»"5>- -V

,f>.f

_«i««£L

¦CblflL

From the
COLLECTION OF OXFORD BOOKS
made by
FALCONER MADAN
Bodley's Librarian

THOUGHTS ON T H ^
LETTER of EDMUND BURKE, Efq.
TO THE
SHERIFFS of BRISTOL,
ON THE
AFFAIRS of AMERICA,

BY THE EARL OF ABINGDON.

THE THIRD EDITION.

OXFORD,
Printed for W. Jackson : Sold by J. Almok, in Piccadilly,
And J. Bew, in Fatemofter-Row, London; and by the
{¦pokfellers of Bristol, Bath, and Cambr|Q6£.
i Price One Shilling. ]

THOUGHTS

ON THE

LETTER OF EDMUND BURKE, Escj.

HAVING feen Mr. Burke's late Publication
on the affairs of America, 1 was led to
read it with all that attention which every per
formance of his muft necelTarily deferve. I
fympathife moft cordially with him in thofc
feelings of humanity, which mark, in language
fo cxpreffive, the abhorrence of his nature to
the efFufion of Human Blood. I agree with
him in idea, that the War with America is
*' fruitlefs, hopelefs, and unnatural"; and I will
add, on the part of Great-Britain, cruel and
unjuft. I join hand in hand with him in all
his propofitions for Peace ; and I look* with
longing eyes for the event. I participate with
him in the happinefs of thofe friendfhips and
connexions, which are the fubjedts, fo dcferved-

( 4 )
ly, of his panegyric. The name of Rocking
ham is a facred depofit in my bofom. I have
found him difinterefted, I know him to be ho-
neft. Before I quit him therefore, I will firft
abandon human nature.
So far then are Mr. Burke and I agreed. I
am forry that we fhould difagree in any thing.
Biit finding that we have differed, on a late oc-
cafion, in our Parliamentary Condudt; and that
I cannot concur with him in opinion on a mat
ter, as I think, of very great national impor
tance : it is therefore not in the zeal of party,
but in the fpirit of patriotifm, not to confute,
but to be convinced, not to point out error, but
to arrive at truth, that I now venture to fubmit
my thoughts to the Public. I feel the 'weight
of the undertaking, and I wifh it in abler haiids.
I am not infenfible to my own incapacity, and
I know how much I ftand in need of excufe :
but as public good is my objed:, public candour,
i truft, will be my beft apologift.
Mr. Burke commences his Letter with the
mention of " the two laft Ads which have
" been pafled with regard to the Troubles in
" America." The firft is, " for the Letter of
" Marque," the fecond, " for a partial fufpen-
" fion of the Habeas Corpus." Of the former, "he

{ 5 )
he fays little, as not worthy of much notice.
Of the latter, his diftlndions are nice, his ftric-
tures many, his objedions unanfwerable j and
yet, although fo well apprifed of the dangers
and mifchiefs of this Ad, he fays, " I have not
*' debated againftthisBillin its progrefs through
" the Houfe, becaufe it would have been vain
" to oppofe, and impoffi;ble to corxed it." But
this is matter of inquiry. As I thought differ
rently, I aded differently. Being in the coun
try, this Bill was in its way through the Houfe
of Lords before I knew any thing of it. Upon
my coming aceidentalJy to town, and hearing
of its -malignity, I went down to the Houfe, I
oppofed it, and entered my folemn PTOteft ou
the Journals againft it. It is true, I ftood fiiagle
and alone in this bufinefs -, but I do not there
fore take ihame to myfelf. Reditude of inten
tion will even fandify error. But Mr. Burke
fays, " During its progrefs through the Houfe
" of Commons, it has been amended, fo as to
*' exprefs more diftindly than at firft it did, the
" avowed fewtiments of thofe who framed it."
Now if the Bi?ll was amended in its progrefs
through the Houfe of Commons, Mr. Burke's
reafon " for not debating againft the Bill" can
not "be well founded; for his reafon is, *' that
*' it would have been vain to oppofe, and im-
" "pqjjibk to correB it :" but to amend sl thing is
A3 to

( 6 )
to correB it ; and therefore if the Bill w^
amended, it was not impoffible to correB it.

The cafe was this. This Bill was brought
into the Houfe of Commons under the .black
coverture of defigning malice. Some of the
honourable Members of that Houfe, feeing it
in this dark difguife, endeavoured to unrobe it
of its darknefs. Their endeavours fucceeded,
and " it was amended, fo as to exprefs more dif*-
*' tindly than it at firft did, the avowed fenti-
** ments of thofe who framed it." In this
. fhape it came to the Houfe of Lords : bad
-enough in all confcience : but I ufe Mr. Burke's
own words when I fay, " there i-s a difference
" between bad and the worft of all." I thought
it bad, and therefore I put my negative upon
it: had it been, worfe, a fortiori, I fhould
have done the fame. But here it would feem
as if Mr. Burke and I were not agreed in our
•notions of bad and nsoorfe : for what he holds
bad, I efteem worfe, ' and what he calls ivor/e, I
think bad. To explain myfelf. He confiders a
partial SufpcnfiOti of the Habeas Corpus a greater
evil than an univerfal {afp&niion of it. I conceive
the contrary : though if Mr. Burke's premifcs
were right, I fhould approve his reafoning, and
^dmit his confequences. He fays " whenever
" an Ad is made for a ceffation of law and
" juftice.

( 7 )
*• juftlce, the whole people fhould be univerfally
*' fubjeded to the fame fufpenfion of their
" franchifes." Be it fo : but then the whole
people fhould fall under the reafon and occa-
fion of the Ad. If England was under the
fame predicament with America, that is to fay,
if Englifhmen were looked upon to be Rebels,
as the Americans are, in fuch a cafe, a partial
fufpenfion of the Habeas Corpus would be invi
dious, and confequently more unjuft than a^^-
«^r^/ fufpenfion of it; for why fhould one Rebel
be diftinguifhed from another ? but Englifh
men are not accounted Rebels, and the Ameri
cans arc; and therefore in the fame degree that
a partial fufpenCion, on the one hand, mig&t be
juft, an univerfal fufpenfion, on the other,
would be unjuft. Where the offence is local,
the punifhment too muft be local. It would
have been unjuft if the lands in America had
been forfeited to the Crown in the year 1745,
becaufe Scotland was then in Rebellion. I do
not ufe thefe arguments in favour of the Bill.
The principle was bad with refped to America:
it was worfe with regard to this country. And
herein confifted the very malignity of the Bill :
for whilft the Habeas Corpus was taken away
from the imputed guilty Americans, the inns-
cent Englifh were at the fame time deprived of
its benefit ; fufpicion, without oath, being
A 4 made

7 )
made the two-edge'df fword that was to cut
both \iriys. j
Biit, fays Mr. Burke, " The alarm of fuch a
*' proceedihg," (that is of an uhiVerfal fufpen
fion of the 'people's franchifes) " would then be
" univerfal. It W^ould operate as a fort of call
*' of the nation." As to my part I haVe heard
io many calls of the nation of late, without 'any
dnfwer being made to them ; that I fear the
'nation has either loft its hearing or its voice :
"but fb'ppofihg otherwife, of what avail can a
cizllbfthenationhc agsCinft the fupremacy of an
ad of fjarliament ? "And who fh^ll dare to refift
the authori'ty of a ftatiitfe that can alter the efta-
'blifhed religion of the lancl, nay even bind in all
cafes ivhdtfoe'ver .? Bdt more of this by and by.
iVFr. Btirfce ^es on to fay, ^' As ^ings ntHv
" 'ftiahd, every nrtah in^l!he Weft-Indies, everyone
** inhabitant of three unoffending Provinces on
¦" the'Continent, every perfon coming from the
" Eaft-Irtdies,eV"ery gentleman who has travdlled
** ¦for-hi's health or education, every mariner who
*' has navigated thefeas, is,fornoother'offence,
** under a temporary profeription." But how did
things ftand before 'the amendment of the bill ?
Not only every man as defcribed above, but

( 9 )
•^very individual m this kingdom was utidcrthe
fame temporary p'r6fcriptiort. The writing of
a letter to, or receiving a letter from, America,
in this country, though the contents were evtt
fo harmlefs, was ground of fufpicion fufficient
to immure a man in the caftle of Dumfries, or
Pendennis, or wherefoever elfe perfecution
fhould think fit to fend him *. We have been
faved from this hell-governed profeription.
Oppofition removed it from us. It had been
well to have done fo from every fubjed of the
realm : but it did what it could, and the li
berty of many unoffending perfons has been
preferved 'thereby.
This being the ftate of thei^Bill, amended, &,s
Mr. Burke himfelf confeffes, one might havse
-thought that, though iW, it was ^^//?r than it
'had been; but -the veryreverfe of 'this is .the
dpiihion of Mr. Burke : Tor in onfe place, he fays.

