every political duty, draw their fwords against the ftate of which they own themfelves the fubjects. The opinions of man. kind are invariably oppofed to fuch men. Their affertions are heard with diftruft, their arguments weighed with caution (2); and therefore it is as neceffary for them to adhere to truth in the former, as it is prudent to avoid fophiftry in the latter. This confideration, however obvious it may appear to others, feems to have totally efcaped the attention of the body of men who lately fat at Philadelphia under the name of The General American Congrefs. In a paper published under the title of, A Declaration by the Reprefentatives of the United Colonies of North Americe xxxvii. 423.], the facts are either wilfully or ignorantly mifreprefented, and the arguments deduced from premiffes that have no foundation in truth. But as whatever falls from men who call themfelves the reprefentatives of a people, muft fall with fome degree of weight on the minds of the undifcerning part of mankind, it becomes in fome meafure neceffary to examine briefly the reafons held forth by the congrefs to justify the rebellion of their constituents. On a subject fo trite, arguments advanced by other writers may fometimes recur; but novelty is lefs the object of this part of the quifition, than perfpicuity and precifion. The great difference between the degrees of freedom in various governments, confifts merely in the manner of placing this neceffary difcretionary power. In the British empire it is veled, where it is most safe, in King, Lords, and Commons, under the collective appellation of the Legiflature. The Legiflature is another name for the Conflitution of the state; and, in fact, the ftate itfelf. The Americans ftill own themfelves the fubjects of the ftate; but if they refufe obedience to the laws of the legislature, they play upon words, and are no longer fubjects, but rebels. In vain have they affirmed, that they are the fubjects of the King's prerogative, and not his fubjects in his legiflative quality; as the King, with regard to his fubjects in general, is to be confidered only in his executive capacity as the great hereditary magiftrate, who carries into effect the laws of the legislature, the only difcretionary and uncontroulable power in a free state. The difcretionary and uncontroulable authority of the British Legislature being granted, their right to tax all the fubjects of the British empire can never be denied. Some ill-informed reafoners in politics have lately started an obfolete maxim, which has been feized with avidity by the Americans, That "the fupreme power cannot take from any one any part of his property without his conThe declaration of the congrefs begins fent (4);" or, in other words, That rewith an involved period, which either prefentation is infeparable from taxation. contains no meaning, or a meaning not The colonists, fay they, have no reprefounded on the principles of reafon, fentatives in parliament, and therefore They feem to infinuate, that no body of men, in any empire, can exercifean unbounded authority over others;" an opinion contrary to fact under every form of government. No maxim in policy is more univerfally admitted, than that a fupreme and uncontroulable power muft erit fomewhere in every ftate (3). This ultimate power, though justly dreaded and reprobated in the perfon of one man, is the firft fpring in every political fociety. (1) Confidering how many of the inhabibitants of this kingdom have been convinced by the affertions and arguments of the colo. hifts, we think this obfervation must be eior that it muft ftrongly militale against the caufe which our author would defend. ther not true, (3) An abominable doctrine! which, where-ever it is admitted, must leave the governed no rights but what depend on the arbitrary will of their governors. parliament has no right to tax the colonifts. Upon this principle, fcarce one in twenty-five of the people of G. Britain is reprefented. Out of more than feven millions, fewer than three hundred thoufand have an exclufive right to chufe members of parliament; and, therefore, (4) A maxim, or] An opinion necessarily ariling out of the very nature of property, and fanctified by the most refpectable autho rity; an opinion which Englishmen have hi therto fondly cherished, and for which they have hazarded their deareft interefts; and an opinion which no writer of any credit had difputed in this country, fince the Revolution, until our controverfy with the colonies feemed to require the propogation of doctrines lefs favourable to freedom and the juft rights of mankind. But in oppofition to this influence the judgement of any man who is opinion, nothing is here delivered which can but moderately acquainted with the fubject. D 2 more more than three times the number of the Americans have an equal right with them to difpute the authority of the legislature to fubject them to taxes. The truth is, representation never accompanied taxation in any state The Romans were a free nation; yet the fenate, that is, the great body of the nobility, poffeffed the fole right of taxing the people. In this kingdom, the Houfe of Commons have an exclufive right of modifying and regula ting the quantity of public fupplies, and the manner of laying taxes: but the Commons, by their own authority, cannot enforce the railing the fupplies they vote. That privilege is inherent in the fupreme and unaccountable power vefted in the three branches of the legislature united; who are in fact the ftate, as the virtual reprefentatives of the whole empire, and not the delegates of individuals. Why it has been fo generally received as a maxim, in this country, That taxa tion and representation are infeparable, requires to be explained. Men little acquainted with the conftitution, derived the opinion from their finding, that it is the indifputable right of