7 port of the Bate are always of duty; or, in other words, the right of taxation in the Britilh ftate is hot in the people at large, but in the Supreme Superintending Power, who'prefcribes the duty. It is the General Superintendance that gives a right to taxation, by implying the necelfity of being fupported; and where the conftitutiph of the ftate has placed that fuperintendance, it, of necelfity, places the right of demand¬ ing fupplies, and regulating the mode of raif- irig them. In the Britilh government, one branch of this fuperintending power has but .a very limited duration, and is compofed of reprefenta- tives who draw their exiftence from a part of the fubjefts called Conftituents; but it is not the con- ftituents who fend thofe reprefentatives, that give them a right of levying taxes upon themfelves and all their fellow-fubjefts. No; the right is in¬ herent in, and coeval with, the fupreme fuperih- tendance, and, indeed, makes part of it’s very ef- lence. There can no more be a Sovereignty without ( * 5 - ) it, than there can be a nupi without ai living foul. Bqt cannot the reprefentatives of thecommons with-hold fupplies altogether, if they pleafe ? Yes, certainly; but that, however, givesthemno right to with-hold fupplies. The hands and dieinoutii, have the power of with-holding fupplies from the body to which they belong; but I deny that they have from thence a right to with-hold them, be* eaufe neither a body natural, nor a body . politic, has arightto be felode ji, at todeftroy itfelf. On the contrary, the principle of life gives: to both a Right to & fubfiftence andfiipport. : Though the executive power in QWgQyefn»n?Ht has a right to a fubfiftence, yet happily it is npt the master of taking its own fubfiftence. Jt can* not, in ihort, feed itfelf like the raygifing powers of arbitrary ftatesi It; ipufe be fed 3S"th&.ht||raui body is fed, fey the members; but thfr tight {jf having food, and itfelf from the period of ksssfregcg.; If on? bfsgch pf qur legb]aturei$ pfyery li¬ mited duration, the other tyrd branehes arfi fujgjy# and by tfremfelyes, of very limited pow«ti bfrtthe three branches, ponjpifjed* al| puiffant qy$r. e y?JJ fnbjeftpf the, Britifti yippireand* 3$. the right of taxation 14 iphereijtip thcnd, ihefr will jt • equally (ovetsigR in impqiipg pftaxes^ 4& ip ?yery fithtt eyerdlp of thj?ir. pe^rey., . ^(?or er:.xeyeit..-4ijtkp i body, 9 ,f tfe people of Great -Britainat'dargei -Noy'certainly by the Britilh cpn^tgfipn iieyfer f i / .The people • I do'riot here fpeafc of' ikfcentiftatei lor of a ftate juftbeginning to forinitfelf.^heh all-power,. and aU authority, .are wholly in the people, or- among, the individuals.’- I fpeak; of . a ftate that has had a duration of -manv,ages',’ formed and eftablithed upon certain prin¬ ciples eftaemed and called 1 fundamentals, from-their.durability and immobility. M. de Buffon, in his very elegant natural hiftory, ofc D 2 .... ■ of ( is ) of Great Britain at large* have no hiore di're£fc concern in die fovereigniy than the moft remote Colonift has. The reprefentatives in the hotlfe of Commons, are not the direct reprefentatives of the people of Great Britain, or of the Colon ids. They ate only the 'Hired reprefehtatives of their own eonftituents, and the virtual reprefentatives of every Britifli Commoner whereVcr he inhabits. The fcohftithents who fend the reprefentatives to the houfe of Commons, may not perhaps -ex¬ ceed two or three hundred thoufand in num¬ ber; yet eight millions of fubje&s in Great Britain are taxed by the reprefentatives of thofe conftituents, 1 without their own confent. Thus we find, what B. Franklin ftates as a folfe propofition; ih order to apologize for the dif- obedienee of the colonifts, is precifely the true fundamental principle of the Britifli cohftitu- tion, “ That fellow-fubjeds in one part of the “ dominions are fovereigns over felioiV-fubjefirs “ in another part,” even within the iflaiid of Great Britain; confequently, throughout the fetVef of the bees, that the hexagonal form of their cells, is not owing to any fuperior inftindt of thofe animals; but is a necefiary confequcnce of their coming into exiftence and living in locicty. A few peafe, be fays, thrown feparately into hoi water, fwell and afluroe a globular form,- having fpacie to expand on every fide; but peafe tied up in a bag, and thrown into hot water, will, from their mutual eipanfion *4d mutual rtfifteirce, all affume an lieiagona- form. The temark is metaphorically applicable to men formed in¬ to civil focieties; for in thefe no individual has it in his power to expand his views on every fide as he pleafes; but every one, from the King to the meaneft fubjedt, muft fubmit to the checks, which the fundamental laws of the conftitution impofe upon him ; and to violate thofe laws is a crime highly punifhable in .every whole ( * 9 . ) Whole empire. Theitruth<'of;thiS -propofition being clearly - eftabliflied, .overturn's 1 it onbelthe whole bafelefs fabric of teprefentation /andtax* ation, reared byfalfe oratory, but ’left unfup^ ported by ■ the - leaib prop of > : a i ■ fiftgle argu* ■' mehti ; ■ V'V •. The fubje&s of Great Britain* in geheral,'‘pari titipate of the foVereigltyiin a' vfefy exteafiyejdea gree; but Upoft- ho juft- rCafoning cohld'! it be' fe* ferred from thence, eVen by a foreigner unac¬ quainted With our patioii extended to^eyeirylhdmduah 'i Mnehleft then ought fucft aft inference tb be itiade^hy-a'Bfi- tilh fubjea; who cannot- but; khOw that at-is'difi proved not oftly by arguments, but by fa&s* ; It is therefore’ not'ft liifle-aftOhilhihgy:to'ihfe®--ah Engliflr Author founding An argument i Si emit' chtjivi'tigbt (if-'lbe''iMtes?to. iaife •' ibafc'-Wn 'ppttti of NatwM: Sipplte,- Upoh ; thiS 'Very -falfe- 'priftei-. pie, That' the laws firft - 'ftcUre the • legiflafiVt tight to all tke people. But when a mere aftlMed pofition, vOid ! Of all foffnditioh,'is takefi-for-a fundameftbil-principle/ affri:he ? cOrifclufidn^ drawn from fUchra petition beicOme‘Wholly Utbpiaft, and in ftO wife applicable to the cdnftitutioharfyfteiri of the Britifti govferhment. * ; Becaufe there rittft be re'prefenktive's of Si. people^ to form a taxing lent), therefore, < ill ihofe who are'taxid mufthdv'cfeprefm~ , * Thisauthor gra ciouily,allots.jtbat people.of no property may be taxed without their own content;- and one pf his arguments may be rieducid ltd idfe ifollowiiig 'iyil'ogiim: -Mr. HimiwMh'a&eidi-ignt in oppofiugia tax demanded 1 without the authority of the fupreme legit- lature, therefore, the colopics aft-right in'oppofing a taidtananded ■■ by the authority dfthefupteme legiflatute. tatives, C y> ) tatives, is a fophifm.