A RECONCILIATION between Great Britain and the Colonies, has been much in the thoughts of the Americans. At the beginning of the war it was ardently deſired in general, if not by all; but now it is not deſired, but feared by many; and it has become a public inquiry whether it is beſt there ſhould be a reconciliation, or a proper ſeparation, and we in America be independent. It certainly muſt be agreeable to all rational people to have the war properly terminated. But how ſhall it be done? It certainly will be very difficult to heal the breach that has been made, and bring the war to a proper end and iſſue. It was begun, and has been carried on in ſuch a manner, that the termination of it, muſt be peculiarly difficult. Whenever the ſettlememt of our affairs is attempted, it ſhould be with great deliberation and calmneſs. Self-intereſt, party ſpirit, heats and animoſities ſhould have no part in a matter of ſo great importance.

To terminate the preſent war, to determine the rights and privileges of America, and ſettle its civil government, is a moſt momentous affair. It is to do the work of ages; it ſhould not be done ſuddenly. All poſſible light and aſſiſtance ſhould be afforded to thoſe that manage the buſineſs. It is really too much to truſt to any number of men, as repreſentatives, if it could poſſibly be avoided. If it was poſſible, it would be beſt the whole continent ſhould give their voice in the matter: But a few no doubt muſt be truſted with this intereſting concern; and they will doubtleſs find it a weight that they will be ready to groan under, if they are impartial and faithful men, as I truſt they will be. It is ſo great an affair, that it ſhould with caution be entruſted to any men. Their is danger of men. There is danger that they may be miſtaken, or biaſſed, or ſome way influenced to take a wrong meaſure. If Britain condeſcends to treat with America, by general congreſs, or any repreſentatives of ours, ſhe will no doubt uſe all poſſible art, proffer many favours, nor will her money be hid from thoſe that are entruſted to ſettle the affair. In this view we have more reaſon to fear the money and favours of Britain, than her arms, and open oppoſition. Thoſe have often done more fatal execution than theſe. But we have reaſon to hope: Our congreſs has done worthily. They have nobly expoſed their lives and eſtates in the cauſe of liberty, and defence of their country; and ſhall they, or any others that may come in their room, give up our privileges? God forbid! I truſt it will not be.

It was juſt now ſaid, that if poſſible the whole continent ſhould ſettle our affairs; but ſince it muſt be done by repreſentatives, they ſhould as much as poſſible know the minds of the people in general. For this reaſon among others, it ſhould not be done haſtily. Whenever an accommodation is propoſed, it would be well for every country, if not city and town, to publiſh their views or ſentiments of the thing, as was done reſpecting our liberties at the beginning of our preſent troubles. Then, almoſt every county, and many towns met and publiſhed their reſolves, concerning our rights and privileges, which thing greatly tended to unite and ſtrengthen the whole continent. Something ſimilar might be done now, or when matters are about to be ſettled.

The ſettlement of American government being as we hope for ages, or even to the end of time, we may well take time for it; uſe all proper means, and get all poſſible light. For this reaſon it might be proper, that a number of pieces ſhould be publiſhed on the occaſion, with calmneſs, temper and ſound reaſoning. There will be different ſentiments, and which all may publiſh with candour, and offer their reaſons fairly. The grand inquiry is, concerning the iſſue of the war; in what way and manner it muſt be accompliſhed, or attempted; or how we ſhall ſettle matters with Great Britain? And here an intereſting and important inquiry occurs, viz. Shall we be reconciled to Great Britain, ſo as to be under her government, or ſhall we be independent? To determine this, another queſtion ariſes, viz. Have we a right to be independent? We all believe an over-ruling providence, we have appealed and applied to God in our preſent ſtruggle; we believe that the ſovereign of the univerſe, the judge of all the earth, diſpoſes of nations and kingdoms, and that ſooner or later he will viſit for iniquity. We have reaſon therefore to view the equity of our proceedings, and inquire whether we have a right to be independent.