the Commons, that all grants of fubfidies and parliamen tary aids fhould originate in their Houfe. But though they first bestow thofe fubfidies and aids, their grants, as has been already obferved, have no effect without the affent of the other two branches of the legislature. The common reafon given for this exclufive privilege is, That as the fupplies are raifed upon the body of the people, the people only ought to have the right of taxing themfelves. This argument would have been conclufive, if the Commons taxed none but thofe by whofe fuffrages they obtained their feats in parliament. But it has appeared, that more than feven millions of people, befides the Peers, who are in poffeflion of fo large a fhare of property in the kingdom, have no voice in the election of the members who fit in the lower houfe. The Commons, therefore, and their conftituents, not being the only perfons taxed, the former cannot poffibly have the only right of railing and modelling the fupply, from the mere circumftance of repretentation. But if they have it not from reprefentation, they must in fact derive it from the fupreme and difcretionary power, which is repofed in them, in conjunction with the two other branches of the legiflature. It appears, upon the whole, that taxation is the refult of that difcretionary authority placed in the hands of the legislature, and exerted by them for the neceffary fupport of the ftate. Ta this authority the whole empire muft fubmit; and confequently no one of its fubjects can claim any exemption. The counties-palatine of Chester, Durham, and Lancaster, were anciently in the fame predicament with the Americans, on the article of taxation. The Earl of Chester, and the Bishop of Durham, be came, by prefcription, and immemorial cuftom, poffeffed of a kind of regal jurisdiction within their respective territories. A fimilar form of government was established by K Edward III. in the county of Lancafter; which was erected, firit into an earldom, and then inta a dukedom, in the perfon of Henry Plantagenet; whofe heiress carried the fame rights and privileges to John of Gant, that King's fourth fon, and his pofterity. But though the fubordinate sovereigns of thefe counties could pardon treafons, murders, and felonies; though they ap pointed all judges, nominated all juftices of the peace, and, in fhort, possessed exclufively the whole internal government of their feveral counties; their fubjects (if the expreffion may be used) were " always bound by the acts and ftatutes" (Stat. at large, 34 35 of Henry VIII. c. 13.) of an assembly in which they had no reprefentatives. They were also "liable to all payments, rates, and fubfidies, granted by the parliament of England ;' (Stat. at large, 25 of Charles II. c. 9.) Thofe counties, it must be confeffed, like the Americans, confidered their being excluded from having reprefentatives in an affembly by which they were taxed, a grievance. Accordingly the town and county of Chester, as far back as the 35th of Henry VIII. petitioned the legislature for the privilege of fending members to parliament; and their request was granted by an exprefs ftatute; (34 35 of Henry VIII. c. 13.) The county and city of Durham made a fimilar application, and with the fame fuccefs, in the 25th of Charles II.; (25 of Charles II. c.9.) Had the Americans, inftead of Hying to arms, fubmitted the fame fuppofed grievance, in a peaceable and dutiful manner, to the legiflature, I can perceive no reason why their request thould be refused. Had they, like the county and city of Chefter, reprefented, That" for lack of knights and burgeffes to reprefent them in the high court of parliament, they had been oftentimes touched and grieved with acts and and ftatutes made within the faid court, derogatory to their most ancient jurifdictions, liberties, and privileges, and prejudicial to their quietness, reft, and peace;" this country would, I am perfuaded, have no objection to their being reprefented in her parliament. But the colonies, though that circumftance is only infinuated in the Declara. tion, have uniformly affirmed, that granting the fupremacy of parliament thould extend over the whole empire; yet that they themselves have a right to an exemption from taxes, either by the conceffions of the legislature, or by charters from the King. It feems incompatible with reafon, fay they, that the colonies fhould have internal legislatures of their own, poffeffing the authority of taxation, and that, notwithstanding, the British parliament fhould retain its power of laying impofts. The firft of thefe affertions is not founded in truth. The charters give no exemption from taxation; on the contrary, fome of them exprefsly fubject the colonies to the fupreme legiflature of Great Britain [xxxvii. 482.]: and had the charters mentioned an exemption, the legiflature, by virtue of its fupreme, univerfal, and difcretionary power, can recal any rights they have conferred, when the good of the ftate renders that measure neceffary. Though the King may give away by charter a right that militates against himself, as hereditary chief magiftrate, he cannot authorise, by any deed whatever, an exemption from the general laws of the ftate. In fuch a cafe, one of the three branches of the legislature would ufurp the power of the three united; a folecifm as great in polity, as it is in mathematics, to affirm, that a part is greater than the whole. It may be neceffary, perhaps, to make an apology for entering fo minutely into the argument in favour of the right of taxation. The Americans themselves have deferted that ground. They fpeak no longer as fubjects. They affume the language of rivals, and they act as enemies. The queftion between them and G. Britain (for it is no longer between them and government) confifts of dependence or independence, connection or no connection, except on the footing of a fovereign