\precifely of the fame kirld with that of Mr. Locke’s, above refuted, and falls to pieces upon ■ the - leaft examination. ■ One of our popular orators,/ indeed, a. few years ago, ventured to expofe his head: in eftablilh- ing this miferable argument, as a fundamental principle. That however was a period of de- lufion; jfeut-now the rays of common fenfe begin to brighten our horizon; and, I hope will,foon ex¬ tend their: influence to. our deluded colonies. - What the Britifti conftitution chiefly aims at, is that the people fliouldj by their repreientatives, have fuch a lhare in the,-legiflative,authority, as may ferve for a proper check to,the power of the other two branches; but it has ever implied a dutiful. fubmiffion on the ;part of all the fubjedts to the will or power of all the three- branches, when united in a legiflative capacity. This le¬ giflative will or power of the Britilh parliament, has even been carried fo far, as to: alter funda¬ mentals by adts of parliament; which the people have acquiefced in, from a convidtion, that the national good was thereby promoted. The legif- lature have given.nevv kings to the.ftate; they have turned annual parliaments into, feptennial; nay, they have even diminijhed the number of their own conjlituents one third, or perhaps one-half, as in the famous adt of Henry VI. about freeholders; which plainly fhews, that our anceftors, three hundred years ago, did not think it eflential to extend the legiflative right to allthe people. And it has often been propofed of late .years, for the fake of domeftic tranquillity, again to cut off one third ( 3 * ) , . . - third of the. conftituents from the righhof voting, by railing.the qualification: of; freeholders .ito twe«H ty pounds. This however lias, beett-.efiefted in another manner;. by the .late aft, depriving; copy- holders of.the right of, yoting ; for kmghtsrpfthe fhire,. by, which law, above .fifty thoufand-mafters of families, , whp fome years ago might , have faid, that they, as conftituents,; had .fome ; tore;in go¬ vernment, are now,placed in ;the fame fituation as colonifts, or as millions of.other fubjeprinciples and aflapns of kingSt fubverfive cfithecgeneraL liberty of thes fUbjOflt.; - If the. charters of the colonies ate granted by the crown, -the naturaf inferenceis,. that-tMcq-/ lonies are then dependant upon the kingdom.. All authority that the crown has-in a political capacity, it has as head of the nation; ' and all acquifitions of new lands, though veiled in the king, are acquifitions belonging to the king¬ dom ’Tofuppofe a charter granted by. the. king in a private capacity, disjoined from his chara£ter of head of the nation, tO give any au- * The empty, illy,. Conceit of new, plantations belonging tothe .Crown, and not to. the Kingdom, is dire&ly opposite to die fenti- ifient of Lord Bacon, Who fays'bf them abbut theverydme-of their commencement, “ THIS* KINGDOM,nowfirft in. his Majeftics times, “ hath.gotten a lot or portionin the new worlflbythe Plantation “ of Virginia and the Summer"Iilands, aBd certainly it-iswith. the “‘ kingdoms on earth, as it is in the kingdom.of heaven, fometimts _ * grain ed muftard-feed,proves a great tree. Who can tell !" , Bacon’s Rvnrns fullifid if RaUtfl- ~ " thority ( 33 ) thority whatever, is to fuppofe an abfurtfttyi The colonies, therefore, in holding their lands and their civil government from the king by- charters, hold both from the nation colleftively "united in the fupreme legiflative body. All the Sovereignty the king has over the colonies, he has as being fovereign of the Britilh nation; confequently, let him grant them hundreds of privileges by charter, he could never make them any thing but parts of the Britilh nation. A king of Great Britain can no more create by charter, or by any aft of his power, a commu 1 nity independent of the kingdom, than he can create a new planet. Nay, an aft of parliament could effeft no fuch thing; for though a'fete may be all-puiffant within itfelf, yet to fay that it could be all-puiffant without itfeif, would be a political folecifm of the groffeft kind. An aft of . parliament might exclude them our Society; but could not by its authority form them into inde¬ pendant focieties; for from the moment of their Se¬ paration from us, they would revert to the ftate of nature. Riots, thefts, and murders, would then not be illegal, and every man might do that which was right in his own eyes, till the wifer and ftronger gave law to the reft. If therefore the colonies could never make but parts of the Bri¬ tilh nation; the confequence is, that they owe, equally with all other fubjefts, fubmiffion and obedience to the fupreme legillature of the nation. The ftately oak, that I view to-day, had not, an hundred years ago, the twentieth part of its prefent lize; but am I, for that rea- fon, to reckon it twenty oaks, or to think, that < 9 ) its remote!! branches do not ftilldependupon die, trunk from whence they fprouted. The Britilh nation, by its fettlemepts in North Ame¬ rica, has fpread itfelf out ; beypnd the limits cf the illand; but, from the moment thofe fettle- ments were firlt made,. ; the fovercign fuperin- tendance accompanied them, though not always exercifed in the lame manner as at prefent. Hence appears the abfurflity ,of that propo¬ sition advanced by B. Franklin, “ That a fub- “ miffion to ads of parliament was no part of * f the conftitution of, the colonies The author muft certainly have firft deceived him* felf, otherwife he could never have had the con¬ fidence to. think of pahning fuch a grofs fophlfm upon his readers. A fubmiffion to the fove¬ reignty of Great Britain, was ever a part of their conftitution,/ and, as we have feen, can¬ not but make a part of' their conftitution; but the fovereignty of Great Britain exifts in the! fupreme legiflatiVe body of king; lords,. and 1 commons, aflembled in parlia¬ ment, confequently the lads of that parlia¬ ment are fovereign over the colonies. ’ Let us fupppfe that, parliaments exadly firniiar ’in every relied to the 1 parliament of Great. Britain, : were to be eftablilhe.d in France and 1 Spain, would the French andSpaqifti colonies, how 'governed by the jabfolute' jpower . of one perfon, owe left fubjediopto the newl fovereignty, .than to the defpotic ordinances of their prefent ihonarcfcs,. as • * S?c a J-ctt^r, in the Pulfok Aivtttifir, Fck 19; 1774, r ' that ( 40 . ) that new fovereignty, though it added rights to all the fubjefts in general, diminilhed nothing of the fupremacy of the nation. But the parlia¬ ment of Great Britain was a fovereignty pre- vioufly to the eftablilhment of any colonies by the nation; and every right that it now enjoys, was by the conftitution inherent in it, though not always exercifed by it, for ages before ever any European colonies were fettled in America. We find Queen Elizabeth, at the reprefenta- tions of her parliament, taking fhame to herfelf, for having granted charters that were judged de¬ trimental to the welfare of the publlck, and re¬ calling thofe charters. Now, let us fuppofe that her parliament, from a falfe apprehenfion, that the fettlements in" America would be pro¬ ductive of more evil than good to the nation, had petitioned the queen to recal the American char¬ ters ; Will any Colonift take upon him to fay, that Ihe would not have complied. The par¬ liament, however, did not interfere; but the non-interference of parliament in any aft of go¬ vernment, where it has a juft right, inay indeed weaken the aft of government, but can never weaken the parliament’s right. Now in all afts of legiflation, it has an, inherent right over all the fubjefts of the ftate, and as the colonifts have ever made part of the fubjefts, its right cbnfe- quently has ever extended over them. The jour¬ nals of parliament, and the petitions of the co¬ lonifts, afford hundreds of inftances of the exercife of this right, which is alfo juftified by the very fundamental principles of the conftitution; yet the Boftonians, and their advocate B. Franklin, feem ( 4* j feem very modeftly to believe, they can perfuade us, that when the' fun is