I Have read with much attention the various political productions which have been offered to the publick, ever in hopes to find some middle line drawn, between the Rights of America, and the Claims of England; but most of the writers have contented themselves with embracing wholly one side or the other: this may be the policy of nations at war; but where contending states mu­tually desire to enter into preliminaries of peace, each should consider what they in give up, and what they should retain.

An attempt to draw this line, I am sensible, is assuming a task, which may subject a writer to censure and reproach; and nothing should induce me to hazard [Page 4] the undertaking, but an anxious wish to ward off the calamities advancing on this once happy country. If I should be so unfortunate as to mistake the means, I hope my countrymen will im­pute it rather to the defect of my un­derstanding, than to the dishonesty of my hear. I love my country—my ve­ry soul is in agony for her distress; and every nerve within me shall be exerted to serve her.

There perhaps never was on earth a more happy people, than the inhabi­tants of these colonies, till the late un­fortunate disputes with England about taxation, [...]ouzed mutual jealousies, and created mutual dislikes. If we search into the original cause of these disputes, we shall undoubtedly find them to have arisen from a mistaken apprehension in the parliament of Great-Britain, that they possessed the same power over A­merica, which they exercised over the English nation; and of consequence, that they had a right to dispose of our property at pleasure. This power might to them seem plausible enough, as they undoubtedly thought themselves oblig­ed to protect and defend the colonies in [Page 5] common with the rest of the empire, and therefore expected some contribution in return; and had they confined them­selves to the ancient mode of requisitions by the crown, we might yet have been a happy people; but they have now reduc­ed us to the necessity, of entering into the merits of the connexion; and have started subjects, which, for the peace of both countries, ought to have remained untouched for centuries to come.

It may not be amiss to take a view of our situation, independant of any con­cerns with England, as it may possibly point out to such a connexion as is both reasonable and politic, and which every American might agree to; and here I bespeak the candid unprejudiced atten­tion of my readers.

It were much to be wished, that na­tional freedom could be maintained without national force; but unhappily such is the state of mankind, that their ideas of justice are not sufficiently strong, to preserve them from making inroads and encroachments on each other, and therefore the princes of empires ever find it necessary, to hold themselves in readiness to repel the depredations of [Page 6] their enemies; and the expences attend­ing such preparations, are supplied by their subjects; that is, by those who receive protection. This being the ge­neral situation of governments, suppose we enter into a consideration of our own state.

America from its variety of soil and climate, can produce every necessary of life; and from a happy mixture of the popular form, in most of our govern­ments, is so tempting to foreigners, that they are daily adding to our natural in­crease: thus our numbers are become so considerable, that whilst we remain in harmony amongst ourselves, we may defy the united force of all the powers of Europe, having so grand a barrier as the vast Atlantic; for though a mari­time state might distress our sea-ports by sudden attacks, yet it would be the height of madness in any eastern nation, to attempt an invasion of America with a view or retaining possession. But as the necessaries of life are not sufficient to gratify the demands of elegance, the de­sires of taste, and the pleasures of con­venience, we have recourse to the chan­nels of trade to indulge them from fo­reign [Page 7] reign climes; thus we have constantly floating on the ocean a large portion of our wealth; Should we recur to first principles, and insist that we have an equal right with other nations, to an uninterrupted navigation to every part of the globe, I should readily accede to the assertion; but as power and right are distinct principles in the political world, it is not sufficient for us to prove the latter, without holding forth a convinc­ing argument of our possessing the for­mer. The seas are undoubtedly the grand highways of the world, in which all na­tions have an equal right to travel, and the inhabitants of this common element, are like the property of all: yet such are the received maxims of power, that here one nation shall claim an exclusive priviledge to navigate a certain portion of the main, and there another shall pre­tend to a sole propriety in the fishes of the sea. Inconsistent as this may seem to the rules of that benevolent Being, who gave to man in common the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air; it is not only claimed, but maintained. This being the state of things, it be­comes next a question, how we shall [Page 8] support such a formidable figure, as may entitle us to security and respect, and ensure to us a tolerable share of the pri­viledges contended for, and enjoyed by other nations. It will probably be thought that nothing less than a well equipped navy can answer the purpose; for should our property be detained in foreign prots, should our ships be insulted or plundered on the seas, should our coun­try men be imprisoned abroad, we should have no way of redressing our wrongs, whilst our strength lay confined on our native shores. Admitting then the ne­cessity of a naval force, to secure to us the continuance of our trade; we are next to consider, whether it would be most prudent for us to attempt the esta­blishment of a fleet, or to form an alli­ance with some naval power, whose in­terest it might be to protect us. I con­clude that many considerations, which may be unnecessary to mention, would induce us to prefer an alliance. Let us then take a view of the eastern world, and search amongst the various powers for such a friend. As we are generally protestants, we shall certainly confine our search to protestant princes. On [Page 9] hunting the Continent, we shall find no naval protestant power of strength suffi­cient for our purpose, except the States of Holland, whose attention is so wholly engrossed by commercial pursuits, that great must be the provocation which would induce them to strike an offend­ing power even in their own defence, and much greater must it be to induce them to yield to an American state their aid. In the last war between the Eng­lish and the French, they put up with the highest indignities, rather than sa­crifice the benefits arising from a state of peace. Let us then quit the Continent and turn our eyes to Britain; there we shall find the finest navy in the world, and shall recognize the inhabitants as our friends and relations, with similar customs, similar laws; in short the very people we would wish for our allies; we shall find them capable of supplying us with almost every article of luxury and convenience, and in want of many of the raw materials of America; here then we should probably [...]ix; but now comes the grand question. We not only pro­pose to Great-Britain to enter into a [Page 10] firm, social, commercial compact, which is to be reciprocally advantageous, but we have a further stipulation to make; part of our terms is a stipulation for the protection of our trade, this will of conse­quence put them upon examining into the nature of the contract, and whether it is not mutually beneficial; should they apprehend this to be the case, they might probably conceive that we re­quested more than was just or equitable; for should our coasts be threatened with a fleet, or our ships trading with other nation [...] be seized in their ports, what should prompt the English nation to re­sent our injuries, or revenge our wrongs; so long as we could secure a safe navi­gation for our ships to the harbours of England, they would readily receive us with friendship, and grant us whilst there the protection of our persons and property; and in the course of their trade with us, in their own bottoms, they would find their way to us under the guardianship of their cannon, against the combined forces of Europe. Thus would the matter stand at the first over­tures, supposing us to be an indepen­dant state.