The queſtion then is, Has Britain forfeited her right to our dependence, ſo that ſhe cannot in juſtice claim it, nor we be under any obligation to ſubmit to it? It is certain we were once dependent, and under Britiſh government; it is a proper enquiry then, How can we be independent? To know whether Britain has forfeited her right to our dependence, See the appendix at the end. we muſt a little conſider the nature of civil government.— In a ſtate of nature, as in the firſt ages of the world, or before mankind were formed into ſocieties for civil government, every man had a right to enjoy himſelf, and the work of his hands, and what he took in hunting, &c. if he injured not any of his fellow creatures, who had the ſame right. And in that ſtate of nature, each man had a right to defend and vindicate himſelf, if aſſaulted or injured by others. But when men were formed into civil ſocieties, each man gave up this right to defend and vindicate himſelf, to judge and determine in his own caſe, and left all this to the civil magiſtrate; and the duty and proper buſineſs of the civil magiſtrate, was, is, and ever will be, to defend and protect the people, in the peaceable enjoyment of their properties and privileges.

The whole deſign of civil government or magiſtracy, is the good of the people. A magiſtrate as ſuch, has no right or authority but from the people. It is true a man may in a tyrannical and arbitrary manner, aſſume power over others, and oblige them to ſubmit, as has often been the caſe; and the people may think proper ſo to do; and this their ſubmiſſion may become a ſort of compact, and the ruler and ruled be mutually bound to each other. But ſtill the proper end and deſign of magiſtracy, is the good of the people, and in reaſon and equity it cannot be any thing elſe. This is ſo eaſy that I need not enlarge. A magiſtrate then by office, and by oath, if there is an oath in the caſe, is bound to defend his ſubjects in the enjoyment of their properties and privileges, and people are bound to him only in conſequence of this, or in connection with it. To ſuppoſe otherwiſe would be to deſtroy all liberty and property, and to promote the moſt abſolute tyranny; but I need not inſiſt, for this is out of diſpute.

To come to the caſe in hand then, let us ſuppoſe that Britain, or any other kingdom, had a part of its dominions, an iſland, or continent, lying at a diſtance, America for inſtance. That this ſhould be attacked by a foreign enemy; upon which America cries to Britain the ſource of national power, for protection and defence. Britain regards not, protects not, but leaves them to the rage and fury of their enemy, by whom America is at length overcome and ſubdued, when Britain had it in her power to have afforded help, protected and ſaved them. After ſome time, by ſome means America extricates itſelf out of the hand of the enemy, and defends herſelf. Has Britain, after this, a right to govern America, and require ſubmiſſion to her authority? Would not Britain's right to American government and dependence be forfeited? The caſe is clear; Britain did not her duty to protect and defend, but left America to be ſubdued by another, and America is thereby entirely free from Britiſh authority.

Again, let us ſuppoſe a caſe, that when America had been thus attacked, and left deſtitute of Britiſh protection, America was not ſubdued by the enemy, but after a long ſtruggle, while Britain had opportunity to interpoſe, but would not, the Americans ſhould get the better of their enemies, though at a vaſt expence of blood and treaſure; would America, after that, be under any obligation to ſubmit to Britiſh authority? By no means. America had not the protection that was her due, but expended her own blood and treaſure, and no thanks to Britain ſhe was not wholly deſtroyed. Again, ſuppoſe that inſtead of leaving America to the depradation, of a foreign enemy, Britain herſelf ſhould act the part of an enemy; refuſe us the privileges which are ours by conſtitution, ſeize our properties, and deprive us of our mutual rights; in which caſe America expoſtulates, pleads, ſubmits to all equitable impoſitions, which are according to conſtitution, begs ſhe may be relieved, and not driven to extremities; but Britain proves deaf to entreaties, ſeizes our properties, and deprives us of our privileges, by which means America is obliged to defend herſelf, by force, which in t •• reaſon and nature of things, ſhe has a right to do. That in this caſe we have a right to defend ourſelves, is determined by the declaration and conduct of theſe colonies in the preſent ſtruggle, therefore will not now be diſputed by Americans.I do not pretend to reaſon with profeſſed tories, but with thoſe that allow, that we have righteouſly and properly taken up arms in our defence.