* It is faid that the number of perfons who died in different
priteiis during the defpotic government of the l(Iarfi[uis de Pombal,
"lafe minifter of Portugal, toithtmt hamng been ¦coA'oWedef any
trim, is computed at 3970 perfons j and thofe who were la^-
guiftiing in irons at the time of his dilgi-ace amounted to 800,
If this-aft had paffed, as it was firllframed, and if we may-mea-
' fureour ^ilniAments by thofe meted out to our }>rcthfen in Ame
rica ; what reafon is there to fuppofe, th^t our fituation had
not "been the very counterpart of this ? " the

( 10 )
** the limiting qualification, inftead of taking
*' out the fting, does, in my humble opinion
*' fharpen and envenom it to a greater degree."
And, in another, he adds, " that far from fof-
** tening the features of fuch a principle, and
** thereby removing any part of the popular
** odium ornatural terrors attending it, I fhould
*' be forry, that any thingframedincontradidion
** tothefpiritofourconftitutiondidnotinftantly
" produce in fad, the groffeft of the evils, with
" which it was pregnant in its nature." So that
amendment, by foftening the features, and re
moving the popular odium, without producing
*the groffeft of evils with which it was pregnant
in its nature, has, if I may- ufe fuch terms of
contrariety, made the bill worfe. Such is the
dodrine of Mr. Burke, and juft it may be: but
if it be, I can only fay that he and I fee objeds
-through different mediums; and that if he
thinks it right to do evil that good may come
of it, I wifh to do good, by averting the evil.
The phyfician that ftops the progrefs of a
difeafe, may, -at^one time or another, hope for
its cure; but he that leaves the difeafe to the
vefforts of nature alone, trufts to a caufe that is
"Very unfure in the effed. Mr. Burke, however,
.in aid of his opinion fays, that, " On the next
" unconftitutional Ad, all the fafh ion able world
' " will be ready to fay — Your prophecies are ri-
" diculous.

( " )
** diculous, your fears are vain, youfee how little
*' of the mifchiefs which you formerly foreboded
** are come to pafs. Thus by degrees that artful
*' foftening of all arbitrary power, the alledged
" infrequency or narrow extent of its operation,
" will be received as a fort of aphorifm : and Mr.
** Hume will not be fingular in telling us, that
** the felicity of mankind is no more diftiirbed
" by it, than by earthquakes, or thunder, or the
*' othermoreunufualaccidents of nature." Now
as to the fafhionable world, living as they do
under the tyranny of that greateft of all ty
rants, Fajhion, upon fuch an occafion, I fhould
hardly look up to them as a fit court of appeal.
And as to Mr. Hume, let thofe remember who
adopt his aphorifms — that that great philan-
thropift and friend of liberty, Dodor Franklin,
has not, in the depths of his wifdom thoiight,
" alledged infrequency or narrow extent of ope-
" ration," any argument to prevent the protec
tion of mankind even " againft the more un-
*' ufual accidents of nature;" and let therri in
the remembring of this, regret, that his Poli
tics, like his Philofophy, have not been the
fubjeds of our experiment. . Happy, thrice
happy, had it been for this country, if, inftead
of befetting this able man with foulmouthed
language, and indecent mockery, (indecent doubly

( »2 )
doubly fo, becaufe of the venerable council be
fore whom he ftood) his advice, like his con-
duBors, had been made ufe of to draw the
forked lightning from that portentous cloud,
which, with overfpreading ruin, has now burft
upon our heads.
Another argument made ufe of by Mr.
Burke for not debating againft the Bill, is this.
" It is," fays he^ " fome time fince I have
** been clearly convinced, that in the prefent
** ftate of things, all oppofition to anymeafures
** propofed by minifters, where the name of
" America appears, is vain and frivolous." I
think fo too : but 'then, it does not therefore
-follow that oppofition is to be laid afide.' The
.queftion, how far a member of either houfe
can give over his attendance in Parliament, be
caufe he is ont-:voted, is a nice queftion; and
worfhy the examination of thofe who have lei-
-fure and abilities for the purpofe. My Own
privKte Opinion 'is, that no member, ini^v'i-
-dually, can do this, confiftetitly with his duty.
xolleBimely 'ke may : -as the 'prec^ent of fecef-
fion, during fhe adminiftratJon of Sir RobeCt
;WalLpDle, fhewsj; and as Teafon proves : for it
is not to te sprefumted tbat a i combination to
ithis end can be.obtailiai, without a fufficient
foundation

( n )
foundation for it ; and therefore when it does
take place, it is intended, as Mr. Burke elfe-
where fays, " as a fort of call of the nation."
But even here, I muft not think it juftifiable,
unlefs fupported on the following grounds.
In the firft place, the feceffion muft be general;
that is to fay, it muft not confift of this or that
party only in oppofition, but muft include the
whole Minority againft the meafures that have
provoked feceffion. In the next place, it muft
be a feceffion not fub filentio, but proclaimed
either by Remonftrance on the Journals, or
public Addrefs to the People; and when both
thefe circumftances attend the ad, then fecef
fion is not only juftifiable, but is the moft faith
ful pledge of duty that can be given. I have
therefore exceedingly to lament that a fecef
fion, fuch as this is, has not been carried into,
execution ; and not only on account of the
proof that would have been given thereby to
the nation of the fincerity of oppofition, but
becaufe I do verily believe from my foul, that
if it had, daring as Minifters are and have been,
they would not have prefumed to have gone
the lengths they have done in the open viola
tion of the Conftitution; though upheld, as
they fay they are, by Parliament, by the coun
try gentlemen, and by their long tribe of obr
fequious addreffers. But

( H )
But to return more diredly, to the argu
ment of Mr. Burke, and admitting that " all
" oppofition, where the name of America ap-
*' pears, is vain and frivolous," and therefore
that Mr. Burke was right in not debating
againft the Bill, the fame reafon muft hold
good in every cafe of oppofition where the
fame circumftances exift : for not to debate in
this inftance, and to debate in another, " where
" the name of America appears," muft be
wrong. Both cannot be right. And there
fore Mr. Burke's repeated propofitions fo ably
made, and fo well fupported, for peace, might
have been difpenfed with. Objedions to taxes,
in aid of this deftrudive war, were unneceffa-
ry. In fhort all debate was
" Time mifpent, and language mifapplied:"
for " all oppofition is vain and frivolous, whepe
" the name of America appears."
Having thus ftated the reafons, and examined
the motives that occafioned a difference in con-
duB between Mr. Burke and me ; I fhall now,
turning over thofe many leaves of his letter, of
which, were I to take any notice, it muft be in
admiration and in praife, proceed to that part
of it, wherein our difference in opinion prevails*
And here, in page 46, Mf. Burke fays, '* But I

( 15 )
** do affure you, (and they who know me pub-
" lickly and privately will bear witnefs to me)
** that if ever one man lived, more zealous
" than another, for the fupremacy of Parlia-
" ment, and the rights of this Imperial Crown,
** it was myfelf." Now if I cannot join with
Mr. Burke in this folemn declaration of his, I
truft, it will not be therefore imputed to me,
that I am lefs zealous than he is for the rights
of the Britifh Lcgiflaturc ; nor if I objed to the
terms of his propofition fhall I be condemned
as captious : for to cavil does not belong to me,
and more efpecially about words. But when I
fee, and know, and am perfuaded, that thefe
very modes of {peech, fipremacy of Parliament,
rights of this imperial Crown, with their kindred
others, unity of Empire, allegiance to the State,
and fuch like high-founded fefquipedalia verba,
by becoming, in defiance of their impropriety,
the deities of modern invocation, and by ope
rating as incantations to miflead mankind, have
done more mifchief to the State even than the
fword itfelf of Civil War; be their authority
ever fo great, I can never fubfcribe to their
ufe. Supremacy of Parliament is a combination
of terms unknown to the Englifli polity ; and
as to allegiance to the State, though it be the
fandified phrafeology of an Archbifhop, it is,
like the ** Whiggifm" he cenfures, allegiance " run

( i6 )
" run mad." * Suprernacy is an appeadant of.
the Crown, and fo is allegiance. The former is
the right of the King, (as heretofore it was of
the Pope) in his ecclejiajiical capacity, the latter
in his temporal', and there cannot be two rights,
in one State, to the fame thing. Who ever
heard of the Oaths of Supremacy and of Alle
giance to the Parliament ? And why are they
not taken to the Parliament ? Becaufe they are
due to the King, and not to the Parliament;
and it is not fit that the Parliament fhould in
vade " the rights of this Imperial Crown."
Let each poffefs its own, and fo the Conftitution
will be preferved. That the Parliament is^^-
preme, I admit. It is xhcfupreme court, or curia
magna of the Conftitution ; as the Houfe of
Lords is th^fupreme court of Juftice, or dernier,
refort of the Law. Both are fupreme, and yet
fupremacy was never attributed to the Houfe of
Lords, but ever, in the language of the Con
ftitution, belonged to the King, as the fupreme
* Vide the Archbifhop of York's Sermon," printed by T.
Harrjfon and S. Brooke in Warwick-Lane, p. 22, It had been
Wei! if this, or any thing elfe that the Primate faid, could have
fet afide the criminal charges to which his Sermon was expofed :
but as it was indefenfible, fo is it matter pf great national con
cern to find fuch doftrines propagated by the once Tutor of the
Heir-apparent to the Crown ; though it prove of fome confo-
Ijation, as the Earl of Shelburne remarked, that his Majefty,
perceiving the evil tendency of fuch principles, had, in hjs wif-
fipni, removed hjjr from the tuition of the Prince.
Head