[Page 11] We are now to determine the point, whether we will confine our views of trade and protection to the British nati­on, or take our chance with the various powers that navigate the ocean. We should certainly start at the thought of quitting a nation we once loved, and should therefore demand of them on what terms they were willing to negotiate. Would it not be reasonable to suppose they would address us in the following man­ner? The trade of your continent is un­doubtedly a desirable object, indepen­dant of the dearer ties of blood and friendship; we would wish to preserve it, and to become your customers for many of the articles of your export, and in return, we will supply you with the various manufactures of England; we will protect you in your trade to all parts of the world; we will defend your coasts from foreign [...]. We will make your quarrels our quarrels, and obtain redress for every insult you receive, with as much readiness as if practised on our­selves; but you must be sensible, that this can only be done by maintaining at sea, a continual superiority over our neighbours, both in peace and in war.

[Page 12] The fleets we constantly have equipped, the ships we are daily building and re­pairing, are attended with an immense expence; many of them will necessarily be kept perpetually in your seas, for the security of your coasts, and many more always in pay, to sail at an hour's warn­ing: we think then, that you should either sit out a fleet sufficient (at least in part) for your defence, to join to the navy of England, or else to make us some allowance for your share of the joint expence.

I leave every candid dispassionate Ame­rican to determine on the equity of the proposal, and whether we should not expend infinitely more in an indepen­dant protection of ourselves, than the British nation would require of us for our quota. This I take to be pretty near the true state of the situation of affairs, between England and America, without looking into the claims of so­vereignty, dependance, and subordina­tion; tho' I cannot but think, that our best interests point out to us an acknow­ledgment of the supremacy of the crown of Great-Britain, I would not be under­stood to mean of the people of Great-Bri­tain, [Page 13] whom I only esteem as our fellow subjects, without any kind of controul over us. But we will wave for the present, the consideration of this part of the argument.

As we have now unfortunately got into a dispute on the subject of subor­dination, I would hope we may fix the matter so incontestable plain and clear, that no future altercations may arise. Our natural right to independance is so evident, that no reasoning of weight can be urged in opposition; how far we ought to give up a part of that for the preservation of the remain­der, seems to be our present business to consider. Precedents, law-cases, and law-opinions, are entirely beside the question; tho' I could produce a hun­dred, I shall reject them all: it is a point of convenience, founded on a point of equity, that is now to be determined.

The inhabitants of America live for themselves and not for any other nation under heaven, and to procure their own greatest happiness, so far as is consistent with the natural rights of others, ought to be their principal object. I insist, that if we can maintain our ground, [Page 14] and protect our trade against the rest of the world, I know of no law, of rea­son or justice, that should induce us to capitulate for the full exercise of rights and priviledges derived to us from na­ture: but on the other hand, if our happiness would be promoted by con­necting ourselves with some foreign power, I frankly give my voice for it; and if the terms of our connexion should call for a contribution towards the sup­port of a fleet, maintained for our mu­tual defence, I should be far from esteem­ing it a badge of a tributary state, but quite the reverse; we should thereby have a degree of property in a formi­dable navy, and should have a right to demand their assistance and protection, when danger approached; should this ever be refused, I grant it would be a sufficient reason to withdraw our allow­ance, and look elsewhere for an honest­er alliance; but this I would willingly hope will never be the case, as the true interest of the English nation will ever be bound up in our interest.

I would wish to be understood, that any taxes levied on ourselves, by our as­semblies for this purpose, ought not to be [Page 15] esteemed as grants in consequence of de­mands from Britain, but as given on a full conviction of its being our best in­terest to enter into such a league of de­fence; but should we on an extensive and enlarged view of the subject, con­ceive it to be prejudicial to the general continental welfare and independance, I think we ought to refuse.