To proceed then; ſuppoſe in this ſtruggle America ſhould, after ſpilling much blood, and expending much treaſure, get the better of Britain and prevail till Britain chooſes to ceaſe hoſtilities: would America then be under obligation to ſubmit to Britiſh government? Every rational perſon would ſay, that Britain had forfeited her right to American dependence. There can be no more reaſon why we ſhould ſubmit to Britain, after ſhe had acted the part of a cruel enemy herſelf, than if ſhe had left America to the rage of a foreign enemy. Yea much leſs reaſon.

I have only one caſe more to ſuppoſe; Should Britain proceed againſt America, as in the laſt ſuppoſition, till ſhe had put us to much expence, ſhed much of our beſt blood, burnt our ſea port towns, deprived us of our trade, and means of livelihood, but when ſhe found it would not anſwer to proceed againſt us to bring things to a criſis by the ſword, ſhould propoſe a reconciliation, by our being under her government; are we obliged in juſtice to comply? Has ſhe a right to require it? This is our caſe. What obliges us to ſubmit to Britiſh goverment! It is not for want of will and diſpoſition, in her that ſhe does not proceed againſt us to the utmoſt. She has endeavoured to cruſh us, and expected that what ſhe has done would have accompliſhed it. Britain expected by her armed force, the Fiſhery Bill, and others of the ſame cruel kind, by ſtarving and blood ſhed, to have reduced us to an entire ſubmiſſion. She has acted directly contrary to all her obligations to protect and defend us, moſt unjuſtly pronounced us rebels, and treated us as ſuch:And is ſtill treating us as rebels. How ſtrange is it that Britain ſhould declare us rebels, ſeize our effects, and try every way to hurt us, at the ſame time that ſhe propoſes an accommodation, and appoints Commiſſioners to treat with us! Is it not evident that the commiſſion for an accomodation is nothing but a ſham, deſigned to blind the people in England and keep them quiet, while they are made to believe, that the Americans have very generous terms of accomodation offered them, and alſo to give the tories among us, a covered opportunity to exert themſelves and cauſe diviſions? She propoſed to bring the body of the people into ſubjection, and ſet the heads of ſome of the chiefs; upon Temple Bar. Let her dreadful and bloody treatment of us, againſt all our cries and petitions for lenity, a long time preſented, appear in its proper light, and ſtand full in view, as it ought; and in that view judge whether ſhe has forfeited her right to our dependence and government, and whether it is neceſſary in point of equity for us to ſubmit.

But if Britain has forfeited her right, and we are at liberty in point of equity to be independent; yet it is a query whether it is prudent; whether it will be beſt for us to aſſume our right, and whether on the whole we ought not yet to deſire and endeavour to be in connection, and under the government of Great-Britain. I come therefore to view the arguments for and againſt our reconciliation with Great-Britain.

Firſt Argument. However, we may view the thing, Britain will not give up her right to govern us, but will ſtrenuouſly inſiſt upon it, ſo that if we declare for independency, it will involve us in a long and bloody war, and be our utter ruin in the end; eſpecially as in this caſe our friends in Great Britain will forſake us, ſince moſt, if not all of them, have befriended us on ſuppoſition, that we will ſtill be in ſubjection to Great-Britain. Our having ſo many friends in Great-Britain, is the reaſon that our enemies find themſelves perplexed, and cannot ſo fully exert themſelves againſt us; if it is once found that we declare for independency, Britain will be united againſt us. Thoſe that have been our friends will no longer embarraſs our enemies, but Britain united, will exert herſelf againſt us, with ſuch vigour, that we ſhall ſoon be overcome, or reduced to unknown difficulty.