in the meridian, it is not day-light f ; For what purpofe Governor Pownal Ba§ pto^ duced the example of the Seventeen 1 Provinces of the Netherlands, ih reafohih'g upon a'ihiiuhd<£- ftandiiig between d parent ftate, and 1 its colonies, is altogether beyond itly comprebenfion. It appears to me, that otie might as properly HaVS recourfe to a chart of the Weft Indies, in order 1 to fail to the Cape of Good' Hope. It is plain from hiftory, that tho’ the Netherlanders 1 were fubjedts of the King of Spain; they were no more fubjedts of the crown of Spain; than the Hanoi- veridns are fubjedts-of the crowtt of Great Bri¬ tain. The fovereigns of the Netherlands hy the > accidents of two fucceffive marriages; became loVereigns of Spain; and 1 as the Emperor CharleS V. had, by military force, abolilhed the pri¬ vileges of the Cortes of Spain, his tyranni¬ cal fon Philip II. wanted to imitate his ex¬ ample in Flanders. But the Netherlanders' were a free people, before ever they were cori- nedted with the houfe of Auftria, pofieffing t In the year 1754, Benjamin Franklin, Efij; propofed to the - commiffioners of eleven of the continental colonies, met by order of the crown, in congrefs at Albany, a plan, which was unanimoufly agreed to by all of them, for humbly applying for ah a& of parll. ament, for making certain alterations in the conftitutions of the colonies, and empowering a new council of forty of them, to raife taxes upon the colonies. Should the B. Franklin, of the Publick" Advertiser be the fame perfon, with the above Benjamin Franklin,' Efq; my readers cannot hut admire the great coufiftency of the man. The parliament of Great Britain 1 could not certainly empower others to levy taxes upon the colonifts, without having that power . itfelf. fro nnftffo hia rtum. F privileges (40 privileges to fuch a degree, as to appear a&ually encumbered with them. Becaufe a ftate has no right to make laws for the fubjedts of another ftate, does it follow that it has no right to make laws for its ownfubje&s? When we confider the local circumftances of the Netherlands, the difiimila- larity of the two cafes will ftill be more ftriking. The Netherlands was a fmall territory gorged with inhabitants, all poffeffing different laws, a different language, and different manners, from the people who affumed a right to govern them, which neither the law of nature nor the law of nations had given them, and at the fame time was quite furrounded by powerful enemies, ene¬ mies inveterate againft the ruling power. Our colonies, on the other hand, are fcattered over a territory of an immenfe extent, which, to be well peopled, would require twenty times its prefent number of inhabitants, and is wholly fur- rounded by the power of the parent ftate, whofe laws, whofe language, and manners, are quite diffufed over all that territory, a territory from its firft fettlement, as Lord Bacon juftly obferves, declared to be a lot or portion of the parent ftate, I likewife conceive the cafe of the Neapoli¬ tans, and Herculaneans, quoted by the fame au¬ thor, who were indulged with their own laws from the Romans, as having no manner of relation to the circumftances of the old Englilh colonifts in America. But I fee it wholly applicable to the new colony of Canada. In the early times, all the fouthern part of Italy was filled with Greek fettlements, moft of which were independant; ( 43 ) but at length they became fubjeft to the Ro- t mans, who naturally eftablilhed their laws where* ever they had fixed their t power. But as the Greeks were a people highly civilized, who fpoke a moft elegant language; a language abounding with claflical authors much admired at Rome; and who alfo may be faid to have had a religion of their own; for the Paganifm of the Greeks probably differed fomewhat from the paganifm of the Romahs, thefe laft who had fubdued them, left them the choice of the law by which the/ would be governed; and they very naturally gave a preference to the languages and rites in which they had been born and brought up. The cafe of Wales, and of the Palatinates of Chefter and Durham, as quoted and reafoned upon by Governor Pownal. and all others, who have treated of this argument, has alfo, in my opinion, no manner of conne&ion with the ques¬ tion of the fubmiffion of colonifts, to the fu- preme legiflature of the parent ftate. The in¬ habitants of Wales, and of the other two terri¬ tories, did not acquire their lands by grants from' the reft of the kingdom; with the condition an-' nexed of obeying the laws of the realm, which is the exaft ftate of colonifts. They were ori¬ ginally as much felf-poffeflors of the lands they occupied, as any other land inheritors in the ifland; and without particular reprefentatives in the fu- preme legiflative body, they would have labour¬ ed under a difadvantage that our colonies are; ■ not expofed to; I mean they would have had none in the great National Council to explain F 2 thofe ( 44 ) tfurfe particular matters that exclufively concetti*. ed themfelves, which matters are in Great Britain commonly called the private bufinefs of parliament. This private bufinefs, fo far as the colonies are concerned, is regulated in all the colonies, by the refpeftive legiflature of each; and certainly, y/hile they continue colonies, thofe legiflatures ought not conftitutionally to deliberate upon any thing elfe than private bufinefs, of which taxation for the general defence of the ftate can never make any part. Neither is the cafe of Ireland at all applicable to the prefent queftion. Ireland, ashiftory Ihews us, was originally an independant nation; and at no time previous to the eftablilhment of its prefent legal conftitution had been fo conquered and over¬ run by England; but that a great majority of its inhabitants was compofed of its original natives, living fubjeft to a law of their own. If thefe at length, after many ftruggles, confented to form themfelves according to the model of the Englifh conftitution, held out to them by their conquerors, to accept of Englilh laws, and acknowledge a fub- ordination to England, the confequence was a ftrict and happy union of two ftates, not by in¬ corporation, but cohefion. The native Irifli who confented to accept of the laws of England, from Henry II. certainly did not receive their lands from that King. Tho’ they acknowledged the Dominium Regale of their ifland to be in him and his heirs, yet the Dominium utile , or property of Soil, ftill remained with themfelves, as it had been tranfmitted to them from independant anceftors from < 4 S) from times immemorial. This is a properly i» its nature, quite different from the property of colonifts; and confequently, entitled to privileges quite different. The properties which the Britiih colonifts now poffefs in America, are properties of which they acquired the Dominium utile, in con- fequence of their being fubjefts of Great Britain, and remaining fubjedt to her laws; therefore, it is only infringing their own right to the lands they inherit, to refufe obedience to the laws of the parent ftate. Tho’ the Irifh, who inhabit a territory of their own, are in a very different rela¬ tion to Great Britain, from colonifts, who live and exift upon the diredfc dominions of the ftate; yet a learned and judicious writer, has formed the following queries in regard to them, which well deferve the ferious confideration of fome of the