C J7 )
Head of the Church. In like manner I admit,
that the people are bound in obedience to the
laws of Pariiament : but this does not therefore
infer '' allegiance to the State." Allegiance iS
one thing, obedience another. Allegiance is
due to the King, fo long as, in his executive
capacity, he fliall proted the rights of the
People. Obedience is due to the Laws, when
founded on the Conftitution : but when they
are fubverjive of the Conftitution, then difobe-
dience inftead of obedience is due; and rc-
fiftance becomes the law of the land,
Thefe were my refledions, c6nfequent on
Mr. Burke's declaration ; but my hope wasi
that although we differed in words, in things
we might yet be agreed. How great then was
mydifappointment, when inftead of feeing this
fubjed unrobed of its gorgeous apparel, and like
truth made to appear naked and unadorned,
when inftead of difcuffion, which fuch a decla
ration feemed neeeffarily to call for, when in
ftead of reafoning, and of argument, as if
afraid of their confequences, I found aflertionS
without the fhadow of proof, and precedents
importing no authority, bat upholding error,
fubftituted in their room. " Many others, in-
*' deed," fays Mi;. Burke, " might be more
** knowing in the extent, or in the foundation
B " of

( 18 )
of thefe rights. I do not pretend to be Aft
antiquary,' or a lawyer, or qualified for the
chair of profeffor in metaphyfics. I never
ventured to put your folid interefts upon fpe-
culative grounds. My having conftantly de
clined to do fo has been attributed to my in
capacity for fuch difquifitions ; and I am in
clined to believe it is partly the caufe. I ne
ver fhall be afhamed to confefs, that where
I am ignorant, I am diffident. I am indeed
not very folicitous to clear myfelf of this im
puted incapacity; becaufe men, even lefs
converfant than I am, in this kind of fub-
tilties, and placed in Nations, to which I
ought not to afpire, have, by the mere
force of civil difcretion, often conduded the
affairs of great nations with diflinguifhcd
felicity and glory." This may be very true,
but furely it is not very fatisfadory. To be
more zealous than any one man living " for the
" Supremacy of Parliament; and the Rights of
*' this imperial Crown," and lefs knowing than
Others " in the extent and foundation of thefe
"' rights," is to profefs more of implicit faith
and enthufiafm, than, I confefs, I expeded to
have met with, at leaft now ad ays, in civil
concerns. Of Faft'atics in the Church I knew
there were ftill niany to be found, but a State
Fanatic, I thought, was a phanomenon in poli tics

( 19 )
iics not 6f modern appearance. If indeed our
Parliaments were, as our Scottifh race of Kings
held themfelves to be, God's vicegerents, and
governed the State de jure divino ; then fuch a
degree of belief had been only correfpondent to
the occafion of it : but Parliaments have ever
been the works of men's hands, as, thank God,
we now know that our Kings are ; or other-
wife we had not had our prefent moft gracious
Majefty on this throne, nor yet that additional
folemn contrad between King and People, I
mean the AB of Settlement, for the eternal fe-
curity, as I truft, of thofe Rights of the Subjed
which are intrufted to the executive power.
Again, Why fhould a man be either antiqua
rian, lawyer, or metaphyfician, or what need
is there of fpeculation, to know " the extent
*' and foundation of thefe rights ?" The rights
of Englifhntien want no fuch profeffional au
thority for their fupport : neither are they mere
abftrad terms, the entia rationis, or creatures
of the underftanding ; but are, for our know
ledge, written in our hearts, with the blood of
our anceftors. But " the affairs of great na-
" tions are often conduded with diftinguifhed
" felicity and glory by the mere force of civil
** difcretion." What! are the rights of Eng
lifhmen to be held at the difcretion of mi-
B 2 nifters ?

( 20 )
hifters ? Is civil difcretion the rule of our go
vernment ? Wherein does civil difcretion differ
from nbill, the Law of Tyrants ? And will any
ftiinifter of this country fay, ** I am not con-
** verfant in this kind of fubtilties, the extent andi
" foundation of thefe rights," and therefore will
govern by this unconditional power, the mere
force of civil dfcretion ? This can never be :
but I have faid that I found affertions without
the fhadow of proof, and precedents importing
no authority, but upholding error; and this
obliges me to be more circumftantial. The
fubjed is a deep one ; and the confideration of
it the moft interefting of any that ever fell un
der political contemplation. It is no lefs than
to know whether our civil exiftence has any
real foundation ; or whether, as it is faid of
the fea, it be without a bottom. Perhaps
I may be loft in th.e depths of refearch ; but if
I am, I carry this confolation with me, that I
fink in the caufe of truth. I have this hope,
however, of prefervation about me, that I fhall
not dive into myfteries, nor yet venture among
the quickfands of metaphyfical abftradions.
The Conftitution of my country isthe ground
on which I wifh to ftand, and if I gain this
Ihore, my fafety prefent will reward the dan
gers paft.
Mr.

( 21 )
Mr. Burke having given us his Creed in the
Supremacy of Parliament, next applies its un
limited power to and over the American Colo
nies ; and then tells us what the Supremacy of
Parliament is in England. I fhall confider the
laft firft, namely, the Supremacy of Parliament
in England, as a major propofition in which
the minor is contained. He fays (in order to
(hew " the compleatnefs of the legiflative au-
" thority of Parliament over this kingdom") that
** if any thing can be fuppofed out of the power
" of human legiflature, it is religion : I admit,
** however, that the eftablifhed religion of this
** country has been three or four times altered
** by Ad of Parliament ; and therefore that a
¦** Statute binds even in that cafe." This is con-
clufive as to Mr. Burke's idea both with refped
to the unlimited right as well as the unlimited
power of Parliament : but whilft he is fharp
even to a point for the general unlimited right
of Parliament, he adduces fome cafes to blunt
the edge of its power over this kingdom. He
fays, " But we may fafely" affirm, that notwith-
'* ftanding this apparent omnipotence, it would
" be ^ow found as impoffible for King and Par-
*' liament to change the eftablifhed religion of
** this country, as it was to King James alone,
** when he attempted to make fuch an altera-
" tion without a Parliament." Further : " I
B 3 " fee

( 22 )
" fee no abftrad reafon, which can be given,
" why the fame power that made and repealed
" the High-Commiffion Court and the Star-
" Chamber might not revive them again : but
" the madnefs would be as unqueftionable as
" the competence * of that Parliament which
" fhould make fuch attempts." Furthermore :
" The King's Negative to Bills is one of the
" moft indifputed of the royal prerogatives, and
*' it extends to all cafes whatfoever ; but the ex-
*' ercife is wifely foreborne." Moreover: " We
" know that the Convocation of the Clergy had
*' formerly been called, and fat with nearly as
*' much regularity to bufinefs as Parliament it-
" felf. It is now called for form only." Thefe
then are what I call precedents without autho
rity, but upholding error : for diftinguifhing,
as muft be done, between right and pois^er. Par*
liament cannot exercife z.power without a right
to that power ; or if it does, it is an ufurpation
of power, which fooner or later never fails of re-
drefs. Precedents therefore of Ads of Parlia
ment, repugnant to the fundamental principles
of the Conftitution, are no proofs of the Supre
macy or Omnipotency of Parliament, but in-
ftances only of the abufe of Parliament ; " and
" as no government," fays Machiavel, " can be
* It is prefumed that incompetente is here meant, and that com-^
pKienft is an error of the prefs.
"of

( 23 )
" of , long duration, which, by the original
"formation of its conftitution, is not frequent-
*' ly renewed or drawn back to its firft princi-
** pies," fo whenever this happipns to us, as
it often has done, and, I truft, is again not afar
off from us, thefe precedents, like fo many
clouds difperfed, only ferve to fhew, that al
though they may darken the face of the con
ftitution, they can never extinguifh its light.
But a word or two more particularly of thefe
precedents. Much ftrefs has been laid on the
alterations that have been made in the eftablifh
ed religion, in order to fhew the right of Par
liament to omnipotency: it is the dodrine of
Sir William Blarkftone*: but as the moft abb
chymift cannot extrad that from any given
thing, which does not exift in its nature, fo is
this precedent, for this reafon, by no means a
cafe in point. In the firft place, religion has
nothing to do with the civil rights of the
State. It is fet apart from them, and belongs
to the Church J- The civil rights of the State
are of a temporal nature ; they Ai^poftive, they

* Vide his Commentaries, vol. i. p. i6i.
1 1 am aware how much I here differ from the very able Pre
late, who is for harneiSng Church and State together, like coach
and horfes, that He as one of the drivers may enjoy the fmack
of the whip ; a fmack which he cannot forget, and which he
gave me reafon to remember when I was at Weftminfter fchool t
B + bW