Anſwer. Let Britain be ever ſo much united, ſhe cannot victual out an army and fleet, and maintain them at this diſtance, ſo as to deſtroy, or reduce us to unknown difficulty. Should Britain, without foreign aid, attempt to fit out and victual an army of 25,000 men, and 10,000 ſailors to guard our coaſt, it would cauſe ſuch a ſcarcity among themſelves as would be their ruin, now their trade is ſo diminiſhed, and their importation of proviſions from us cut off. But ſuppoſe they could and ſhould do this; an army of 25,000, and 10,000 ſailors, would by no means ſubdue us. We can raiſe five to one againſt this number. And ſhould Britain call in foreign aid, as ſhe muſt if ſhe does any thing to purpoſe; that would induce us to do the ſame. And ſhould we make application, we could ſoon have ſuch aſſiſtance, that Britain could not prevail againſt us.

Second Argument. If we declare for Independency, Britain will not for time to come, protect us againſt other nations, and we ſhould in time, and probably very ſoon, become a prey to the French or Spaniards, or ſome other enemy.

Anſwer. If we were once Independent, it would be the intereſt of all the European nations to keep us ſo. They would not let any one nation engroſs us and our trade, leſt ſuch an acquiſition ſhould enable that nation to be too powerful for its neighbours. Thus ſome ſmall ſtates in Europe are kept independent. The trade to North America would be ſuch a boon to ſeveral European nations, that neither of them would let it be engroſſed, or us be much hurt by another.

Third Argument. If we unite with Britain, we may have our expences refunded, and recover damages for our loſſes; but if we declare for independency, we ſhall loſe all.

Anſwer. 1ſt, It is not in the diſpoſition, or even in the power of Britain, to make good our damages. There are no ſuch propoſals by them, or like to be, therefore it cannot be uſed as an argument with any propriety. 2d, If Britain ſhould conſent to this, it would yet be much better for us to repair our own damages as well as we can, in a ſtate of independency, than to have Britain repair them in a ſtate of ſubjection to her. In a few years, it would be as cheap to us, our expences would be ſo much leſs, and our revenues ſo much greater in a ſtate of independency.

Argument Fourth. Our independency would ruin Britain, and ſurely we cannot be ſo cruel towards our Parent, though ſhe has dealt ſomething hardly with us.

Anſwer. 1ſt, Notwithſtanding our independency, we may trade with Britain as much, if not more than with any kingdom in Europe; and if ſhe will retrench her needleſs expences of placemen and penſioners, and the luxuries of the great, ſhe may yet ſurvive. With a proper part of our trade, and a reformation of her manners, Britain may ſubſiſt as well as ſome other kingdoms in Europe. 2d, We may by treaty agree to help, and defend Britain upon particular occaſions, as need may require. 3d, If Britain is ruined, it is by her own miſconduct, and we cannot help it. If ſhe is ruined, it is becauſe ſhe is ripe for ruin, and God's judgments muſt come upon her; in which caſe we ought to be diſunited, if we can, and not connected with her.

Argument Fifth. If we will not ſubmit to a reconciliation with Britain, ſhe will procure the French and Spaniards to join with her, to bring us into ſubjection, or deſtroy us. Britain would grant part of thoſe provinces to the French and Spaniards, as a reward for helping to ſubdue the remainder, rather than we ſhould be independent. And ſhould Britain grant this, the French and Spaniards would ſoon help to conquer us.