leaders of fa&ion in Maffachufet’s Bay. §uere, “ Whether from Glanvil, there is not treafon “ againft the kingdom as well as againft the King; and quere. Whether the Englilh modus tenendi “ parliamenta, being tranfmitted to Ireland, by “ Henry II. filling himfelf Conqueror of Ireland; “ after that, a parliament of Ireland held in that “ form, fhould have voted themfelves indepen- “ dant of the Parliament of England, would not “ every member have been liable to an impeach- “ ment for treafon againft the King, and the “ kingdom of England ? *” By the connedtio'n of Ireland with England, in the rime of Henry II. the nation that was ftrong before, became * See the hiftarj and reafons of the dependent) of Ireland upon the imperial ctovin of the kingdom of England, reaiffmg Mr. Mollineux's-ftate of the cafe of Ireland, being hound hj aSi of parliament in England. London, ftronger, C 46 ) Wronger, by having another nation fo clofely joined to it, that both appeared but as one, and reiifted every effort with united ftrength. And whatever convulfions Ireland might afterwards experience, this firft fettlement of Henry II. when the antient natives agreed to become fubje&s of the Crown of England, was the germ of their Conftitution, which, then, was certainly not con- fidered as Colonial, and cannot now be looked upon as fuch, but from ignorance or injuftice. J The faine relation would fubfift between Great Britain and the free affociated Indian nations of North America, fhould they agree to ac¬ cept of the Englilh code of laws, and the Eng- bfh form of government, with an acknowledged fubordination to Great Britain. Every body t Tho’ Ireland has long enjoyed a particular legillature with a very gr?at degree of independence i neverthelefs it may be greatly doubted Whether it would not have been much better for the inhabitants of that lfland, if from the firft of their fubmiffion to England, they had referred the whole of their concerns to the fuperintendence of the ■Englilh parliament. If the early eftablilhment of the arts, and of commerce; if the cultivation of lands; if fettled peace and internal tranquillity are blelfings, then, I fay, the people of Ireland would have efcaped many miferies, and enjoyed much more profperity, to have fubmitted all their concerns to the immediate diredtion of the Englilh parliament, without one teizing thought about reprefen- tatives, otherwife than as the conftitution had previoully eftablilhed them. But mm where, they did not think fit fo to do; and their original independent ftate gave them a right to propofe terms of their own. However, were we, I fay, to enquire what they have gained by their exclufive rights, it would appear that they have raifed up a wall of feparation againft themfelves, which on many occafions has lhut them out from the benign influences of Government. Ireland, in the wide extent of the Britifli dominions, has, for many year* back, appeared like Gideon’s fleece. It has remained dry, while the dew of government has been falling moft abundantly on all our favourite poflefiions in America; and yet, found policy ought to have made us confider that ifland as part of the Centte Of the State, and as the joint Patent of our numerous colonies, inuft ( 47 ) muft agree that their rights and claims would be very different from thofe of colonifts. Their anceftors were independent lords of the foil, be¬ fore ever a Britifh fubjed fet his foot in North America; and they have, through fucceffive gene¬ rations, ever lince remained an incorporated fociety, living according to a conftitution framed by them- felves; therefore fhould they defire to join them- felves more intimately to the Britilh nation, they would certainly have a right to propofe their own terms, and to make ftipulations as a diftind peo¬ ple, offering to live in a federal union with Great Britain. The colonifts are not a new people that come and offer to enter into the bonds of a perpetual alliance and confederation with us. They were originally our fellow-fubjeds, who finding that the ftate laid claim to the dominion and property of extenfive vacant lands in America, follicited and obtained an authority from the crown, that is from the ftate, to occupy thofe lands, with all the pri¬ vileges of fubjeds remaining at home. The fun¬ damental ftipulation with fuch fubjeds is, “ You “ fhall have thofe lands, if you remain in obe- “ dience to the parent ftate.” It is by that tenure the colonifts hold all the lands they poffefs in America; and the terms of a royal charter ex*-, prefling any thing elfe, are contrary to the funda¬ mental principles of the Britifh conftitution. The conditions of that tenure are no ways altered on account of the hardlhips and difficulties which the firft fettlers had to ftruggle with, any more than the unexpeded difficulties and difappointments C 48 ) that miners meet with, give them a fuller right or title to the ore when found, than they had origi¬ nally from their leafe. The crown, that is the flate, gives even more than the lands in America to the colonifts. It gives them the power of go¬ vernment, granting to each colony a jurifdiftion in every matter relative to it’s own particular con* cerns; but as all the fubjefts are interefted in the general concerns of the whole empire, no parti¬ cular jurifdiftion can have any authority in thefe, and the jurifdiftion which treats of them, muft in its nature be fupreme. If then the Britilh parliament, as we have feen, enjoys a right of taxation independent of indivi¬ dual reprefentation; if the dominion and property of the vacant lands of America were acknowledged to belong to the crown, that is to the ftate of Eng¬ land, before any Englilh fubjeft ever emigrated thither; if the fettlers of thofe lands, who failed thither as Englilh fubjefts, received them, and are daily receiving them from the bounty of the pa¬ rent Hate, as portions of her dominion; thofe let- tiers or colonifts are then equally amenable to the fame fupreme power with all other Britilh fubjefts, liable with them to the fame viciflitudes of ad- verfe or profperous fortune in peace and war, and confequently liable with them to bear their lhare of all the public burdens, which the fup- port and defence of the ftate may render necef- fary. The annual balance that Great Britain receives in her trade with the North American continent, has ( 49 ) has been pleaded as areafonfor an exemption from taxation, in favour of the colonies. But by the fame reafon Ireland, the Me of Wight, and Scot¬ land, taken diftin&ively from England, ought to pay no taxes; for, upon examination, it will be found, that the balance is againft all thefe with the center of government. That balance, however, when not extreme, by no means implies an ex- haufting drain of thofe remote territories.. The balance from the whole North American conti¬ nent at prefent is not fo great in proportion to the territory and number of people as from the Me of Wight; and that proportion in all probability will even diminilh, as the colonies acquire a greater maturity; and in time it maybe prefumed,, will preponderate againft the mother country in favour of the Carolinas, and other fouthern colonies; fo that what money Great Britain receives from the northern colonies, will be drawn, back again by the fouthern, and will barely fuffice with her own exports to pay for the rich products Ihe will have occafion for