( 24 )
are general^' affeding every member of the
community equally ^nd alike. Religion is of
a fpiritual nature : it is a negative duty, and
not a pofitive right : it is not general, but varies
according to men's confciences : it is the fub
jed. of /c/?ra//o/z, for no laws can have power
over men's minds. What Ad of Parliament
can make me believe that three is one, or one is
three, if I do not chufe to believe it ? Or that
my falvation in the next world is to be obtained
by the belief of 39 Articles in this ? The ejia-
blijhed religion, therefore, is no more than that
drefs which the State taylors have provided for
Religion to go to court in ; and the fame taylors
that made this drefs, can alter it, as we have
feen, and as the fafhion of the times changes.
But if this was not the cafe with the efta
blifhed religion, how, in the next place, does
its alteration fhew the right of Parliament to
omnipotency ? What effed has it had on the
conftitution ? Are we lefs free now, either in
Church or State, than we were before the Re
formation ? I fhould imagine that we are more
free in both, and if fb, freedom being the firft
principle of the conftitution, the power of Par-
but as I am now out of his dutches, fo I hope I am out of his
books too, at leafl fuch as are akin to his political fermons.
Vide Arcfabiihop of York's Sermon, p. lo. liament

( 25 )
liament to alter the efiablijhed religion has been
but correfpondent to its right-, and therefore,
whilft it is no proof of the fupremacy of Par
liament, I fhould not be forry to fee a little
more alteration of it. I think it may ftill be
amended, without offence to the people, or in
jury to the conftitution ; nay even with fatis-
fadion to fome of the clergy themfelves. The
fecond precedent is that of the High Commif-
fion Court, and the Star Chamber ; which is
in dired proof of my argument : for they,
being ufurpations of power, and abufes of the
right of Parliament, have been diffolved ; and
therefore I agree with Mr. Burke that it would
be madnefs to revive them, and for the reafon
he gives too, to wit, ** the incompetence of
** Parliament :" though if the power of Parlia
ment be unlimited, is not the incompetency of
Parliament a pofition fomewhat paradoxical ?
The third precedent is, ** the King's negative
" to Bills, which is wifely forborne." This is
the forbearance of a known right to a power
vefted by the conftitution in the Crown, and
not the exercife of a power unknown to the
conftitution. As it therefore fhews, that, even
where there is a manifeft power, that power is
limited ; fo it proves, of courfe, that where
there is no manifeft power, there can be no
right to unlimited power. The laft precedent is

( 26 )
is that concerning the Convocation of the Cler
gy ; and to this, what I have faid on the head
of the ejlablijhed religion, inafmuch as ecclejia
jiical matters have nothing to do with civil
concerns, may here be applied. But I do not
recoiled that, in bringing the Convocation of
the Clergy to its prefent formal ftate only,
there was any exertion of power of any kind
to this end. If I remember aright it was a
bargain. It was agreed that, on their Convo
cations becoming merely paffive, the beneficed
Clergy fhould pay no further fubfidies to the
government, as they ufed to do in Convocation;
and that they fhould be reprefented in Parlia
ment, by being allowed to vote at the eledions
for Knights of the Shire : for before this they
were not reprefented in Pjarliament, but in their
own Convocations; and therefore Parliament
had no right to tax them, nor were they taxed
by Parliament, notwithftanding its unlimited
power, and " the compleatnefs of it§ legiflative
*• authority over this kingdom."
If this then be the refult of thefe precedents,
and the State of what has been offered by Mr.
Burke j^r this arbitrary right iij Parliament,
extending even to Religion itfelf, and whofe
power is limited only by " the mere force of
" civil difcretion;" is there nothing further that
may

( 27 )
may be faid againji this right ? I fhall confider.
There is nothing fo much talked of, and yet
nothing fo little underftood, as the EngliJJ} Con
jiitution. Every man quotes it, and upon every
occafion too : but few know where to find it.
If one enquire after it, an Ad. of Parliament is
produced. If you aik what it is, you are told
it is the Law. Strange miftake ! The Cojijiitu-
tion and the Law are not the fame. They dif
fer and in what manner I will endeavour to
point out. In the great machine of State there
are found XhveQ principal powers, with a variety
of others fubordinate to them ; particularly the
Prerogative of the Crown : which is a power
there vefted not to counterad the higher powers t
but, if at any time there fhould be occafion, to
fupply their deficiencies. The firft of thefe
principal Powers, is the Power of the People ;
the fecond,^ the Power of the Conjiitution ; the
third, the Power of the Law. Now the Power
of the People Is firft, becaufe, without People,
there could be neither Conjiitution nor Law.
The Power of the Conjiitution is fecond, for it
is the immediate effed of this firft caufe ; and
if the People and the Conjiitution make the firft
and the fecond Power, there Is no need to prove
that the Law is the third Power of the State.
It follows in the order I have laid down.
As from the People then is derived the Conjiitu- tion.

( 28 )
thn, fo from the Conjiitution is derived the
Law ; the Conjiitution and the Law being, in
a due courfe of lineal confanguinity, the de-
fcendants of the People.
But now I fhall be afked, what is this Conjfi-
tution, and what is this Law f I anfwer, that
by pointing out their relations, their differences
too are marked. But this is not enough : defi
nition is neceffary, and therefore, as a definition
of the name I would fay, that Conjiitution fignified
CompaB, and was the fame with public or poli
tical Law ; and that Law, as here meant, was
the municipal or civil Law of the State : but
as a definition of the thing, perhaps both may
beft appear as derived the one from the other.
I define Conjiitution then to be, thofe Agree
ments entered into, thofe Rights determined
upon, and thofe Forms prefcribed, by and be
tween the Members of any Society in the firft
fettlement of their union, and in the frame and
mode of their Government; and is the Genus
whereof the municipal or civil Law of fuch
eftablifhed Community is the Species: \ht for
mer, afcertaining the reciprocal duties, or fcveral
relations fubfifting betwixt the governors and go
verned; the latter, maintaining the rights and
adjufting the differences arifing betwixt indivi
duals, as parts of the fame whole. And this I
take

( 29 )
take to be the true diftlndion, and real diffe
rence between the Conjiitution and the Law of
England. But this is matter of Theory only. It
is Xh& paffive ftate of Government, and Govern
ment muft be oBive. PraBice therefore is to be
iuperadded to this Theory; and hence the ori
gin of Parliaments. What then are Parlia
ments ? Parliaments make the formal, as Rights
do the fubjlantial, part of the Conftitution ;
and are the Deputies, the Agents, or Appointees
of the Peoj^e, entrufted by them with the
Powers of Legijlation, for the purpofe of pre-
fervlng (and not of deftroying) the eftabllflied
Rights of the Conftitution. But what are the
eftablifhed Rights of the Conftitution ? In detail,
they are multifarious, and many : but reduced
to their firft principles, they are thefe, "Security
" of Life, Liberty y Property, and Freedom in
*' Trade." Such are the great Outlines of the
Englijh Confiitution, the ftiort hlftory, or abftrad
of that origmal CompaB, which is the bond or
cement of our civil union, and which forms, in
particular, the relations that exift betwixt the
legiflative Power of the State, and the People.
But there Is ftill another relation to be confidered.
The Ugijlative Power of the State muft receive
its force from an executive Power. This exe
cutive Power is lodged In the Crown, frora
whence a relation arifes betwixt the Crown and
People ; and is called " the Contrad between " King

( 3« )
" King and People." As CompaB then is tliat
Agreement of the People with the legiflative
Power^ or among themfelves, concerning their
fame Rights j fo ContraB is that Bargain of the
People with the executive Power concerning
their different Rights *i But here it will be

* Writers upon this fubjedl have confounded the two termsj
Compali and ContraSl together ; making them to fignify one
and the fame thingj though really different. CompaS is an
Agreement entered Into without any other confideration, than
that of the plighted faith of the parties to the articles agreed
open : for the articles being general, it is equally the ihtereft of
every indi'uidual to obferve them without any additional obliga
tion J and fuch is the original CompaH, or Conjiitution of this
country. But Contrail is a Bargain^ with a cendition annexed
thereto, that demands a quid pro quo ^ and fuch is the *' Con-
" traft betvve^ri Kirig Slid People" : for the executive Pc'wer being
lodged- in the Croiv/?, the King may fuffer the Laws to fleep, or
pervert them " from their right ufe to their worft abufe," which,
making the articles of this ContraGt not general, calls for different
covenants ; and therefore the King, at his coronation, takes an
oath to proteft the Rights of the People ; and the People, in re
turn, owe, and may be called upon to fwear, Allegiance to the
King. It may be further obferved, that as it was not to be fup
pofed that Parliaments, whofe rights were precifely the fame
with thofe of the People, could poffibly enaft Laws fubverfive of
thofe Rights, fo the original Co?npail feeming to require no other
fanftion, no other agreement between the legiflative Power and
the People was evei' thought of: but now Corruption, that felf-
devouring monfter of the State, making frelh covenants necef
fary, it is to be hoped, that the fame explicit, une-bajive, exprefs
Contraft, which exifts between the King and People, will foon,
very foon, be made to fabfift between the Parliament and People.
It was the doftrine of unlimited Po-wer in the Crown that obtained
the former ; it is the now new and more dangerous doftrine of
unlimited Power in Parliament that muft procure the latter. faid,