Anſwer. 1ſt, This is but a mere imagination, or rather a bug-bear to ſcare people that know no better. 2d, The French and Spaniards had much rather help America againſt Britain, than Britain againſt America. 3d, It would be much better for the French and Spaniards to have America independent, and they allowed a free trade with the whole continent, than for them to own a part of it, without a free trade. It would coſt them much to guard and defend their part, which would probably be a bone of contention; whereas if we were independent, they would have the benefit of our trade without any coſt. 4th, Should France and Spain join with Britain againſt us, we ſhould apply to Holland, the King of Pruſſia, and other powers, which would bring on a general war in Europe, which would relieve us, ſo that we might continue independent. 5th, Againſt all ſuch imaginary evil and danger as this argument ſuppoſes, or any that may poſſibly occur, we have this to ſupport us, that our cauſe is good, and we have the Great Diſpoſer of all things to confide in, and apply to. We have not run preſumptuouſly into danger, nor are we propoſing an independency that is unjuſt or unreaſonable. What we propoſe is the moſt equitable, rational, natural mode of civil government; moſt adapted to anſwer the ends of government, according to the word of God. A government moſt favourable to religion as well as liberty, and the natural rights of mankind. In this way we have abundant reaſon to think that God will ſmile upon and bleſs us; will proſper our equitable proceedings, and prevent the evils that earth or hell may deviſe againſt us.

Argument Sixth. The Congreſs has lately applied to Britain, and petitioned for a reconciliation, and therefore if Britain complies with our propoſal, we cannot with honour and juſtice refuſe to treat with her.

Anſwer. 1ſt, We may hold a treaty, and try to come to ſome proper agreement, as to trade; enter into a league offenſive and defenſive, and yet maintain our independence as to government. 2d, Our petition and offer of reconciliation, ſhould be viewed only upon condition, that Britain would redreſs our grievances, repeal ſeveral acts of parliament, and place us in as good a condition as we were in 1763, which muſt imply making good our damages; which Britain is by no means likely to do. 3d, But the moſt proper anſwer to this argument is, that things are much altered ſince our petition laſt July, or the beginning of September, when it was offered to the King. If our petition had been complied with, it ought to have been complied with immediately. It was offered in a critical time, we were then in the utmoſt danger, beſet on all ſides. Since that time much of our precious blood has been ſpilt; one of our beſt generals ſlain, ſeveral large towns burnt, and others cannonaded, beſide immenſe coſt. If we were held by that offer of the Congreſs, it ought to have been immediately complied with, or at leaſt we ſhould have been told that it would be conſidered as ſoon as poſſible; that it ſhould be laid before the parliament as ſoon as they met. But inſtead of this, we were told that no anſwer would be given, and there was not a word of it in the King's ſpeech to the parliament, framed by the miniſtry, nor an item of any reconciliation with the colonies; nothing but the ſame proceſs of fire and ſword that we had been treated with. Yea afterward, when Governor Penn had been examined before the Houſe of Lords, and the Duke of Richmond made a motion that the laſt petition from the Continental Congreſs, ſhould be made a baſis for a plan of accommodation; the miniſterial party oppoſed it, and it was thrown out by 86 againſt 33. And if the petition is taken under conſideration after all, it is by conſtraint, not willingly; it is becauſe they find that providence has ſmiled upon us, and frowned upon them, and they know not how to accompliſh their cruel deſigns as they propoſed. And is there not all the reaſon in the world, that we ſhould ſay that we cannot make the ſame offer now that we did eight months ago, and that we are not bound by the offer we then made. If A offers B a horſe at a certain price, and B does not accept the offer, A has a right to withdraw it, and is not obliged to let B have the horſe on the ſame terms any conſiderable time after, eſpecially if circumſtances are much altered in the mean time, and more eſpecially if the alteration is A's damage, by B's neglect to comply with A's offer at firſt. This is our caſe with Britain. We are therefore no way bound by the petition we ſent laſt July.

I come now to offer the arguments for independency, and againſt our being under Britiſh government.