Hitherto an acknowledged subordi­nation has taken place, handed down from father to son, and both countries were happy under the connexion, till within a few years past. It hath always been allowed, that the happiness of the people was the true end of govern­ment, therefore whenever a state has diverged from that point, it becomes the business, nay duty, of every indivi­dual, to bring about a restoration; and whenever they discover a tendency in ruling power, to deviate from the general good, they ought with resolute firmness to remonstrate against it. It hath long been a received maxim, that the king can do no wrong, I think we may with much greater propriety say, that the people can do no wrong; I mean the whole people collectively, for it is to be [Page 16] presumed, from that great first princi­ple self-preservation, they will primari­ly consider their own happiness; there­fore when a whole people complain, we may be certain it is not without just foundation: now the whole of the peo­ple of America do complain of an unjust usurpation in their fellow-subjects of Great-Britain, with intent to wrest from them a portion of their property. I will not pretend to say the English have done it either from a wanton display of power, or dishonest principles, but will call it false policy; that part which the interests of America might probably have induced us to act, they have con­ceived themselves possessed of a right to enforce on us, and thus have mistaken both the right nad the means.

On our part, in opposition to this usurped power, we set up the priviledges of Englishmen and the natural rights of men; by the former we contend, that the principles of the English constitution, include no idea of taxation without re­presentation; and that as the Ameri­cans cannot be represented in parlia­ment, they cannot with propriety be subject to their laws. This point is now [Page 17] so well understood, and has been so of­ten handled, that it is difficult, nay in­deed needless, to set it in a new point of light: but when by the latter we re­cur to the unlimited freedom of human nature, and establish our claims to in­dependance upon that ground, we shall swerv [...] the true end and intention of all government, if we refuse to admit those political restrictions, which are necessary for the security of property, Whilst men lived in common, and the sponta­neous production of the earth satisfied the demands of their nature, few were the regulations necessary to be observ­ed; but when once the idea of distinct and separate possessions gained place, men were unavoidably reduced to the necessity of instituting some laws for protecting the possessor in the enjoyment of his acquired property; for this end societies were formed, and defensive leagues entered into by neighbouring districts, for their mutual benefit. If one neighbourhood was attacked, it de­manded the assistance of the rest of the confederates; and though this demand could not be made in consequence of any natural superiority on one side, or [Page 18] submissive dependance on the other, yet the obligation being reciprocally bind­ing, it became their duty to desist from the pursuit of their own immediate con­cerns, and to devote their lives and their labours in the service of the party at­tacked. Now should we insist on a to­tal separation in government from the rest of the world, upon the principles of a natural right to do so, we ought cautiously and carefully to investigate the probable consequences of such a se­paratation. Shoud we establish a total independency, the eyes of every power in Europe would instantly be turned to­wards us with a view to their own emo­lument; either to derive a benefit from a trade, hitherto monopolized by the English, or with the more hostile in­tention, of possessing some portion of this mighty continent. It is well known, that the present policy of Europe is not confined to the narrow limits of justice and right; the divisions of kingdoms, and the acquirement of fresh territory, are now become the darling objects of crowned heads; and though the united force of America might be able to re­pel the most formidable enemy, yet [Page 19] there is too much reason to fear, that this continent has many changes to un­dergo, before such a permanent esta­blished form of government takes place, as will be necessary at all times to sup­port its inhabitants against foreign in­vasions. Should we disclaim all allegi­ance to the king of Great-Britain, and stand on our own bottom, the very first step to be taken, would be the establish­ing a navy, and this would take us se­veral years to effect: during this period, our trade would remain unprotected, and must be carried on under many dis­advantages. As no nation would have reason to fear us, none would hesi­tate to annoy or insult us, whenever thier interests or their passions should prompt them: in the mean time, we must submit to great and heavy im­posts and taxes, to prepare such [...]leets as may procure us security and respect.

I think I have been told, that every ship of the line, one with another. e­quipped ready for sea, costs the English nation one thousand pounds sterling for every gun she mounts, that is, fifty thousand pounds for a fifty gun ship. The present navy of England consists of [Page 20] eighty-two ships of the line in good r [...] ­pair, besides smaller vessels and frigates; the number of seamen upon the present [...]ace establishment is 20,000, and the sum granted for their maintenance last year was 960,000 l. sterling: were the whole eighty-two ships to be manned, they would take 42,000 men, and an expence of 2,016,000 l. exclusive of small ships, &c. The expence of build­ing, if I am well informed, would up­on an average amount to 5,248,000 l. and we may very safely rate the ex­pence of build [...]ng the smaller ships at 752,000 l. which amounts in the whole to six millions sterling. I do not form these calculations, with a design to ter­rify my countrymen into a base subjec­tion; I only mean hereby to point out the true state of things, that we may take our measures accordingly.