( 31 )
faidf How is this known, and where Is this to
be found? I reply. As well in the reafon of
the things themfelves, and our own experience,
as in the letter and fpirit of our Charters : for
inftance, in Magna Charta, which is not only
declaratory of the original CompaB, or funda
mental Rights of the People, but is itfelf that
folemn ContraB, which was had between King
and People, for the protedion of thofe
Rights ; and therefore, as fuch, proves quod
erat demonfirandum.
But now I may be told, that although I have
made a diftindion between the Conftitution and
the Law of England, I have cited Magna
Charta, which is an Ad of Parliament^ and
confequently the Law of England, as for the
Conftitution of England. The objedion is fpe-
cious only, for it is groundlefs. In the firft
place, it is not true that Magna Charta is an
Ad of Parliament ; and for this reafon : that
it was obtained in the field of battle, with
fword in hand, inRurilng-Mead, between Wind-
for and Staines, where the People had pitched
their tents, and where, as hlftory further in
forms us, " King John and his adherents ap-
** peared to be an inconfiderable number, but
" the Lords and Commons filled the country." It

( 32 )
It Is therefore true, that Magna Charta vjras
the Ad of the People at large, aftd not of thfc
Legiflature alone. Befides : it it proved by
Ads of Parliament, that it is not an Ad of
Parliament; and that Parliament {unlimited Z5
its power is now faid to be) has no power over
it at all : for it is declared by the ftatute of the
25th of Edw. I. that Magna Charta was ob
tained by the common Affent of all the Realm,
and that it was to be received as the Folcright,
or common Law of the Land. And by the
43d of Edw. III. all ftatutes made againft
Magna. Charta are declared to be void : fb that
whilft Magna Charta proves the Conftitution to
be anterior to the Law, Ads of Parliament
fhew that it is not fubjed to the Law, nor
under the power of Parliament. But, in the
next place, admitting Magna Charta to be an
Ad of Parliament, ftill the objedion remains
without fotindation. For Magna Charta, be
ing not enaBive of new Rights, but, as I have •
faid before, declaratory only of thofe old Rights
of the People, fome of which are of Saxon
anceftry, others coeval with the firft form of
Britifh Government, is a Law only in proof of
the Conftitution ; and therefore fupports my
pofition, that the Conftitution and the La%v are
not the fame. But

( 33 )
But there is ftill another objedion, which I
fhuft anticipate in order to remove. It may be
bbjeded, that if (as I have fhewn) the People
be made the fource of all power in the State, in
what manner is fiich an idea to be reconciled
with the dodrine, that " Government certainly
*' is an'Inftitution of divine Authority?" * for
thefe (upon another occafion) are the words of
Mr. Burke ; though, he adds, that its Forms
and the Perfons who adminifter it, all originate
from the People. What a pity that an " In-
" ftitution of divine Authority" ftiould ever bei
found in the hands of Devils, as our Govern
ment fometimes unhappily is! But I do not
mean to enter into the merits of this dodrine.
Indeed, I am bound not to do fo ; for I have
faid, that I will not dive into myfteries, left I
be drowned ; and I will keep my word. But
as this faid mode of attributing to natural t&Q.s
fupernatural caufes, or mixing Church and
State together, has already done a great deal of
mifchief to the community ; as I perceive that
the divine Right of Parliaments, like the divine
Right of KingSj to do what Is wrong, with its
concomitant train, pajjive obedience and non-
refijlence, is now frOm the
" Pulpit, drum ecclefiaftic,
" That's beat with fift, inftead of a ftlck,"
• Vid. Thoughts on the Caufe of the prefent Difcontehts,
fifth edit. p. 67.
C founding

( 34 )
founding forth in the ears of the * People j as
I am content to judge of things paft by the
prefent, leaving to others all better rules of
judging ; and inafmuch as example goes before
precept ; fo the prefent ftate of America afford
ing not only much notable information on this
head, but ferving to illuftrate the whole of
what has been here faid on the fubjed of Go-
* See a Sermon preached before the Univerfity of Oxford, on
Friday, December 13, 1776, being the day appointed by pro-
clamadori for a general Faft. By Myles Cooper, LL.D. Pre-
fident of King's College, New-Yprk, and Fellow of Qneen'»
College, Oxford. Publiffied at the requeft of the Vice-Chan-
cellor and Heads of Houfes, and printed at the Clarendon prefs.
This Doftor fays, p. 12. " It is difficult indeed to affign any
'¦' reafons that will juftify the Rebellion of Subjefts againft the
" fovereign Authority." " Submiffion to the higher Powers"
" is enjoined at leaft upon Chrifttans, under the fevereft penalty,
•¦' But were Chriftianity altogether out of the queftion, yet the
" infurreftion of fubjefts againft their rightful Governors, is
" condemned by thofe Laws which are fundamental to fociety."
He fays too, p. 22. " When men's principles are wrong, their
" praflices will feldom be right. When they fuppofe thofe
" Powers to be derived folely from the People, which are or-
" dained of God, and their heads are filled with ideas of ori-
" ginal Compafts nijhich never exijled^ and which are always
" explained fo as to anfwer their prefent occafions ; no wonder
" that they confound the duties of rulers and fubjefts, and are
" perpetually prompted to diftate where it is their bufinefs to
" obey. When once they conceive the governed to be fuperiof
" to the go-vernors, and that they may fet up their pretended
" natural Rights in oppofition to the pofitive Laijus of the State ;
" they will naturally proceed to " defpife dominion add fpeak
" evil of dignities," and to open a door for anarchy, confufion",
" and every evil work, to enter." What more did Sacheverel
fay ? And yet Sacheverel was, impeached, whilft Do£lor Cooper
iiiay expsft preferment.
vcrnment,.

( is )
Verhment, I fhallj with fome advantage 1 truft,
and in as few words as I can, make ufe of
the inftancei
America, having declared Itfelf Independent
of Great-Britain, returned to that ftate of Na
ture, or ftate of Society, where Government
was to be inftituted ; and being fo cirdum-
ftanced, whilft it proceeded to form itfelf into
feparate Commonwealths, or States, each Com
monwealth or State provided a Conftitution or
Form of Government of its own ; which, al
though differing in mode and manner, agreed
in fubftance and effed. The Precedent there
fore of one Conftitution anfwering for every
Other, I fhall here avail niyfelf of fuch extrads
from the Conftitution of the State of Majfa-
chujetfs, as are neceffary to my purpofe. This
Conftitution then, or Form of civil Govern
ment, confifts of forty^-three Articles, and is
entitled, " An Ad of the General Convention of
»* the Commonwealth, or State of Maffachufetts,
" declaring the fame to be a free State, and
" independent of Great-Britain, and eftablifh-^
" ing a new Conftitution and Form of civil
"' Government ; which General Convention
" was eleded by the whole People for this Jhle
** purpoje, &c." It next recites thofe (but too
much to be lamented) arbitrary and defpotic
meafures of this countryj which occafioned the
C 2 Declaration

( 36 )
Declaration of Independency ; and' after thlsj.
proceeds to fay, " The antient Government
' of this Colony being thus totally diffolved-,
' and the People driven into a State of Nature,
* it becomes theirindifpenfible duty,, and what
* felf-prefervation requires, to declare them--
• felves independent of Great-Britain, and to'
' eftablifh fuch a Conftitution and Form of
' civil Government, as to them appears beft
' calculated to promote t-heir greateft poffible
' happinefs ;" " And whereas it is abfolutely
' neceffary for the welfare and fafety of the
' inhabitants of this Commonwealth, that a-
' juft and permanent Conftitution and Form of
' civil Government fhould be eftablifhed as
' foon as poffible, derived from and founded on:
' the authority of the People only, in whom is-
' ti>e origin of all governmental Power, and
' who' have at all times a right,, by common
' confent (whenever the great- end of Govern^-
' ment, the general good Is not obtained) to
' alter and change their Conftitution and Form
^ of Government, in fuch manner as may beft
* promote the fafety and happinefs of the
* whole."
" We, therefore, the Reprefentatives of the
" Freemen of Maflachufetts, In general Con-
« vention met, for the exprefs purpofe of fram-
" ing fuch a Conftitution and Form of Go^
" vernment,..