Firſt Argument. By independency we ſhall avoid tyranny, and oppreſſion. If we ſubmit to Britiſh government, we ſhall be continually cramped with Governors, and other officers appointed by the crown. All thoſe in authority over us, will be ſuch as ſuit the ambitious deſigns of Great Britain, however contrary to our intereſt. If we are under Britiſh government, we can make no laws to our advantage, unleſs Britain views them ſo, and they receive a ſanction there. Not a new county can be formed, or chooſe repreſentatives without leave from home. If we are independent we may yearly chooſe ſuch rulers as ſuit us beſt; but if ſubject to Britain, we muſt be under a King that comes by ſucceſſion, however unfit to rule, which is often the bane of government. If we chooſe our rulers annually, or once in three years, they are at the end of that time, again put on a level with their fellow ſubjects, and are liable to be called to an account for mal-adminiſtration, which is a great means of preventing miſmanagement when in power. But if the government is hereditary, we muſt take the chief magiſtrate as he is; ſometimes an infant, ſometimes with ſcarce common fenſe, ſometimes inattentive to any public buſineſs, like Domitian catching flies; ſometimes ambitious, fierce, and cruel, uſing all the power of the nation, to promote tyranny; ſometimes a capricious woman; Should one of our charter governments chooſe a girl, or an old woman for their governor, and give her the uſual ſalary, would not their money be nobly expended, and their government finely managed! This among other things may ſerve to ſhew, that hereditary government cannot be founded in reaſon and equity. and however thus unfit to anſwer the true ends of government, he or ſhe, is not to be ſet aſide. Hereditary government tends to keep a continual oppoſition between the court and the country: So that a courtier and a patriot are oppoſite characters, which is the greateſt abſurdity in nature, if the deſign of civil government is properly viewed. Rulers are, or ought to be wholly for the good of the people: But how contrary to this, is the caſe in fact, in many inſtances! The court and the patriots in continual oppoſition, has long time been a reproach to a nation that boaſts of liberty, and the beſt form of civil government. What ſay ſcripture and reaſon? If a kingdom, or an houſe be divided againſt itſelf, it cannot ſtand. Every man that has lived any time in America, under regal government, knows what frequent, and almoſt continual oppoſition there is between the country intereſt and thoſe in power; what jars and contentions between Governors and Aſſemblies, &c. This may be prevented by keeping clear of Britiſh government; and a kind Providence ſeems now to open a door for it. I have but imperfectly exhibited this argument; but our oppreſſions, and the incroachments upon our natural rights by regal officers, are ſo well known to every man that has any acquaintance with our public affairs, that I need not enlarge.

Second Argument. By being independent, we ſhall be much leſs expoſed to foreign wars. Every large kingdom is often at war with neighbouring nations. The avarice, and ambition of a Prince, at the head of a powerful nation, will not ſuffer it to be long at peace. If we belong to a large kingdom in Europe, we muſt be at war whenever that kingdom is at war: And ſome part of America will always be expoſed in time of war. But if we are independent, it will be the intereſt of all the European nations to keep us ſo, and no one of them will view us as enemies, becauſe they are at war among themſelves. Holland often enjoys peace while the neighbouring kingdoms are at war. If we are independent all the nations of Europe will protect and keep us ſo; for reaſons that have before been given. This will be much better than to be under the protection of any one, tho' the moſt powerful nation in the world.

Third Argument. If we are independent, our taxes will be inconſiderable, compared with what they will and muſt be, if we are under regal government. A view of the public expences in the Province of New-York, and the Colony of Connecticut, a few years paſt, may ſerve to evince this. If we are under regal government, the Provinces will be dealt out to hungry officers, who will always get what they can. There are ſo many hangers-on at the Britiſh court, who want places; ſo many reduced gentlemen to be ſupplied; ſo many placemen and penſioners, that we ſhall always be peeled and pillaged, and new methods of raiſing revenues invented to ſupply them. A number of ſuch hungry creatures will always be gaping for the places of profit and honor, and their ſalaries muſt be as large as poſſible. But if our principal officers were annually choſen from among ourſelves, the expences would be inconſiderable, and the buſineſs of government much better done. There are many ways more than I can enumerate, by which our public expences would be encreaſed under regal government, and diminiſhed by being independent.