The strength, increase and prosperity of this country, will certainly depend upon trade; therefore it is absolutely necessary for us to examine, what foun­dation we can go on to extend it in safety. If we should determine to stand alone as an independant state, we may be well assured, that no eastern poten­tates [Page 21] will permit us to pursue any branch that interferes with their interest, unless we can carry it on under cover of a na­val ar [...]ament: this, and this alone, will procure us friendship, and entitle us to navigate the seas in common with other nations; but the expence attending the attempt will be immense; and here it will be highly expedient for us to reflect on the most prudent means of avoid­ing them. If England will grant us a property in a fleet now ready for the sea, which has cost her six millions of money, and the assistance of 20,000 sea­men in actual pay, at the rate of 960,000 l. sterling per annum, methinks we should not hesitate a moment to embrace the proposal, upon any reasonable terms; but what those terms shall be, will be­come a subject of important debate; all that I would venture to recommend, is, that we might shew a disposition to enter upon the negotiation.

England on her part, will doubtless have more in view, than barely receiv­ing from us a certain proportion of her naval expences; the will claim a sovereign­ [...]y over the colonies, and an exclusive uncon­troulable right to regulate their trade. Per­haps [Page 22] it will be best to consider these questions separately.

The sovereignty of England over the colonies, is what all the courtiers and court-writers contend for, insisting, that the Americans are the subjects of Great-Britain. Here I must observe, that they the generally first mistake the connexion, and thence draw all their inferences. I shall, therefore, in the first place, deny that we are the subjects of Great-Bri­tain; for if once we concede that point, every submissive act on our part follows of course, as undoubtedly it is the du­ty of the governed to obey the legal in­junctions of the governors, otherways all government is a nullity, a mere sound, and nothing else. The writers on this subject, have not perhaps considered the extent of the premises they have laid down.

Great-Britain, politically not geogra­phically speaking, is only a collective name, for the inhabitants of England and Scotland, and the prince on the throne is stiled King of Great-Britain, &c. Now the American colonies, having been discovered under the flag of an English prince they became a part of [Page 23] his dominions, and a number of his sub­jects quickly consented to improve and cultivate the soil. These men, whilst they remained in the realm, constituted a part of the government, partaking of the powers of legislation, that is, pos­sessing a voice and interest in the choice of men, who were to make laws to af­fect their lives, liberties, and properties; but when they quitted the English shores, they became deprived of the possibility of enjoying those privileges, and there­fore in law, equity, and reason, were from under the influence of any legi­slative acts, made subsequent to their departure. Sensible of this, the crown granted charters to the several colonies, impowering them to make laws for their own government; but with this pro­viso, that they “should not be contra­ry, but as nearly as may be agreeable to the laws of England.” And this power of enacting laws, in all cases what­ever, has been so long allowed, and so repeatedly recognized by the English, that the right is established beyond all reasonable dispute.

It hath always been deemed one of the darling rights of the Commons, to [Page 24] give and grant their own money; and so jealous are they of this privilege, that they will not suffer a money bill to be touched by the Lords, except to declare their assent or dissent. Now if the giving and granting be solely in the Commons of Great-Britain, how comes it that they have invariably acquiesced to allow a right in the people of America, also to give and grant their money to the crown? If the power of enacting laws in the colonies, was intended to have been confined to their interious local con­cerns, why have not the Commons of Great-Britain protested against the usur­pations of the colony assemblies, and pe­titioned his Majesty to disallow the acts? why have they permitted us to enjoy this right unmolested for more than a hundred years? The reason is evident, they knew that the power of giving rest­ed solely in those who possessed. It was upon this principle they claimed it them­selves, and upon this principle they al­lowed it to us.

If the colonies are subjects of Great-Britain, they must be bound by the laws of Great-Britain, be they ever so cruel or unjust; and even should they pass an [Page 25] act to confiscate the estates of all the colonists, and to condemn them to the a [...] and the halter; they must necessarily submit to their unhappy fate, and pass into another world for justice and retri­bution. Wild and visionary as this may seem, what security have we, that they will not one day portion amongst them­selves, our fair inheritances, and force us into their new claimed fields, like Guinea slaves, to till the soil? but here my heart recoils, and smites my guilty bosom,—fain would I cast an impenetrable veil around my countrymen, and hide this horrid simile: but I trust we are gradu­ally removing the prejudices which sup­port the savage custom that prevails amongst us. I say what security have we, that shall protect us against their laws, when we have no voice in the framing them? we have none: we are degraded far beneath the rank of English subjects, we descend to the humiliating condition of dependants upon English subjects, and hold our lives and fortune but at their command. But happy for us, this is not our condition; we rank in legislation equal with the subjects of the realm; we are a part of the British empire, and only acknowledge ourselves [Page 26] subjects to the King of Great-Britain: under that connexion they have suffici­ently have advantage of us, an advan­tage which necessarily arises from the present local seat of empire; and I hope every American will ever keep in view this distinction, that we are the subjects of the crown of Great-Britain, and not of the people of Great-Britain.