ftate. They have already arrogated to themselves all the functions of fovereignty: They have formed a great deliberative council: they have taken the whole executive power into their own hands: they have ftruck a new currency, raised armies, appointed generals: and that they have not chofen another fovereign, must be ascribed more to their republican principles, than to any remains of loyalty for their lawful prince. In this fituation of affairs and opinions, it is matter of little furprise, that men who deny the authority of the ftate, fhould load the legislature with opprobrious epithets. The congrefs accordingly ftigmatise parliament with various charges of tyranny, violence, and oppreffion. Paffing from this ftrain of general fcurrility, they enter into warm encomiums on the ancettors of their conftituents. But they now deviate as much from truth in their applause, as they had done before in their cenfure. They affirm, that the ancestors of the colonists. obtained the lands which they have tranfmitted to the prefent race, "without any charge to the country from which they removed." Their very enemies could not with to meet them on more advantageous ground. The fums expended upon the various provinces, fince their first eftablishment, for their ordinary support, government, and protection, have been fo enormous, that without the authority of inconteftable vouchers, they could scarcely obtain credit *. But even granting that the colonists had obtained their lands without any charge to the mother-country, were they capable of keeping thofe lands without her affiftance? Was it not to defend the Americans, that G. Britain involved herfelf in the laft expenfive war? Did not thofe very United Provinces, who now pretend to fet the power of this kingdom at defiance, lay themselves in the duft at her feet, to claim her aid and protection againft a fingle colony? Did they not complain in the fame abject terms with the Britons of old, "That the Barbarians drove them into the fea, and that the fea drove them back on the Barbarians?" Did not G. Britain, like a guardian angel, ftretch forth her hand to their aid, and, by expelling their enemies from the continent of America, refcue them, not only from danger, but the very fear of danger? Did the not, over and above the many millions the expended upon the fleets and armies employed in defence of the colonies, advance more than one million to pay their own native forces, employed in their own cause * ? Did not the mother-country, with more than a mother's fondnefs, upon all occafions nourish, cherish, and fupport this prodigal child, that left the houfe of his parent, "to feed on hulks, with the fwine of the defert ?" Has fhe not (to fum up the whole in one point of view uniformly protected the colonies in war, encouraged their produce with bounties in time of peace t, entered into all their quarrels with their neighbours, made their enemies her own? and, for their fake, has the not, in fome degree, fubjeded herself to an annual tribute to Indian favages, in whom habitual injuries had raised an irreconcileable hatred to their oppreffors? Did the not, too fatally, relinquish great advantages on every other fide of a fuccefsful war, to era dicate the very feeds of future contefts in America, and, by giving the colonies unlimited fecurity from abroad, procure for them that profperity at home, which has encouraged them, like parricides, to raife the dagger againft her own breast? The congrefs, in the next paragraph of their Declaration, affect to reprobate the last peace, though they have derived fo many and fo great advantages from that treaty. The conduct of the Americans ought alfo to induce this kingdom to regret the ftipulations he made for their fecurity. Had Canada remained in the hands of the French, the colonies would have remained dutiful subjects. Their fears for themselves, in that cafe, would have fupplied the place of their pretended affection for this nation. They would have fpoken more sparingly of their own refources, as they might daily ftand in need of our aid. Their former incapacity of defending themselves would have always recurred to their minds, as long as the objects of their former terror hould continue fo near their borders. But their habitual fears from France were, it feems, removed only to give room to their ingratitude [xxvii. 353.] to G. Bri tain. • [Particulars are here given.] [An account of bouuties from 1749 to the end of 1774 is here given, amounting to upwards of a million and a half, belides bounties on raw filk, and on pipe, hogf head, and barrel, naves and heading.] The effrontery with which the congrefs reprobate the late peace, is fcarcely equal to their folly in applauding the minifter who had carried on the war. With peculiar inconfiftency, they affect to commence an æra of “ public ruin,” from Mr Pitt's refignation in 1761; yet the whole "object of their wishes" is, to be placed on the fame footing as in the year 1763. They do not recollect, or rather they pretend to forget, that the most splendid actions in the war happened after Mr Pitt retired from his office. They are ignorant, or defignedly conceal, that the commerce of this kingdom has amazingly increafed, and, in confequence, its revenue, fince the æra from which they date public ruin. They know, or they ought from their own experience to know, that, notwithstanding their futting their ports again!t our manufactures, permanent and profitable fources of commerce have been opened in other quarters; that, instead of being diftreffed by their prefent interruption to trade, our merchants find themfelves incapable of fulfilling their commiflions from foreign ftates; that as the fureft teft of the flourishing condition of commerce, the courfe of exchange, to the amount of several per cents, is univerfally in favour of G. Britain; and that, as the ultimate and