from them. As all wealth (fifheries excepted,) originates from the foil, the moft natural wealth that a capital can polfefs, is that which it draws from its own pro¬ vinces ; and while governments fubfift upon earth, it will ever be found that the center of the ftate will in general draw a balance from the extremi¬ ties. This balance in ftates either monarchical or republican, is partly employed in'the exertion of ftrength, and partly in wafteful confumption. What is employed in the exertion of ftrength, like the impulfe of the heart, returns circulation to the ex- G . tremities, ( 5° ) tremities, and gives vigour to the whole coriftitu- tion. The wafteful confumption of one year is fupplied by the reproductions of the next. It is a maxim in philofophy, that if the force of at¬ traction or cohefion is not greater than the force of repulfion, bodies cannot exilt; and the fame holds true in politics. If the returns to the center of the ftate do not exceed in fome ,fmall degree the out¬ goings from it, weaknefs and difmembermettt mult enfue. The fun himfelf, who difperfes his light and heat through our fyltem, is fuppofed by aftro- nomdrs to receive fupplies fully equivalent to his daily walte; and indeed it may be prefumed, that if he did not receive fuch fupplies, his light would foon be extinguilhed. Much has been written about the balance of trade between nation and nation, and between one province and another; but molt of the conclufions I have feen from the reafonings on that fubjeCfc have been either very fuperficial, or altogether falfe. The authors almoft perpetually milled by the notion of a mercantile balance, have Hated one nation agaitfft another, like one finite arithmetical fum againft another, where by continued fubtrac- tion on one fide, and continued addition on the other, the difference at length becomes extreme. This is the univerfal error of Swift in regard to the relation between Ireland and Great Britain. The fupplies of nature however are not finite, but infinite. It has been obferved above, that all wealth originates from the foil; now as the foil is permanent, the fupplies.it yields are therefore per¬ ennial ; confequently, though the provinces have ( 5 * ) the balance annually againft them with the capital, yet from nature they annually receive a new fup- ply of wealth. From whence I will draw a corol¬ lary, which, though it has not been commonly obferved by political or commercial writers, will neverthelefs be found to be a true propofition, “ That “ one nation or one province, may have the ge- “ neral balance of trade perpetually againft it “ with another nation or province, and, never- “ thelels, may increafe in opulence and wealth " annually;” and this is the adtual fituation both of Ireland and of the North American colonies, no part of the Brithh dominions at prefept prof- pering more than the latter. We may alfo from hence conclude, That it is a moft falfe maxim, to fay that we ought to feek no other profit from the colonies, but the extenfion of our trade with them* That this is a falfe maxim will appear.,from its being contradi&ory to the firft and'trueft of all maxims, that taxation in order to be juft, ought to be proportionably equal, Our trade has been extending with the American colo¬ nies annually for fifty years paft; but that has been chiefly owing to the extenfion of their fettle- mepts, anfi to the augmentation of their numbers; for if new fettlements were to ceafe, and their po¬ pulation remain the fame fpr a number of years, our trade with them would certainly diminifh from the fuppfies of manufajSmres, which they muft in the very nature of things furnifli to themfelves. No idea can be more abfurd, than to imagine,, we lhall fuppofe two, three, , or four millions of peo¬ ple living in peace, in towns and villages, in afer- G z ' tile C ) tile territory, and being fupplied with flioes, dock¬ ings, hats, fliirts, and every other article of wear¬ ing apparel, and of houfehold furniture, by eight or ten millions of their fellow-fubjefts, living three thoufand miles off *. One may as well fuppofc the firft four millions to be born without hands and * arms, and to live in a country where there was neither timber, metals, flax, nor wool. Yet this, I acknowledge, was in the laft century the Utopian idea of Sir William Petty, in fome of his fanciful illuftrations, when he aimed at proving, that Eng¬ land could carry on the foreign commerce of the whole world. The Dutch were then aftonilhing Europe by their fudden wealth, ,and foreign com¬ merce became the popular cry of the times, and had the preference to all kinds of domeftic or ter¬ ritorial improvement. This narrow and falfe fyf- tem has ftill fome deluded followers, who weakly believe that the great fecret of political flrength is to aim conftantly at a monopoly of foreign com¬ merce for the center of government, which may be truly affirmed to have on many occafions greatly weakened the political flrength of the Britilh na¬ tion. If the American colonifts have within thefe thirty years doubled the number of their habita¬ tions, it cannot be fuppofedthat during that lhort fpace of time they have had leifure to manufac¬ ture the various articles of furniture and clothing needed for thofe new families, who have been em¬ ployed upon the moft profitable of all occupa¬ tions, that of the cultivation of land. But the * This was the wife fyftem of our popular orator, who was fqr prohibiting the colonifts from manufacturing a horfe-fhoe nail. prefent C 53 ) prefent courfe of trade between them and their mo¬ ther country cannot, I fay, be looked upon as a rule for future times, when new fettlements will' ' not befo frequent, anddiandicraft trades will have, taken deeper root among them. Therefore to view the American colonifts merely, or even chiefly, in the light of dealers or cuftomers, ferving to ex¬ tend what is wrongfully called our foreign com¬ merce, is a moft falfe political maxiny leadingto confequences diredtly oppofite to thole it would feem to promife. - - The Britifh Nation has no right to expedt any thing more from foreign cuftomers than the pro¬ fits arifing from its trade with them; but Purely it has a right to expedt fomething more from fubjedts, who, though by their mutual commerce^ they certainly enrich the fttate; yet are corifidered by government as only enriching each other. How abfurd then is the expedition of the Bofto- nians in their valedidtory addrefs to Governor Hutchinfon, when they humbly hope; “ That “ the policy of Great Britain will ever be fuch, “ as lhall induce them to view every defireable “ benefit, which they can rationally expedt to rt- “ ceive from their colonies, as founded in the ‘‘ principles of commerce, and not of taxation:” This is precifely fuch a propofition as might be ex- pedled to be made to Great Britain by France 'Or Spain, in an amicable treaty of commerce; but appears rather too ridiculous to, be confuted when poming from fubjedts, who receive the protec-' rion of government; and are therefore bound in duty to fupport government. What fhould we ( 54 ) think of the Newcastle traders to London, lhould they petition for an exemption from taxation upon the fame principle? In order to miflead our judgements, in regard to the advantages accruing from this American commerce, we have been told over and over again, that the colonifts merely beggar themfelves to