Some have gone so far in the present subject of our disputes, as to declare, that^* “were the Americans actually in a state of oppression, it would shew their wisdom and prudence, to sub­mit with patience to their condition, rather than provoke the power that oppresses them, without some fair prospect of obtaining relief.” This sentiment totally includes every idea of servility; to grant this reasoning, we must ever be restrained from asserting our rights, and thereby confirm the usurping power in an opinion, that sub­mission will constantly follow oppression, till freedom shall be no more. Subjects must never protest against the en [...]roach­ment of a tyrant, but bow submissive to the galling yoke: however I hope my countrymen will never be dissuaded from [Page 27] attempting every just and honourable measure for obtaining redress.

We may here adduce an argument founded on their own laws, to refute the claim of an English legislation over the colonies. If the people of Great-Britain have such a right, it is a perpetual right; but the present English constitu­tion requires a succession of parliaments, therefore the people of Great-Britain, claiming a constant unchangeable su­premacy of government, usurp a great­er power over the Americans, than the British parliaments have over their con­stituents; it is of no import to say, that the parliament being re-chosen every se­ven years, we have the advantage of the change; it can be no other way agreeable, than is expressed by the Scotch proverb, “that change of de' els is blithe­some;” if members of parliament act inconsistent with their trust, or betray the interests of the nation, their consti­tuents who will be the sufferers, may put in other men; but with respect to the colonies, if an English legislation is granted over them, there can be no change, it is an English not an Ame­rican parliament that ever presides; and whenever they can pass acts, which will [Page 28] not injure themselves, it will become the policy of England to cast as large a part of their own burthens on our shoulders, as they shall judge us able to bear; for certainly it must be very de­sireable to lessen their own taxes by the increase of ours; and however much we might complain of the injustice, it would still remain; as the nature of the case would admit of no remedy, in our power to apply; our law-makers would remain perpetually the same, without the voice of one American to dissent, or the power to change the men who had abused us; men who would learn to esteem us as part of the real estate of the nation, and being eternal judges in the dispute, would proceed step by step, to divest us of every blessing of life. We must, therefore, strenuously in­sist on an exemption from the controul of the people of Great-Britain. It is not merely as inhabitants of Great-Britain, that I object to the sway; for I confess I would as soon trust an Englishman, as an American, with unlimitted power: there are no men on earth sit to be en­trusted with such a power; and it is on this principle, that I contend for a total legislative independance.

[Page 29] We have been told, that our situa­tion is but similar to many people in England, who are natives of the coun­try, and who do not consent, “to^* acts of parliaments; that this is always the case with the minority, whose votes are over-ruled by the majority, for the law necessarily passes not only without, but contrary, to their con­sent: besides, there are millions of peo­ple in England, who have no votes in elections, and are never consulted about the expediency of making laws.” That mankind can never be brought to one way of thinking, and that the mi­nority must always give way to the ma­jority, are obvious and necessary truths; but shall we from hence derive an ar­gument, that a whole people must give up their voices without the question be­ing put, or without ever being consult­ed on the matter? 'tis disgraceful to hu­man nature to conceive it. That there are millions in England who have no right to vote, must be absolutely false; for if Great-Britain only contains eight million of inhabitants, there will be but four million males, half of which, at least will be under age: thus there can­not [Page 30] not be above two million of males at man's estate in the kingdom. But ad­mitting the fact, shall this suffice a free­born American, for a reason, why he should surrender up his life, liberty and property, to those few who have a right to vote? The smaller the numbers are, of those who have this right, the great­er is our danger; their great men can more easily purchase them, and by this means mount into the car of despotism▪ besides, shall the whole continent of Ame­rica, [...]e contented to sit down in a si­milar station with the rotten part of the British constitution? If there are such numbers amongst them, who are desti­tute of the rights of Englishmen, 'tis high time they were possessed of them; and I hope no American will suffer the corrupt part of the nation, to strengthen the argument at our expence.

It is needless to insist, that the cases are by no means similar, of those in England who are not allowed to vote, and of those in America who from their distant situation cannot vote; it must oc­cur to every man's understanding, who investigates the subject, that the parlia­ment cannot tax the non-voters in Eng­land, without taxing themselves; that [Page 31] the happiness of the whole nation, must eventually include the happiness of every individual; that influence or interest are possessed in a greater or smaller de­gree by the meanest inhabitant of the realm; that clamour, discontent and complaint, are engines which the lower order of the English can continually play off to advantage: on the other hand, that it becomes the constant interest of England, to save herself at our expence; that we have no means direct, or indirect to influence the election of a single mem­ber of Parliament: these, I say, are ar­guments, which must naturally arise in every mind, and have been often handed forth to the publick.