< 37 )
i" vernment; gratefully acknowledging the
-f' goodnefs of the fupreme Governor of all, in
'^' permitting us peaceably, and by common con-
" fent, deliberately to form fuch rules, as we
'*' fhall judge beft adapted for governing thi«
" Commonwealth in juftice and righteoufnefs ;
" and being fully convinced thfit it Is our in-
" difpenfible duty to eftablifh, to the utmofl
" of our power, fuch original principles of civil
" Government, as will beft promote the gene-
" ral happinefs of the People, do, by virtue of
" the authority vefted in us by our Conftituents^
" declare, enad, and eftablifti the following
^' Conftitution, and Form ¦of civil -Government,
¦** for this Commonwealth, to be and remain
*' in full force therein, from and after the fe-
^^ cond Wednefday in  , and forever
*¦' thereafter to remain unaltered, except In fuch
*' articles as fhall hereafter, on new circum-
^' ftances arifing, or on experience, be found
.'«* to require alteration ; and which fhall, by the
" like authority of the People, convened for that
«' file purpofe, be altered, for the more effedual
A' obtaining and fecuring the great end and
.<• defign of all good Qovemipent, the Gaod of
^« thi Peopled
" Be it therefore declared and enaded %
!** the general Convention of this Commonr
i^_ js/ealthj afferobled for tbs file purpofe of de-
C 3 -" daring

( 38 )
*' clarlng and enading Independency, and efta-?
'' blifhing a new Conftitution and Form of
^' civil Government, and by the authority of
*' the fame, it is hereby declared and enaded,
?* as in the following general articles, viz.
I. *' That this Colony is, and of right ought
" to be, and for ever hereafter fhall, by the
" favour of all-gracious Heaven, be a free
*' State, and abfolutely independenj: of the
5' Crown and Government of Great-Britain ;
" and fhall be ftyled, The Commonvvealth,
" OR State of Massachusetts."
5. " That this declaration of the general,
?^ fundamental, and effential Rights of the
5' People of this Commonwealth, fhall, for
" ever hereafter, be confidered as the general
" fundamental of the faid new Conftitution
" and Form of Governnient ; and every order,
^' laWf and Jiatute, that fjall hereafter be made
" ^ the general Court of this Commonwealth,
" Jhall conform to the fpirit, and plain Jimple
" meaning and intention of thefe general funda-
" mentals -, and ail and every ordir, law, and
** Jiatute, that may hereafter happen to be made,
" and Jhall be found contrary thereto, Jhall be
" null and void, and have no effeB, and be im-
^* mediately repealed : and no alterMion in thefe
" general fundamentals Jhall heretfter he made,
bid only by the immediate confent of the good
" PeopU

it

( 39 )
" People of this Commonwealth at large, or their
*' deputies, chofenfor that fpecial purpofe."
6. " That all men are born equally free
^' and independent, and their Maker has left
-" them free liberty to fet up fuch Governments as
" beji pleaje themfelves" " That Magiftrates
*' were fet up for the good of Nations, ffiot
" Nations for the honour and glory of M<igi-
" ftrates." « That the Right and Power of
^' Magiftrates in every country, was that which
^* the Laws of that country made it to be."
And, " That ufurpation gives nd right to
** govern." 7. " That all men have a natural and un-
" alienable right to worfliip God according to
" the didates of their own confciences, and
" to enjoy a full and free liberty therein ; pro-
" vided that they, under pretence of Religion,
" do not attempt to fubvert the Conftitution
" and Form of Government of this State, Sec."
Here then is that In effg, what Dr. Coopej:
tells us " never exifted," an original CompaB.
A Compad too, with Powers (which, accord
ing to him, " are ordained of God") folely de
rived from the People j and, the governed be
ing fuperlor to the governors, with jiatural
Ilights, " pretended," as he fays they are, " fet'
*f ^p in oppofition to the pofitive Law of the
C 4 .'•' State;'

( 40 )
f State." Such is this Compad, and fuch, i
prefume, being all other original Compads in
their firft inftitution, it is no wonder that their
exiftence fhould be denied ; inafmuch as they
are the fovereign antidotes of thofe political
poifons, Prieji-Craft, and St ate -Craft, whofe
objeds are dominion over ^' the Beafts of the
« People*."
Here too is an " inftitution of Government,"
but where " the divine authority" of it Is, who
can difcover ? Indeed, In a century more, for
we are already giving up things for words, fenfe
for found, and from the golden falling back into
the iron age again, fuch notions of Government
may be well received. Tradition will inform
pofterity that the Governments of America
were inftituted de Jure divino, and not without
fome reafon on their fide ; inafmuch as the
more natural any Government Is, in my opi
nion the more divine it is : but now that we
' Such is Doftor Cooper's humane appellation of tWofe perfons
in America, who plundered, as he fays, the Members of the
Church of England, Him, I fuppofe, among the reft, and
others, of their property ; adding, " without any means of prc-
" fent redrefs, though it is to be hoped, not without a profpeft
" of future retribution." Methinks the Dodlor, having re
ceived a flap on one cheek, in the true fpirit of a Chriftian,
Ihould have turned the other, and not have looked forward to a
profpedl of plundering the Americans of their property, becaufe
they had plundered him of his. However, whenever the A-
mericans ftiall come to this country to deprive us of our Liber
ties, I will readily join the Doftor in his idea of Retribatiqn. arc

( 41 )
are witnefles to their inftitution, we know, we
fee, and we find that they are inftituted ^
Jure buriar::.
The ne^-t obfervatlon to be made Is the affir
nity of thefe Governments to that cf our own
country. They arc founded on cr!£;in?.l Com
pad, iind fo is c'jrs. The lines of diilindion
betwixt the Pecole, tlie Conftitution, and the
Law, are marked diere as they are drawn here.
The Confiitution is derued from the People,
and the Law from the Conftitution. The Law
cannot alter the Con :li tution : for all and every
Law and Statute thjt are, by the^£7;.;w/ Co-urts,
(equal to our Parliaments) made contrary there
to, are null and void : neither is the Confiitu
tion alter abk, but by general Conventions of
the People i2: Jjr^e, held cxprcfsly and Jokly for
tliat purpofe.
If now then I fliould profefs to believe that
there is no more of ui'Jtne autbcritv in the Go
vernment 6t EngLmd, than in the Governments
of America, a fample of which has been pro
duced ; and that the former is derived from
the fair.o powers, by the fame means, and to
the fame end, namely, the gcoJ cf the whole, as
the latter : I hope I fliall not be therefore ac
counted an Infidel by the Chuixb, nor an un-
siportby Afcnd>cr of Society by tlie Sfjfe. I muft
hope too, that if pur Parliaments^ who are the
Trufteef

( 42 )
TruJiees of the People, and the GuarSans of
their rights, (for they are no more, and I am
one of its Members) ftiould ever attempt to de-
ftroy thofe rights, that, as they will well deferve
the fate, fo may they feel all that vengeance
which the offended Majefty of an injured People
can bring down on their heads. Parhaments
who will fupport the Conftitution, will be fup
ported by the People, and have nothing to fear ;
but thofe who will fubvert the Conftitution,
let them tremble, as one man, even as Charles
the Firft did, who loft his head in fuch an at
tempt ; and which, as Lord Chefterfield tells
us, " if he had not loft, we had certainly
" loft our Liberties."
Having thus gone over the conftitutlonal
ground of this country, and taken a compara
tive view of the foundation upon which its
Government is fuperftruded, the inference to
be drawn from thence Is this j that if the
Government be as I have ftated it to be, and
as I fhall hold it to be, till the contrary be
proved, the right to unlimited power contended
|br in Parliament, cannot, in common appre^-
henfion, there exift. For although Mr. Burke
a^Terts (and I mention this, becaufe I wifh to
ftate, and not to miftate his meaning, and if I
^o, I truft he will impute it to the want of
fomppehenfion, and not to any intention in me)
¦ ' •' thai

( 43 )
^' that Legiflators ought to do what Lawyers
f' cannot ; for they have no other rules to bind
^' them but the great principles of reafon and
•' equity, and the general {tni^Q of mankind ;"
and although in arbitrary countries this is true,
for there the People being divejied of all power,
and both the legiflative and executive authority
vejied folely In the Prince, he may have no
other rules than thefe to bind him ; yet in free
countries the cafe is different. In England,
" the legiflative," fays Lord Bolingbroke, " iS
" a fupreme, and may be called. In one fenfe,
" an abfolute, but in none an arbitrary power."
" It is limited^ fays Mr. Locke, " to the pub-
" lie good of the Society." I fay, it is bound
by the rules of the Confiitution, for the rules
of the Conftitution are to the Parliament, what
the Law is to the Judges. The People make the
Conftitution, the Parliaments make the Law ;
and as the Judges are bound to determine ac
cording to the Law of the land, fo are Parlia
ments bound to enad Laws according to the
rules of the Conftitution ; and not according to
their own principles of reafon and equity, and
what they call the general fenfe of mankind :
for thefe may differ with the principles of the
Conftitution, as we know they have done ; and
therefore arifes the neceffity of afferting the
controul of the Conftitution over the Law and
fat Parliament. But

( 44 )
But of this power of the Conftitution over
the legiflative authority Mr. Burke has himfelf
given the moft pointed cafe. He fays, " before
*' this Ad (that is before the Ad for the partial
" fufpenfion of the Habeas Corpus) every man
" putting his foot on Englifh ground, every
" ftr:anger owing only a local and temporary
" allegiance, even aNegroflave, who had been
f fold in the Colonies, find under an AB of
" Parliament, became as free as every other
^' man who breathed the fame air with him."
What is it then that, fetting thi.^ Ad of
Parliament at defiance, manumits the Negro-
flave fo foon as he puts his foot on Englifh
ground } Let it not be faid that it is the pure
air of this foggy ifland, that can work thefe
wonderful wonders, for thefe are the half
witted fayings of lawyers that would be orators,
and fit only for the lullabies of nurfes, or the
fngjongs of children. Let it not be faid that
the Ad is local ; for it Is not local. The Ad
alluded to is the .5th of G. II. ch. 27. (but
there are many other Ads to the fame effed)
^nd it vefts a clear and unconditional property,
.confined np where, but abfolute every whei-e, in
the owner to his purchafed flave ; and yet when
this owner fball bring his flave to this country,
fce fhall lofe hi^ ownerfhip in him ; though he
Ip.pld him under an Ad of Parliament. No {
it is neither the one, nor the other, that gives,
occafipi|