enrich us; that they fpin out their awn bowels for us; that every thing they earn centers in Great Britain, &c. * Thefe fophiftical and deceitful pofitions have been often repeated for enfnaring purpofes ; but, like every other ar¬ gument advanced by the feditious, only ferve to prove the unjuftifiablenefs of their own conduct. Is the balance of the trade of the colonies with Great Britain one million annually in favour of the mother country, we are not from thence to con¬ clude, that they give that million for nothing, that it is part of their own bowels, which their dutifulnefs makes them beftow upon their-parent ftate? No; they adtually receive penny-worths for it in furniture, utenfils, clothing, &c. which their new fettlements render neceffary. The pur- chafer of an hundred pounds worth of goods ha* no right to fay, that the merchant is an hundred pounds the better for him, when he receives goods to that value from the merchant. I would not by this be underftood to infer that the American mar¬ ket is of fmall importance to Great Britain. On the contrary, I think the commerce between Great * It is affirmed in the ndminiftration of the colonies, ed. 4. p. 40. “ That all the profits of the produce and manufactures of the colo- V nies center finally in the mother country.” The author of that treatife has certainly too much good fenfe not to retraCl that propo¬ rtion, which the lead reflection fliews to be falfe. Britain ( 55 > Britain and her American colonies, cannot b6td® much encouraged for the intereft of both, and that it may become imttienfely beneficial to thb ftate, tho’ there fhould not be a mercantile balance in favour either of the mother country, or of thb colonies.. ‘ Thofe who have written aqd harangued about the mercantile profits accruing to Great Britain ' from the American colonifts, -have always kept fe the general propofition, more apt to lead into errof, than to clear up any political truth. It may, therefore, be proper On tMprefent occafiofi to dif- cufs that point a littlej and, the refult ;af the examination' will Ihew mn which' fide the debt lies j and pVove that a political balance, and a mercan¬ tile balance- are two different things; I fliall ftate the nftmber of Britilh fubje&s or colonifts dh the continent of North America' at two millions, and their annual expence per head at four pounds ten Ihillings, or nine millions of pounds for the whole. It may be prefumed that I rathCr under¬ rate, than ovbr-rate the annual Cxpence of the co¬ lonifts,-when we confider that Sir William Petty, an hundred years ago, rated the annual expertCe of the people of England, at 5/. an head. : Now, ( Whoever, makes an eftimate of the prefent rate of living of the Englilh colonifts in North America, and computes the. marketable prices of. their com¬ modities in general, the rents of the.lands in the inhabited fpots, the houfe rents in their large towns,, ahd the luxury of their cities, may 'con¬ clude that living is but a fmall degree Cheaper there at prefent, than it was in England an hun-. dred C 56 ) dred years ago, or about three times as cheap 35 it is in Great Britain at this period, where it may be proved with tolerable exa&nefs, that the annual expence of the people is near fifteen pounds an head, things, in general, being tripled in their prices in this ifland^ fince the time that Sir Wil¬ liam Petty’s treatife was written *. From whence do the colonifts draw this annual fubfiftence of nine millions fterling, but from their lands and fifheries; and who has conferred, and is daily conferring, upon them thofe lands and fifheries, but Great Britain? Have the colonifts fettled in the ifland of St. John fince the late peace* beftowed the lands of that ifland upon themfelves ? Have they not received them from Great Britain, with all the rights of free fubjefts annexed to them, which, in a ftate of fociety, as has been above obferved, can never imply an exemption from public burdens, in the manner, and in the degree that the fupreme legiflature of that fociety fhall * I have been told, a member of parliament lately affirmed, that the landed gentlemen paid annually 14 s. in the pound of their rent! in public taxes; which affirmation, argues the mod profound igno¬ rance of the principles and iburccs of finance. The national income, • it is faid, has lately been dated by another gentleman at fifty-eight millions; which would make the public taxes about ys. in the pound. The annual national revenue may, I think, be eafily de- mondrated to be above one hundred millions, which will make the public burdens in Great Britain little more than half a crown in the pound. If thole two Gentlemen will favour the public with their demondrations, I will produce mine. Were Britilh fubjedts to live with that cordiality which they ought, the taxes might foon be lelT- tned to 1 s. in the pound; and were the national debt annihilated, would not be I s. in the pound. But if trifling fquabbles keep go¬ vernment in a ftate of warfare with thofe who ought to be living peaceable fubjects to the laws, public eypences mud ncceflarily be augmented. think ( 57 ) tfcink fit to impofe them. What is here obferved of the moft recent and moff inconfiderabje of, our American colonies, is equally true in regard to the moft ancient and moft confiderable of them; which their charters, together with the hiftory of their various fettlements, moft amply teftify. The American colonifts, befides their, annual fubfiftence of nine millions fterling, which their lands and filheries yield them, have likewife drawn from the fame fhnds another very confiderable flock of wealth, which confifts in' their houfes, mills, improved lands, flock of cattle, plate, houfehold furniture, apparel, fsfc. This'may juftly be reckoned to be at prefent above an hun¬ dred millions fterling.; which, confidering the i&- fenfible wafte and decay even of this flock, and the final! accumulations that were made upon thefirft fettlement of tfle colonies, will imply! an annual augmentation of about three millions fterling foV many years back *. Thus the colonifts, from, lands which they hold from Great Britain, have a&ually accumulated a mafs of wealth, of above an hundred millions, befides an annual fubfiftence of nine millions, and a yearly, increafe of wealth of about three millions. For, I fuppofe, all' tlfe flocks in goods-and caflij that have been carried from Europe by new fettlers to North America, when put together,, would Mdonotinfift upon-the abfblute accuracy^of, the above calculi-, tipns, though. I could a^difcc manyreafqn? to {hew that they. arc not. far from the truth. The more or the left in thefe films can only ftrengtheu or weaken myargument to-a cttttindegre&s but cannOt ( # 5 * ) not amount to one million fterling. The cg- lonifts then are growing richer.by three millions every year; but whence comes this fuperlucration of three millions, and how it is difpofed of? Let us trace its rife and circulation. It is acquir¬ ed like the other nine millions, from their lands and fifheries; and part of it is employed domefti- cally, in improving their lands, augmenting their flocks, and adding to the number of their houfes and fettlements. Another part of it becomes a fubjeCt of foreign trade with the European Weft Indian fettlements, and even direCtly with feveral European ftates; for, as the colonifts do not limit themfelves to their own