Fourth Argument. It will be much eaſier to ſettle the preſent diſputes by declaring for independency, than by attempting an accomodation. Should an accomodation be attempted, the views of Britain and America are ſo very different, if not diametrically oppoſite, that they could not be made to harmonize. The demands of Britain and America would claſh to ſuch a degree, as to render a reconciliation impracticable. America would inſiſt upon ſo many Acts of Parliament being repealed, ſo many rights and privileges aſcertained, ſuch a reparation of damages, &c. many, or all of which things the court of Great-Britain would abſolutely refuſe, that an accommodation could not take place.

Fifth Argument. If matters are ſettled by our being independent, the Continental Congreſs, or the managers of that affair, will be relieved of much difficulty and acquitted with honor; otherwiſe it is likely they will be ſuſpected of bribery, and loaded with blame and reproach. If a reconciliation is poſſible, and ſhould take place, there muſt probably be ſuch conceſſions on the part of America, as would be very grating to multitudes. And thoſe that were entruſted with the management of the affair, would probably be ſuſpected of bribery, whether guilty or not. If matters are not ſettled to the ſatisfaction of people in general, the tranſactors of the affair will be the objects of much public odium. Some part of the Continent has ſuffered ſo much, is ſo irritated by cruel treatment, and there is now ſuch a proſpect of ſettling things well by independency, that it will be impoſſible to make people think well of the men that ſhall, without abſolute neceſſity, again ſubject us to Britiſh government. No man need deſire to be a member of that Congreſs, that ſhall again bring America into ſubjection to Great-Britain, if it is not the general voice of the country.

Sixth Argument. If we are independent, we ſhall be leſs liable to internal tumults and rebellions. Our people have now ſuch a ſenſe of liberty; have been ſo uſed to meet, form, and publiſh reſolves, and aſſert their rights and privileges, and have ſo well ſucceeded in our preſent conteſt with Britain, that it will be very difficult to prevent ſomething ſimilar for time to come, if they are put under Britiſh government; eſpecially if they think it is without neceſſity, and contrary to their natural rights. Should there now be a patched up reconciliation, and we in ſubjection to Great-Britain, we might expect nothing but inward convulſions, ſtruggles, and attempts for freedom, till we were either ruined or ſet free.

Seventh Argument. If we are independent, this land of liberty will be glorious on many accounts: Population will abundantly increaſe, agriculture will be promoted, trade will flouriſh, religion unreſtrained by human laws, 'Tis not enough to ſay every religious ſect ſhould be tolerated, for no one ſhould be eſtabliſhed; and religion in general ſhould be encouraged, and every man not only have the right, but be encouraged to think and judge for himſelf in matters of religion: While no ſet or party ſhould be allowed to moleſt, diſturb or encroach upon another, while they were all equally good ſubjects of the common wealth, and their principles and practice not detrimental to civil government. will have free courſe to run and prevail, and America be an aſylum for all noble ſpirits and ſons of liberty from all parts of the world, I wiſh that I could add, that the guilt of ſlavery would be baniſhed from us; and I cannot but hope that in time it may. What a dreadful abſurdity! What a ſhocking conſideration, that people who are ſo ſtrenuouſly contending for liberty, ſhould at the ſame time encourage and promote ſlavery! And being thus guilty, expoſe themſelves to the judgments of Heaven! May ſlavery ceaſe in America! Well may the Weſt-India iſlands be afraid of their ſlaves, where that unnatural iniquity is ſo abundantly practiſed. Hither they may retire from every land of oppreſſion; here they may expand and exult; here they may enjoy all the bleſſings which this terraqueous globe can afford to fallen men.