( 45 i
6ccafiori to this manumiffion. It is the Cotifti-
tution of England, which maintaining liberty^
and annihilating favery, renders this Ad of
Parliament a tabula raja, a blank parchment,
without operation, without force, without effedt.
It is that Conftitution, 'iShich is now refijiing tht
rebellion of ABs of Parliament againft it. In
ftiort, my idea of this Government, to fpeak as a
lawyer would do, is^ that Parliaments, as I have'
faid before,, are the truftees of the People, the
Conjiitution the deed of truft, wherein they
ftand feized to ufes only ; and thefe ufes being
named, they cannot depart from them : but for
•their due performance are accountable to thofe
by whofe conveyance the truft was made.
The right Is therefore fiduciary, the power li
mited. Or as a mathematician would fay,
more in the road of demonftratlon ; the Conjii
tution Is a Circle, the Laws the Radii of that
Circle, drawn on its furface with the pen of
Parliament, and it is the kffown quality of a
circle, that Its radii cannot exceed its circumfe
rence, whilft the People,, like the compajj'es, are
fixed in the center, and defcribe- the circle,
Thefe, I fay, are my ideas of this Governmenty
,that is, of the whole political fyftem of this
country, for this is what I would mean by
Government, and I hope that they are juft
and true ; of otherwife, dreadful Indeed is the
profped before us ! For if Parliaments have
the right to alter the " eftablifhed religion of
th&

( 46 )
" the land," and " if any thing can be fup-
" pofed out of the power of human legifla-
** ture, it is religion ;" if they are boutid by
no other rules than " the great principles of
" reafon and equityj and the general fenfe of
" mankind,'* and not by the more determined
principles of the Conftitution, nor fubjed to
the controul of the People ; if, by the influence
of corruption they are become " the Mafters,
" inftead of the Servants," of their Confti-
tue^ats, looking down on the People, and up to
the Court for honours and preferments, and
granting money that they may receive it them
felves ; I fay* if thefe things be fo, and are they
not faid to be fo ? where is the difference be*
twixt a free and an arbitrary country ? where
the difference between the defpotifm of the
Kin? of France, and the defpotifm of the Par
es *
liament of England ? And v>rhat is this but to
ered an Ariftocratic tyranny in the State, a
many-headed Leviathan, deplorable and to be
deplored, dangerous and deftrudive, in propor'^
tion to the numbers of which it confifts.
Hitherto I have confidered the Supremacy of
Parliament, or its right to unlimited Power in
and over this Kingdom ; and if I have fhewn,
that no fuch Power can exift in Parliament
from the very nature of its inftitution, for it is
a folecifm in politics, and an abfurdity in terms,
to fay, that in a limited Government, there can te

( 47 )
be unlimited Power, the application of this
Power over the Colonies mufl confequently fall
to the ground ; and with it the occafion of any
further reafoning upon the fubjed. But as
Mr. Burke has made fome affertions refpeding
this " unlimited legiflative Power over the
" Colonies," that are not only new and dif
ferent from every other Writer, but new and
different from himfelf too, I hope, I fhall be
excufed the trefpafs of a page or two more in
the further confideration of this matter.
Mr. Bnrke fays, " When I firft came into a
" public truft, I found your Parliament in pof»
" feftion of an unlimited legifative Power over
" the Colonies. I could not open the Satute-»
" book without feeing the adual exercife of
*' it, more or lefs, in all cafes whatfoever.'*
Thefe then are what I have called affertions
without the fhadow of proof, or more properly
affertions with the moft convincing proofs of
their being without foundation ; for the proofs
are taken from Mr. Burke himfelf. Here Mr.
Burke fays, " I could not open the Statute-
*' book without feeing the adual exercife of
*• this unlimited Power over the Colonies in all
" cajes whatfoever :" but attend to what Mr.-
Burke fays in his fpeech on American Taxation,
April the 19th, 1774, p. 40, 3d edit, printed
for J. Dodfley, In Pallmall. There he fays,
*' This is certainly true > that no Ad avowed- " ly

( 48 )
*' ly for the purpofe of revenue, and with the'
" ordinary title and recital taken together, i5
" found in the Statute-book until the year
" 1764. All before this period ftood on com-
" mercial regulation and reftraint ;" and to
prove this, that is, that a " Parliamentary in-
" land Taxation" was not to be found in the
Statute-book before the year 1764, is the bu
finefs of this entire page : but as the extrad
would be too tedious for this place, fo whilft I
refer the Reader to the page itfelf, I will take
the liberty of recommending to his perufal alfo
the whole Speech, as a moll e.vcellcnt oration.
If then America was not " taxed internally fof
" the purpofe of revenue before the year 1 764,
*' but all before this period ftood on cotmner-
" cial regulation," here is a cafe of Mr.
Burke's own former ftiewing, that contradids
the cafe he now puts, of an " adual exercife
<' of unlimited legiflative authority over the
*' Colonies in all cafes whatfoever ;" for if Mr.
Burke could not find the exercife of this Power,;
that is, of internal Taxation over the Colonies
for the purpofe of Revenue, in the Statute-
book, before the year 1764, no fuch Power"
having been ever exercifcd, he could not find
the exercife of unlimited Power over the Colo
nies in all cafes whatjocver, before the year
1764; and if he did not then find it, he could
not find it after the year 1764 : for the firft
inftance of the exercife of this Power aftet the

( 49 )
the year 1764, was that of the StamjS^Adj
and this Ad, a^ foOn as it paffed, was refifted,
and being refifted, it was rfcpealed, and being
repealed, it could aftotd no proof of the pof-
feilion of tlic Power. And yet Mr. Burke
adds, " this poffeffion paffed with me for a
" title." But, if, as has been faid. Parliament
was not poffdffed of the Power of internal Tax
ation over the Colonies before the year 1764,
no title to unlimited legiflative Power in all
cafes whatj'dever, before this time, could be
founded on poffeffion ; for here is a manifeft
exception to this poffeffion in the cafe of an
inland TikXi^tion \ anfd from the year 1764, no
title can be derived from poffeffion, forthetitl6
has beefii always difputed, and pofleffion never
obtained. So far then Mr. Burke is new and
different from himfelf. In what follows, he is
new and different from others.
No one has ever before contended, as I knov«^
of, for the rJght of Parlian^nt to tax Arwe-i
rica, without the annexed idea of America be
ing reprefented in Parliament. The Idle phan
tom, the Cock-lane Ghof!, of virtual Reprc-^
fcntation, has been ever conjured up, as the
ego Jim illc, of this vile deception. Bat Mr.
Burke has afferted, has maintained, and has
proved, that America is not reprefented in Par-
liamci'^t, and yet infills for the unlimited Righd
in r.ulian>cnt to bind America in all cafes
D whatfoever.

( 50 )
whatfoever. He fays, " If any thing can he
" drawn from fuch examples by a parity of the
" cafe, it Is to fhew, how deep their crime,
" and how heavy their punifhment will be,
" who fhall at any time dare to refift a diftant
*' Power, adually difpofing of their property,
" without their voice or confent to the difpofition-,
*' and overturning their Franchifes " without
" charge or bearing*."
Here then is his affertlen, that America i«
not reprefented in Parliament ; and his affer-
tion that Parliament has an unlimited legiflative
Power over America in all cafes whatfiever, h^iS
been already ftated ; which is a pofition as un
accountable to me, as it is new. But let mc
fee if fuch" a pofition Is defenfible, and. whether
a queftion or two may not ferve as an anfwer
thereto. The firft queftion I fhall propofe is,
whether Reprefentation in order to Taxation
be. not an hereditary Indifpenfible privilege of
the Britifh Subjed? The next queftion is,
whether the Americans are Britifh Subjeds or
not ? for if they are not Britifh Subjedls, Great
Britain has nothing to do with them, no more
than France, or Spain, or any other country
has : And again, if they arc Britifh Subjeds,
and Reprefentation in order to Taxation is the
hereditary Indifpenfible privilege of a Britifh
Subjed, Reprefentation in order to Taxation
• See alfo Mr. Burke'* Conciliatory Propofitions. muft

( 51 )
muft be the hereditary Indifpenfible privilege of
the Americans, as Britifh Subjeds. From whence
then can the Right to Parliament be derived of
unlimited legiflative Power over the Subjeds of
Great-Britain in all cafes whatfoever without
Reprefentation in Parliament, which the Ame
ricans do not poffefs, as Mr. Burke has fhewn ;
and which, in order to Taxation, Is the here
ditary indifpenfible privilege of Britifh Sub
jeds .'' I prefume it cannot be derived from the
Conftitution j for no man will affert, that the
Conftitution gives a Right to Parliament to
levy Taxes upon Britifh Subjeds without Re
prefentation J and if the Conftitution does not
give this Right, the claim of it In Parliament
muft be unconjiitutional : which naturally brings
me to the confideration of the declaratory AB, as
falling under this point of view. Mr. Burke
has proved that America is not reprefented ;
every wife man fays the fame ; and it is only
folly the laft that would affert the contrary.
The declaratory Ad declares, and Mr. Burke
fupports the declaration, that this country has
a right to bind America in all cafes whatfoever;
and of courfe to tax America, though not re
prefented. Upon thefe principles is it poffible
to maintain this Ad ? It has no foundation.
It refts not upon the Conftitution. It is fub
verfive of the Conftitution. It has not the
fundamental requifites of a declaratory Law.
No Law declaratory of Rights was ever before
D 2 made.