products and manufac¬ tures, they, with part of them, purchafe the ma¬ nufactures and products of other countries that they want. By this traffic, let us compute that the colonifts acquire a million fterling in the pre¬ cious metals; this balance, or rather this barter, enables them to become purchafers at the market of Great Britain, for various goods and merchan- difes that they have occafion for from the mother country; and the million finally refts where it ought to reft, and be confumed, about the center of the ftate that produced it. From this the fe- ditious advocates of the colonies have either igno¬ rantly qr fophiftically concluded, that the Ame¬ rican colonifts are merely toiling for the mother coun¬ try, find that the fruits of all their Ighour center in Great Britain ; whereas it appears that it is hard¬ ly a twelfth of their income which they fend to Great Britain; for which twelfth they actually receive a vglue in return; the merchandifes they draw from Great Britain being as ufeful and as neceffary C 59 > fteceflkry to them, as the precious metals are. to the Bricifh merchants. I allow that in their com¬ merce with Great Britain, they are lofers of the- profits of trade, which reft with the Britifli mer¬ chants; but Ihould thefe even be thirty per Cent . it will make the pecuniary advantage accruing to the mother country from the commerce with the colonies about 300,000/. a year, or one fortieth part of the income of thofe colonies. This balance, it may be prefumed, will in* creafe annually for many years to come; but ihould it rife to be three times, or even four times as great as at prefent, it appears from what is above written* that we ought,to conclude from hence. Not that the colonies are more exhaufted; but that they are be¬ come more opulent. Baft fadls ftrengthen the evidence of this conclufion; for the trade of the colonies with Great Britain is now three, times as great as it was feventy yetrs ago; yet every fen- fible perfon infers from thence, not that the colo. nies are three times as poor, but that they are three times as rich. We have feen that the annual balance accruing to Great . Britain from America, amounts to about.300,000 /. but for thefe ten years - paft, the unproductive fund of military expence, has been drawing more than that fum. annually from Great Britain to America; fo that it would feem the colonies are receiving a counterbalance, or full equivalent, from their mother couhtry fot the balance of their trade with her. But I fhall not infill on that equivalent, of counterbalance, as I hope that our prefent political fyftem, in re? gard to that point, will not be Qf long continuance. Hi Such ( *> ) Such is then the ftate of the mercantile Balance flowing from America to Great Britain; but havte the colonifts any exclufive merit to plead on ac¬ count of that? Is it not according to the efta- 'blifhed courfe of nature, that-the members lhould fupport the body? Great Britain, by the lands Ihe has acquired in North America, has afforded an afylum, and a rich property to two millions of people, many of whom, had they not enjoyed the eafinefs of living, which that large continent affords, would have dragged through life in ditfrefsful* circumftances, hnd in celibacy; but now fee themfelves in opu¬ lence, and the parents of a numerous offspring, certain of a fubfiftence, if from nothing elfe, from the poffeflion of new lands. The mother eountry has not been a niggard in the diftribution of thofe lands, often giving as much for the yearly quit- rent of half a crown, as could not be purchafed in Great Britain for 200, or 300 /. and has been refold in America for that money. She has alfo protefted, and daily protects, the pofleffors of thofe eafily acquired properties in the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of them, and may therefore be faid to have been inftrumental in giving exift- ence to thoufands, nay to millions, who would tttherwife never had a being; and if liberty and property be means of happinefs, has alfo ,afforded thofe new fubjeCts the means of enjoying their cxiftence with fatisfaCtion. The fubjeCts in America then owe about twelve millions a year to the bounty and to the protection of ( ft >. of Great Britain?, and yet they moil: ungratefully never take that into the account; but, forgetting what the colonifts have-got, and are daily getting, by Great Britainy they repeat without ceafing how much Great Britain gets by the colonifts. Now it appears demonftrably evident, that the indul¬ gent mother country has 'Contented .herfelf with one fortieth part of the income -of the colonies. While the colonifts, not fatisfied -with the fecure enjoyment of the thirty-nine parts remaining, would fain difavow the obligation they have to the mother country for the landed property they poflefs in Amerita, in defiance of the written evi¬ dence of the grants regiftered among them. I have ventured to recall to’their minds that obliga-” tion, and to ftate it as Amply and as clearly'as'I could to my readers, whomay now judge on which . fide the debt lies, and whether the cdlonifts do not profit above -thirty times more by the mo¬ ther country, than the mother country'profits by them. 9 That'Great Britain fhould acquire an exterifion of territory on the continent of North America, 'and not gain from it, would indeed be Something furprifing. That the Britifh ftate fhould afford, an occafion to her ow r n fubjedts of acquiring wealth, 'and of multiplying and increafing, andyetbe no gainer from fuch an incredfe Of fubjeifts, would be a fyftemof mifgovernment not to be paralleled. 'Does fhe now turn her attention to that pbjedt’; and perceive that from , the colonifts bearing'tqo little, their fellow - fubjedts in Great Britain are , fuffering too much, fhe certainly adtsmoft equi- ( 6 a ) tably and moft politically in fo proportioning thtf public burdens upon both, as to reduce the balance nearer to an equilibrium; A farmer in Great Britain that pays an hundred pounds a-year to his landlord, is often found to p&y away more than one third of his income, and yet he thrives, and year after year, pays that hundred pound without ever receiving a farthing in return. How much more eligible, and how nearly independent is the ' fituatiori of the colonift, who acquits all obli¬ gations of rent upon him for a fortieth part of his income; and who, if he will content himfelf with the products of his own folitary farm, and abftradfc himfelf from the refinements of life procureable from Great Britain, needs not even pay the half of that. The American colonifts are almoft uni- verfally proprietors of land; and every one knows upon what eafy terms they have acquired thofe properties-, terms fo very eafy, that their lands may rather bb faid to have been given them as a prefent, than fold to them by their mother coun¬ try. 