I have thus briefly ſtated ſome of the arguments, for and againſt a reconciliation with Great-Britain: More might be produced, and I doubt not will occur to every reader.—Theſe matters are now exerciſing the thoughts of many among us. America's reconciliation with Britain is become a ſubject of converſation, and I think ought to be impartially canvaſſed. In canvaſſing this matter, and bringing things forward to a determination, the ſide of reconciliation with Britain has conſiderable advantage; becauſe many men in office, and thoſe that hope to be promoted if a union takes place, will exert themſelves, uſe all the plauſible arguments and perſuaſions they can, to lead people to think a union is beſt; and many of thoſe are men that people have been uſed to view as leaders and head men, to whom they have often applied for advice. Many men now in power, and others who hope to come into places of profit or honour, will from intereſted views, uſe their utmoſt endeavours to lead people in general, to think that a reconciliation with Britain is beſt. And it is eaſy for them to influence and lead many of the populous.Since I wrote the above, I have been told, that there are in almoſt every county if not town, men employed, and even hired by thoſe who call themſelves friends to government, to perſuade and influence people as much as poſſible, to favour and promote a reconciliation with Great Britain. People therefore in general thro' the country, ſhould obſerve what ſort of men are engaged to promote a reconciliation with Britain; whether they be ſuch as expect favour from government, or whether they be ſuch as act with a diſintereſted regard to the good of the country. On the contrary the ſide of Independency will have nothing to influence, but barely the intereſt of the country, and people are often too thoughtleſs of their intereſt in theſe matters, 'till 'tis too late. For this reaſon perſons of public ſpirit and capacity, ſhould at this time exert themſelves, and ſet people's intereſt properly before them; avoiding heats and factions, but ſhewing people the weight and importance of the caſe, and giving a juſt view of the ſtate of America.

THE capital ſubject of converſation throughout America for theſe few weeks paſt, hath been excited by a Pamphlet, entitled, Common Senſe; the author of which endeavours to ſhew the neceſſity of our final ſeparation from Great-Britain, as our rights and privileges cannot be properly ſecured by any mode of reconciliation whatever. None of the anſwers given to this ingenious Pamphlet, have ſketched out any plan of ſettlement, by which it might appear that our rights and freedom would be fully ſecured, though again united and harmonized with Britain. That ſuch a compact or ſettlement is practicable, I think ought to be made apparent to the people of America, before they can be convinced of the propriety of reconciliation; and unleſs this can be effected, I never wiſh to ſee the union; preferring, beyond all compariſon, the toils and dangers of erecting a free and independent fabrick to the deluſive promiſes of freedom, pregnant with the principles of ſervitude and oppreſſion. But, I think, ſuch a compact, or act of ſettlement, may be framed, as will ſecure to Americans the rights of freemen, at the ſame time that it removes from them the horrors of war, and the deſolations with which even victory muſt be attended. I think no conſiderate perſon will deny, that our truly honorable Congreſs were of opinion ſuch a compact could be formed, when they petitioned the King, addreſſed the people of Britain, and prayed to the Father of peace for reconciliation with Great-Britain, as the greateſt bleſſing theſe colonies could enjoy. If ſuch a ſettlement, in the opinion of the Congreſs could ſo lately have been framed, I think no good reaſon can be given why it cannot now be effected, ſince the ſame wiſe and ſalutary regulations, which ſix months ago would have ſecured us againſt the inroads of tyranny and the deſigns of a wicked Miniſtry, muſt at this day anſwer the ſame important purpoſes. What were the articles of this compact, which our Congreſs muſt have thought would be ſufficient to ſecure our liberties, I do not know, it is impoſſible, therefore, for me to relate them; but ſufficient it is, for the purpoſe of deſtroying the foundation of independency, to delineate the outlines of a compact, which would reconcile us to Great-Britain, and at the ſame time ſecure and preſerve our rights and privileges: Such a general plan, or ground-work, is here offered to the public for their conſideration.