invincible proof of the public profperity, the confidence of the people in the measures of govern ment, and their contempt for the rebellious efforts of the refractory colonies, the national stocks suffer neither fluctuation nor fall in the price. Having reprefented the pretended ruin brought upon the British empire by the late peace, the congress defcend to the fictitious grievances of America fince the fame period. They affirm, that "the colonies were judged to be in fuch a state, as to prefent victories without bloodshed, and all the eafy emoluments of statutable plunder." This figure of rhetoric, if it has any meaning, conveys one contrary to the truth. The colonists having obtained fuch amazing advantages by a peace which they now reprobate, it was deemed juft and proper by Mr Grenville, then at the head of the treafury, that they fhould bear a proportionable fhare of the national burdens incurred by the war. But as their prior inability to bear internal taxes had precluded him from having a precedent, he only threw out, as it is vulgarly expreffed, in the beginning of the year 1764, his intentions of raifing a revenue in America by a ftamp-duty, fimilar to that eftablished in G. Britain; referring the confideration of the whole affair to the next feffion. His object was, to give time to the colonies to propofe jome other mode of taxation, should that fuggeted to parliament appear either improper or burdenfome. During the whole of the fummer 1764, though fome difcontented fpirits murmured, not a fingle doubt was ftarted against the abfolute right of parliament to impofe taxes on every member of the British empire. The time allowed to the colonies furnished them with no expedient for raifing a tax lar error in former times, as well as in more fuitable to the purpose of a reve- the prefent age. Many who have prebue, (which, by the by, was to have tended to understand perfectly the affairs been fpent among themfelves); and there of this kingdom, moft firmly, but in my fore, in the beginning of the year 1765, opinion very weakly, believed, that the the famous ftamp-act was paffed, against great fecret of our political interest cona very inconfiderable minority, in both fifted in forcing, in a manner, a monopoly houfs of parliament. of foreign commerce. It was from this perfuafion, that the popular orator used, upon the occafion juft mentioned, a figure of rhetoric at once foolish and abfurd, when he affirmed, that the colonists fhould be prohibited "from manufacturing even the hob-nail of a horse-shoe !” One might be tempted to ask the orator, how this prohibitory mandate could be enforced? or if it could, whether it is lefs arbitrary, than to demand an internal tax from the Americans, for the fupport of their own goverment, and even for the general fupport of the ftate, and as a fuitable return for the protection which they have ever derived from the government of this kingdom? To enter into the motives of Mr Pitt's oratory, for the total and abfolute repeal of the stamp-act, would be to defert a great and public fubject for the fake of tracing the private views of an ambitious man. In his argument, if what he advanced deferves the name, he fell in with the vulgar, and, it may be faid, falfe maxim, That no profit ought to be expected from the colonies, but that refulting from their commerce. This opinion of Mr Pitt, whether it proceeded from ignorance or defign, (and it probably proceeded from both), has formed a popu In this kingdom, as well as in every ltate poffeffed of freedom, there are always to be found factious perfons, who oppofe every measure of government. In their eagerness to difgrace the minifter, they too frequently obftruct the service, and defeat the interefts of their country. Every fide of a fpeculative point is armed with arguments, that may impofe on the ignorant, and encourage the fanguine. The oppofition in parliament, in fhort, committed themfelves too far in favour of the prejudices of the Americans, with re gard to the ftamp-act, to support it with rigour, when they themfelves, very unexpectedly, came into office, a few months after it had paffed into law. Though their view of the object changed with their elevation, they found that the flame which their own factious fpeeches, in the preceding feffion, had raised in America, was too vehement to be extinguished without conceffions. A natural timidity of difpofition, joined to the common want of firmnefs which accompanies novelty in office, rendered them inclinable to purchase prefent quiet for themfelves, at the expence of the future advantage of their country. But ftill they wavered on the point of irrefolution, till Mr Pitt's oratory weighed down the fcale. The tamp-t was repealed; and from that moment may be dated the commencement of" what the Americans caltan ara of public ruin." Lord Rockingham, and others in oppofition, came into office July 10. 1765, Grenville and his party having thrown themfelves out of place on the regency-bill. The congrefs had furely forgot this frange rhetorical figure of the great orator, when they were tempted to date public ruin from his refignation in 1761. They have alfo forgot, or they do not chufe to remember, that he acquiefced in the declaratory bill, brought in and paffed by the Marquis of Rockingham's party, who were in office in the beginning of the year 1766. This bill exprefsly declares, "That all his Majefty's colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, fubordinate to, and dependent upon, the imperial Crown and PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN; who have full power and authority to make laws and ftatutes of fuflicient validity to bind the colonies and people of America, fubjects of the crown of G. Britain, IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER.". Mr Pitt, to preferve fome degree of confiftency, objected to the words, "in |