That the first settlers in America ap­prehended themselves from under the jurisdiction of parliament, by virtue of their charters, is very evident; as they began their several legislations, without ever addressing any of their laws, to that branch of the legislature for confirmation; the King's approba­tion or dissent, were all they expected: nor do I remember to have heard of a single instance, of the parliaments un­dertaking expre [...]ly to annual any of their laws; they appear to have considered [Page 32] them as their fellow-subjects, and seem to have consigned them into the hands of the crown; it is true, the parliament early passed some restrictive laws, to which the crown assented, and of which the colonists complained: but if in some instances, they have submitted to im­positions from their fellow-subjects in England, shall we from thence infer, that such submission becomes a prece­dent, and that such precedent shall grant a revocation of every natural right of an American? If the encroachment of an unfriendly neighbour, beyond a boundary not certainly fixed, be per­mitted to remain for a time unrepelled, shall the prior possessor be thereby for ever deprived of his property? and shall it give the intruder a right to proceed step by step, till he has seized upon the whole? or, shall [...]e not rather say?—Come, neighbour, our line of division has been long uncertain, the premises are become valuable, let us determine the bounds, and prevent further dis­putes. This I take to be exactly the situation between Great-Britain and A­merica; 'tis time the line was run, and the controversy ended. They appear to be sensible of the present improper [Page 33] state of the connexion; for we have been told, that our agents were inform­ed from “ good authority, that if we chose to send over persons to represent us in par­liament, they should be admitted to seats in the house. ” here we have a full and ample concession, from our opponents, of the point we have so long contend­ed for; I mean, that we are not repre­sented in parliament, otherwise it was un­necessary to invite us to take our seats; and till that is done, it is evident they can have no right to bind us by their laws: for if we have a right to seats, we have a right to a voice; if we have a right to a voice, no act can bind us till that voice is given: if we had not an equitable right to seats in parliament, they who made the offer, could have no power so far to infringe the English con­stitution, as to tender it: hence it is clear, that they apprehended the autho­rity of parliament was unjustly exer­cised, till such representation took place; for the proposal could only arise from a conviction of injustice, in the present state of things: thus, I conceive, they have avowed our right to exemption. I formerly thought, before our disputes with England began, that an American [Page 34] representation was both eligible and practicable; but I am now clearly of o­pinion, that it would be highly impo­litic. We have good legislations of our own; we have the same king they have; and it is properly his business, not theirs to confine each of us, by his negative, within our proper spheres.

The charters granted to the several colonies, were all derived from the crown, and not from the parliament; the powers of legislation respecting themselves, and the liberty of disposing of their proper­ty, have been invariably confirmed from time to time, by the king, through his representatives, whether it were for the immediate service of their own internal concerns, or in grants for the general use of the empire. Laws similar to the laws of England, for life, liberty and property, have passed in all the colo­nies, and have received the sanction of the throne; and even the acquiescence of parliament, if that were deemed ne­cessary for their confirmation. Their laws not only bind their own inhabi­tants, but the subjects of every nation, when amongst them, are entitled to their protection, and subject to their penal­ties; and even should a member of the [Page 35] House of Commons commit a criminal action against the common law, he would be treated with as little respect as the ve­riest felon. This power over life, has often been recognized by the crown, in exertions of the royal prerogative, by special pardons. And in matters of property, decrees of every court on the continent have been repeatedly confirm­ed, though the appellants have frequent­ly been non-residents in America: even the military have always submitted to the laws of the land in which they were quartered, and have been tried, condemned and executed, without the power of the jurisdiction being ever called in question; though they are a kind of distinct body, and in some cases are vested with a power over life and death amongst themselves.

It hath been made a question by some^*, “do any of your charters say, that you shall not be bound by laws made in Great-Britain?” I will ask a question in my turn. If a gentleman was to pur­chase an estate of his neighbour, would he think himself bound to pay certain rents from time to time, if called for, because the deed did not expressly de­clare [Page 36] that [...]e should not be bound to pay them? certainly it will be replied, that it was an unrighteous demand; and that where no rent was reserved in the deed, none could be claimed: it is impossible that the parliament should establish a claim upon such negative authority. But we are told that the charter of Penn­sylvania, expressly reserves the right of parliament; this is undoubtedly true, and did the Pennsylvanians esteem their liberties as men and Englishmen, encircled by the charter of the province, they are certainly bound by whatever acts a Bri­tish legislature may incline to impose; nay further, by the tenor of the 20th section, they are to be subject “to im­positions, customs, or taxation, rate or contribution” of the king alone, provided the same be with the consent "of the proprietary or chief governor," which is a state of vassalage, so diame­trically opposite to every principle of the British constitution, that no king of England could grant himself such pow­er; neither could any subject admit it, either on behalf of himself or others. There are certain liberties, essential to the constitution of an Englishman, which he cannot, by any joint act with the [Page 37] king, divest himself of; there is no right so absolutely inherent in the person of every subject of the crown, as that of being bound by no laws, but those to which he has actually or virtually con­sented. And tho' the first founder of Pennsylvania, and the early settlers, may have accepted a charter, in some part, derogatory of the rights of British de­scendants; yet being illegal in its na­ture, the present generation have an undoubted authority to claim their legal privileges, whenever they shall be at­tacked under colour of a charter, un­constitutional in some of its parts: had the rights remained untouched, the charter might have remained unnoticed; but should the Pennsylvanians consent to the operation of clauses, which would subject them to the controul of a legisla­ture, which they never were concerned in the choice of, they would deservedly be esteemed aliens to the common weal of the empire, and enemies to the grand bulwark of English liberty. This may be termed declamation, by the friends of power, [...]ut it is English constitution­al reasoning, and if the force of it be rejected, the noblest part of our long boasted Magna Charta, drops to the [Page 38] ground, and we return to that state of dispute and confusion, which preceded its happy establishment.