'iheir lands in general yield them as rich produdb as thofe of Great Britain, and many of them much richer; and the demands upon them for public charges for their domeftic concerns will be found to be trifling, in comparifon of thofe of the mother country. So. far then from the frtiits of all their labour centering in Great Britain, the colonifts are left in the free polTeflion of more of them than equal juftice to their fellow-fubjedts in Great Britain ought to allow. No wonder then that the ideas of independence, and exemption from taxation held up to people in diftrefsful cir- cumftances in this Ifland, and in Ireland, ihould induce ( H ) induce them to quit their moft intimate friends anS relations, and feek for fettlements in a country where there are neither rents nor taxes. Such emi- • gration may fometimes turn out to the advantage of individuals; but, while the colonifts remain untaxed in a juft proportion with their fellow-fub- jeds, tlje ftate muft be a lofer by it; for Ihe there¬ by exchanges fo many whole-fubjetts, if J may be allowed the expreffion, for fo many half- fttlh jefts. , In Great Britain the fubjeds labour for the ftate as well as for themfelves; and they Have a right to exped that their fellow-fubjeds in America Ihould be under the fame obligation. Is it at all reconcileable to common fenfeor equity, that the, labouring hands, who are the ftrength, of a ftate, upon leaving this ifland,'and acquiring lands in America, Ihould .thiuk themfelves independent of the Britilh Barliament in every thing regarding public contributions, while they ftill remain on Britilh ground, and enjoy the protedion of the Britilh government? THe moment'an'Amefican colonifts gets poffeffion of a fertile trad of land, , by a grant from Great Britain, for a trifling quit- rent, has he any right to cry out, “ M is two' my “ own; I owe nobody any thing ; I will not grant 'd “ farthing to the public expences but what I myfelf u choofe, or what a reprefentatiye chofen by me Jhall ft give'his confent to.” Such a declaration, as h’sfs been demonibrated; above, would be'difedly icpn- tradidory toT tiSc' ftuidsu^^ the ■/: Britilh conftitution, no 'fubjed in Gr?at ?ritain, C 64 ) or in any part of the Britifh empire, having the leaft right to pretend to any. fuch claim. The feditious Penfylvanian affembly however, in their reje&ion of the Conciliatory Propolition made to them by two branches of the Britilh Le- giflature, have the weaknefs and folly to lay it dpwn as the principle upon which they found their rebellious refiftance, That nothing is to be taken, by Government from a free people by force , or extorted by fear. I affirm that the Britilh confti- tution never acknowledged any fuch principle; and tho’ they may quote Governor Pownal or Lord Camden for fuch an opinion, I defy them to quote either Law or Reafon in fupport of it. Such a political maxim includes the following ab» furdity, That the fupreme authority has an incon- troulable Power in every inftance, excepting in the molt material, inftance, that of the defence of the ftate. We in Great Britain, however know very well, that all taxing laws are compulfory Jaws, which do not infringe the legal liberties of Britons either in Europe or America; that the falus popttli is the fuprema lex ; that in the arrierp ban, the perfon who came laft to the rendezvous was hanged; that the majority of the Saguntines never fcrupled to burn the minority as well as themfelves, tho’ in this laft cafe, it was not the falus poputi that was the objeft, but the falus hono¬ ris populi. Did this Penfylvanian whim of paying nothing tp the fupport of the ftate'but benevo- lencies, make a principle in the antientfree com¬ monwealth of Rome? Very far from it. In the Roman ftate, To have prtsdia cenfui cenfenda, or taxable ( «s ) taxable pofleffions, was the very thing that de¬ noted a. Freeman; and fome perfons who were not entitled to that character, ftolethe right of' citizen&ip, by getting their pofleffions fraudu¬ lently put upon the taking role. The Slaves in-. deed paid nb taxes; but when a Have became rich, and could get his matter's leave to pay taxes, that very aft made him a Freeman. - On the other hand, whoever was conVifted of giving in'a falfe ftate of his pofieflions, in hopes of eluding a pu¬ blic tax, was publicly whipped and fold for a Have by order of the Conful, and allhis pofleffions were forfeited to the ftate, and fold by the Cenfor.* As another apology for non-taxation of the ' colonies, We' are told that emigrants paffing from hence and fettling there, ftill traffic with the parent ftate, who gains by their traffic. With; whom, pray, ought they to traffic? If they had ftaid at home, they certainly would have traf¬ ficked with the parent ftate; blit they would HaVe been fubjeft to taxes neverthelefs. This circum- ftance the colbnifts feem perpetually to overlook, and think they acquit themfelves as-to all na- : . tional fupplies by the balance accruing to the mo-! ther country from their traffic with her ;- which balance, however, We have feen, affefts but a very' inconfiderable part of their income, but about a fortieth part, They have their domeftic taxes, it'- is true; but thefe are fo low that even, when added to the balance abovermehtiohed, they # bear but'a fmall proportion to the public burdens of the peo¬ ple of Great Britain, which amount to a full fe- venth of their income, • Cicero it Topic, Digit, ttalicarn. 1.Sigoniu/ it antique jure Roma* ‘ I In C 66 ) In the petition prefented to parliament, about feven years ago, by the colonifts of New, York, we meet with the following paragraph. “ That the “ petitioners conceive the North American filhery “ to be an objedt of the higheft national import- <£ ance; that nothing is fo eflential for the fupport “ of navigation, fince by employing annually fo “ great a number of Ihipping, it conftitutes a re- “ Ipedtable nurfery for feamen, and is fo clearly ad- “ vantageous for remittances in ‘payment for Britifh “ mamfaSures ; that the petitioners therefore hum* f( bly prefume, that it will be cherilhed by the “ houfe with every pofiible mark of indulgence, “ and every impediment be removed which tends “ to check its progrefs.” No doubt, the very lucrative filhery,. which the colonies enjoy on the coafts of North America, is clearly advantageous for remittances in payment for Britiflo manufaftures; that is, it annually yields the colonifts a fund to purchafe neceflaries. But would not that fame filhery have the fame enriching effed, were it to be profecuted from the harbours of Great Britain? from’whence we find it formerly was profecuted; and would not all the feamen concerned in it on our coafts pay national taxes, as well as purchafe Britifh manufactures ? Why then lhould the nar tion now reap but an half advantage from it, fince it is ftill carried on by Britilh fubjedts, though they have flitted to the weft fide of the Atlantic. Sir Jofiah Child, who carried a very penetrating judgement iSto national concerns, viewed the Ame¬ rican filhery an hundred years ago in a very dif? ferent light from that in which it is confidered by the C 67 ) the colonifts. I {hall therefore contrail their fen- timents with his; arid I am perfuaded every fenfi- ble reader will from therice conclude, that while the colonifts are not fubjedted to a proportionable lhare of taxes with their fellow-fubjedts, they con- , tribute rather to impoverilh than to enrich the mo¬ ther country by that fifliery. Sir Jofiah, fpeaking of the American fifliery, fays, “ It is well known, “ upon undeniable proof, that, in the year 1605, “ the Englifh employed two hundred and fifty fail c ( of fliips, frnall and great, in filhing upon that coaft, and it is now (that is about the year ‘‘ 1670) too apparent,'that We do not employ “ from all parts above eighty fail of fliips.—If it “ be the intereft of all trading nations principally “ to encourage navigation, and to promote efpe- u