If America was contiguous to Great-Britain, we should undoubtedly have been connected in legislation, and in a course of years should carry so large a majority into the House of Commons, that the present high claiming islanders would be but as a trifling country in the mighty senate; is it possible then, that distance of situation, can so totally reverse the system of equity and natural right, as to persuade the people of Eng­land, that because we sprang from their loins, they are to have eternal sway? they may wish it, but it is impossible they should expect it?

The writers in favour of parliamen­tary power, ask us, how it comes to pass, that we pretend to the rights of Englishmen, and yet deny the power, which established those rights? for say they, the Bill of Rights, which is con­stantly in every Americans mouth, was not enjoyed by the English themselves, till the reign of William and Mary, nor did they possess the Habeas Corpus act, till the reign of Charles the IId; there­fore, say they, the colonies settled prior [Page 39] to those bills, could not partake of them by virtue of inheritance, unless they grant themselves under the supremacy of the English government. This might suit the chicanery of a court, but where we contend for the support of the true end of government, viz. the happiness of the people governed, we shall not hesi­tate to assert, that the Americans have a right to adopt at all times the laws of England, when such laws shall appear productive of greater benefits to the people, than they before enjoyed; nor do we apprehend ourselves bound to support our independancy, by a train of law reasoning; it is the good of the whole that is to be the perpetual object; were not this the case, how is the pre­sent family established on the throne? how came the reformation to take place? how shall we support the union of Eng­land and Scotland? In matters of go­vernment, there can be no other per­manent rule, than that which establish­es the greatest good of the people; and though one party or the other may con­ceive themselves aggrieved, yet they must submit, where the public safety can be no other way preserved: even in matters of property, where the subject [Page 40] can be litigated upon known and fixed grounds, the possessor is frequently obliged to surrender it, for the common benefit. 'Tis true, the publick will make him some recompence; but in doing this, they, and not the owner, shall judge of the value of the damage. Thus in the case between the colonies and Eng­land, even admitting a right of controul once did exist, it appears essential to the general good of the whole colonies, that England should have no legislative power over them, as a subordination cannot exist, without too great power on one side, and loss of liberty on the other. Now as government is not created for the emolument of the governors, the de­priving a British parliament of the su­premacy they contend for, is no real injury; for such supremacy, not being for the benefit of the parties, over whom it is claimed, the necessity of the supre­macy ceases; otherwise it establishes the doctrine of proper [...]y in government. Here I shall rest this part of the argument.

We come next to consider their claim of “ an exclusive uncontroulable right to regulate the trade of the colonies. ” Many of our political writers, have so far given up this point, that their opponents [Page 41] plume themselves on the supposed ac­knowledgment, and thence infer, that a right to impose duties for the regula­tion of trade, implies also a power in parliament, to decide the question as they please; for the name of regulation, may be given to every duty, and the Americans have no way of protesting against the imposition, or judicially entering into the merits of the case; the words, “ for the express purpose of raising a revenue, ” may be left out in the preamble, and yet it shall ope­rate with all the force of a revenue act. We have been told that the great American agent, doctor Franklin, and the celebrated Pennsylvania Farmer, have both given up this point; perhaps they may: but, humanum est errare, every day casts new light on the subject, and until the line shall be actually established, and agreed to by the contending parties, in a firm and solemn treaty; it is our duty to study the argument, and adopt such fresh sentiments, as naturally and reasonably arise in the pursuit. Let English statesmen clamor for power, let a British parliament boast of unlimitted supremacy, yet the continent of Ameri­ca will contend with equal fervency, [Page 42] for the enjoyment of their rights as men. If England will consent to treat with us upon an equality, we may possibly agree to surrender every thing, that is reason­able in them to require. To enter into the minutia of this part of the argument, is not my intention; it comprizes too great a scope for the limits of a pam­phlet; to say what we should submit to, what we should give up, and what we should claim, in the various branches of our connexion, will be more proper­ly the business of the parties, who may be employed to settle the line: I only mean to touch on the principles, by which I apprehend we should be direct­ed in tracing this important boundary.

In the first place, no point should be insisted on by England, that was intend­ed to operate in their own favor, to the prejudice of America; unless where the general good of the whole empire, na­turally threw the balance into their scale; as would be the case, on our be­ing denied the privilege of trading with the natural enemies of England; for should we be able to trade to greater advantage amongst French than with the English our being restricted in a traffic with France, would operate against [Page 43] our own immediate interests, in favour of the English nation; but when we consider on the other hand, that the French would thereby gain what the English lost, and of consequence would become richer by our means; the in­terests of the whole empire ought to influence us to forego the immediate gain to ourselves: but whatever state is in commercial league with England, ought also to be open to America, both for imports and exports; the li [...]ens of Russia, and the silks of Persia, should by no means first be landed in England, if intented for an American market; nor should the manufactures or trading articles of Britain, be loaded with any impost or duty, when shipped for Ame­rica, more than other foreigners pay; for why should we be considered as men not entitled to the general benefits of the empire, any more than the English themselves, provided we unite our in­terests with their interests, and contri­bute what may be a reasonable propor­tion of the expence, necessary for our mutual defence? That we do not bear an equal share of the burthens of the inhabitants of England, in the variety of taxes they are loaded with, may be [Page 44] very true, but it is also true, that we have internal taxes amongst ourselves, and pretty considerable taxes too, which are annually increasing.

Neither should we be denied the use and immediate importation of Portugal wines, lemons, citrons, &c. for a trade with Portugal being deemed beneficial to England, the argument militates e­qually in our favour. If the English na­tion drink their wines with a duty on them, it by no means enforces a neces­sity of our paying a duty; that which they pay, is for the support of their go­vernment, and if we in America should deem such luxuries proper subjects for taxation, we shall doub [...]less derive sup­plies from the same source; indeed in some of the provinces wine already pays a duty. The trade to the East-Indies, being at present limited to a company, who at their own expence first established it, and not being enjoyed by the English nation at large, I presume we shall not contend for the right of interfering in that branch, till such time as the nation shall judge it expedient to open it to their subjects in common: whenever that is done, and it is no long­er esteemed private property, I appre­hend [Page 45] our right will instantly commence; and as this dissolution of the East-India company's charter, will probably not take place, till some compensation is made them by the nation, perhaps the Americans would not be backward in furnishing their quota, to purchase the common right of trade in the eastern seas. I would wish us always to keep in view, a united interest, and that we may learn to think them inseparable; for though time and the great changes of empires, may bring about mighty revo­lutions, yet so long as a happy connex­ion can be maintained, let every Ame­rican endeavour to support it.

Though the grand foundation of our claims in the present dispute, is laid on natural liberty, as its surest ground-work, yet we must ever be attentive to the po­litical interests of the continent. It may be asked, why a country whose claims to independancy are founded on natural right, should choose to acknowledge themselves subjects of a prince, at three thousand miles distance, rather than establish a head of their own? many reasons may be offered in reply, but a few may suffice. In the first place, we are at present fixed in this state; all our [Page 46] governments are formed under this head; we have been successful and happy un­der it, and have found few or no incon­veniences from it; the government of England is so excellent a model, that most of the colonies think they could not substitute a better in its stead. A revolution in the form of a government, is too dangerous an experiment to be tried, except in cases of the utmost ex­tremity; and there are few states which do not choose to persist even in a bad form, rather than risque the consequence of innovations. As the Americans are at present circumstanced, they could no way unite themselves to so much ad­vantage, as in the crown of Great-Bri­tain, to which they have been so long accustomed to confess allegiance; for should they incline to have a crowned head amongst themselves, great and dreadful would be the dissentions and confusions, before they would agree to fix on the man. If a common wealth was to be aimed at, the jarring interests of the colonies, would long employ them in digesting and settling their several claims and rights. We find in the most trivial concerns of life, that men often contend with great warmth and earnestness: a [Page 47] whole neighbourhood shall be at irrecon­cileable variance on the trifling alterati­on of a road, when the succeeding ge­neration shall travel it in company with the most cordial friendship; and such is the case in great changes, or revoluti­ons in government; if the form be once agreed to, it is dangerous to touch it; and nothing should tempt a people to risque the publick tranquillity, but a firm persuasion that a change was abso­lutely necessary. In the case of the co­lonies, no change that I know of, could be proposed, which should induce us to unsettle our present happy form; a form under which we have lived till lately, like our first parents in paradise; peace and plenty were our portion, and the pleasures of the golden age flourished in our borders.

To sum up the whole: we have sup­posed that America has a just, equita­ble, and natural right to independance; that to support this independance and protect her foreign trade, a formida­ble fleet was necessary; that it might be more beneficial to the colonies to search for a connexion with some ma­ritime power, than to attempt the esta­blishing one of their own; that o [...] [...]ll [Page 48] European states, England was the most eligible to negotiate with; that Ameri­ca might, consistent with her own free­dom, join in a certain proportion of the expences of a fleet, kept up for their mutual defence, and that common jus­tice required it; that parliamentary su­premacy, was inconsistent with Ameri­can liberty, and has no foundation in law or justice; that tho' we admit Eng­land to pass some laws to regualte trade, yet they shall only be such as are abso­lutely intended for the benefit of the whole empire, and not for her own par­ticular advantage; that the Americans shall trade on an equal footing with the English; and lastly, that it is the true interest of America, to continue under the present form of government, and acknowledge subjection to the crown of Great-Britain: how these several points are to be adjusted and settled, will be a subject of much importance to the co­lonies; should we, on our part, disco­ver a disposition to enter on the nego­ciation, I have little doubt but England, on her part, will meet us half way.