( 52 >
made, or o«ght to have been tmsAci whofe rc^i
cital did not exprefs the fbarces from whence
thofe Rights are derived v whether direB from
the Conftitutiorty or indireB from other Ads
of Parliament fouistded on the Conftitution, of
from general Cuftotns, or particular Cuftoms,
which make the Common Law of the Landi
Look from Magna Charta, through every de^
elaratory Law, down to the AB of Settlement,,
and it will be found that they are, every one
of them, in perpetuiim rei tejiimonium,, or teftl-^
monials only of what had before exifted: But
this Law is deelaratocy not only of what nevei?
exifted i^^r^,, but of a 'Right,, againft which
common uj'age, whioh is. the common Law of the
Land, has been in dired oppofition. I fay in
dired oppofitiony for America, from b^ond the
memory of man, nay, even from the very firfk
date of its civil' exiftence to the era of this.
reign, has been unintJerruptedly ufed to the in
ternal Taxation of itfelf.
This Law therefore muft be rcpealed.^ As-
lit was enaded for the dignity of this country^
fb for juftice fake,: which is the true dignity of
this country,, let it now be repealed. It is
againft Right, and ufUrped Power cannot up
hold it. It is true the motives that brought it
into being were intentionally upright,, but with
the patronage of the Author of thpfe motives,.
sbe motives themfelves' ceafed j, and of the Ad
fince^

'( 53 )
.ifincc, fhe douUe Cabinet, as Mr. Burke calls
them, has made an Infamous ufe. They knew
not where to look for the Right of Taxation.
They found it in this Ad, an.d have fo tyran
nized under it, that America has now ftamped
,its foot upon it, and will never ftir a ftep until
*' this tyranny fee overpaft." Every ifland in
the Weft-Indies look upon it with terror. All
Ireland fee it with a jealous eye: For who is
the Cafuift that can diferiminate between a
Britifh parliamentary Right to tax America,
and a Britifh parliamentary Right to ,tax Ire
land ? The cafe is the fame. The Right has
-been avowed in Parliament, and add to tlie
6. Geo. J, eh. 5, or Irifti declaratory Ad, the
words only, " in all cafes whatfoever" and the
-matter is at iffue : but Inexpediency prevents
the exercife. Inexpediency I curfe oh the term !
What may be inexpedient to-day, may be ex
pedient to-morrow. Inexpediency is as the ty
rant's fword, that hangs over the head, fuf-
pended by a thread ; and which Difcretion
only is to keep from falling. But are Englifh
men to be thus worded out of their Rights ?
Forbid it. Common Senfel Or rather let the
.-£xed Principles of the Englifh Conftitution,
,and the eternal Rights of Humanity, be the
fifter Fates to cut this Thread of Danger, by
jeftablifhing in its room — Themfelves.
One word more. It may be further afked,
D3 What!

( 54 )
What! are the Americans to enjoy all the
Rights appertaining to this Government, and
not contribute to its fupport? I anfwer, by no
means: it is not fitting they fliould. The fun
damental Rights of the Englifh Conftitution I
have fliewn to be, the fecurity of Life, Liberty,
Property, and Freedom in Trade j and to thefe
Rights all BiJitifh Subjeds within the realm, arc
without exception, entitled, and fhould enjoy :
but it is not fo with Britifli Subjeds out of
the realm, for of them fomething more is re
quired, and of them fomething more has been
received. They, (I mean the Colonifts) fur-
rendered from the firft, one of the fundamen
tal Rights of the Conftitution, to wit, Freedom
in Trade. This they gave up, and this they
put into the monopolizing hands of their bre
thren here, as the gift of Contribution, for the
price of Protedion. Excellent, and how va
luable the exchange! when the very gift of
contribution did itfelf enhance the price of pro
tedion ! ineftimable jewel ! than which a no
bler did not grace the royal crown j and yet
noble as it is, it was not enough to fatlsfy the
appetite of defpotifm. More muft be had. All
was required. With Freedom in Trade, Life,
Liberty, and Property were to be parted with;
or, in the alternative, the revenge of Herod was
to be taken in the blood of Innocents. Revenge
has been purfued : but Herod-like, and I will
pfe the latiguage of the immortal Shakefpear j
Wheii

( 55 )
When you fhall thefe unhappy deeds relate,
then muft you fpeak.
Of one, whofe hand
Like the bafe Judean * threw a pearl away
Richer than all his Tribe.
I have now done with the Thoughts, which
the perufal of Mr. Burke's Letter had awaken
ed in my mind; and find myfelf arrived at that
period where I had defigned to ftop : but as I
am upon the important fubjed of America, as
there are one or two matters more that refting
©n my mind, I could wifh to remove, and as I
fhall not again trouble the public with any fur
ther fentlments of mine upon this occafion (for
truth being my only objed herein, I fhall as
readily look for it In others, as feek it in myfelf)
fo, if I fhould advance one or two paces beyond
my journey's end, I hope I fhall be excufed.
Having attended my duty in the Houfe of Lords
upon every important debate refpeding America,
it was there that I derived much ufeful informa
tion to myfelf : but yet, however inftruded, as I
truly have been, by the wifdom of thofe who
oppofed the meafure of a deftrudive civil war,
I mtift confefs, my mind has been more made
up on this fubjed, by what has net been faid by
the advocates for it, than by what has been
advanced againft it. The fhjl, the chief, and
• This was Herod, who flew his Wife Mariamne.
D 4 the

( 56 )
the great ebampim of all, for this calamity to a
country, hai§ been the now Earl of Mansfield :
but his being fo, was to me, at the very :ftrft
fight, an arg"nient againft the war; for his
Lordfliip is no warrior, and therefore I fijp-
pofed that if he had been more competent to
the events of fuch an undertaking, he had
been lefs fanguine in his recommendations of it.
Let US fee, however, yvlx%t his arguments were.
The firft point to fee fettled w^s, which of the
two countries was t^ aggreft^n and of courfe
which was tg bl^i^ifs : but this would not hear.
^ djfpute, for in tfee ye^; 1 764, when all was
peace and harmony betvyeen both eountrieiS,
this country, by jtfi Stag:)p-Ad, filing the firft
Jane at America, and fp (tfee ygar 1766 ex-^
eepted) Gre^t-Britain continued this jlmng. of
America, like as Stephen was Jiamdi to the
year 1775; v/km, by Negrjjfs a^4 indiatas,
the Americans were to be fcalped and fayed
alive, even as Bartholomew was ; and, in both
inftances, perhaps for the fame .region : for
Steplien and Bartholomew v/cre Saints, and the
Americans are called DifTenters, and Piffenters
are eurfed, byfomeChurch-Qf-England-MeH, as
Saints. To get rid then of this ftumbliqg-
block, of aggreforjhip, fomething was to 'be
devifed ; and this fomething was, that Ameriqa
meant to become independent of this countr-y 5
But how was this to be fiipported .? The learned
Lord proved it by imesdaei, by fayings and do
ings.

( 57 )
iftgs, a priori, out of the American AflcmWIes ;
fitnn Montcalm's Letters, whicli have been
foimd to be forgeries ; and from Kalms Tra
vels, who made a voyage to America in the
yeflr *749> '-uid wiio fays, that he was there
tdd, that " the Englifh Colonies in North
'* America, in the fpace of thirty or fiftv \ears,
*' would be able to form a flate by themfelves,
" independent of Old England. ' But here I
muft beg leave to make an obfer\ ation or two.
Suppoiing Mr. Kalm, inftead of going to
North America in the year 1749, had come
into Et^giand, and on his arrival had been told,
that there were men in this country who on
tl\ir bare knees bad drank the Pretaukr's health $
would not the inference have been juft as fair
to far, that this country meant to put the
Pretender on the throne of this kingdom, in
exclufion of the prefent family, as to lay, what
Mr. Kalm docs fav, that America meant inde
pendency ? I think it would : for the queftion
is not what individuals lay, but what is the
feiilB of the nation. And it is plain it was not
tlic icnlc of this country to put the Pretender
en the throne, and I hope it never will, not
withstanding his health has been fb drank, 6cc.
Sec. &C. 6cc, and what the icnfe of America
WHS, appeared by the unanimous declaration of
the people themlelves in the moft folemn and
^pthcntic manner. They lay, through their
Congrels, (and if ever the fenfe of any people were

( 58 )
were taken, it was here found, for fo free and
general an eledion of Reprefentatlves was never
before known in the annals of the world) " We
" cbearfully confent to the operation of fuch
" Ads of the Britifh Parliament, as are, bona
*' fide, reftrained to the regulation of our ex-
" ternal Commerce, for the purpofe of fecuring
** the commercial advantages of the whole em-
" pire to the Mother Country," &c. &c. * It
may be indeed faid, that America has decla
red herfelf Independent of this country, and
therefore the prophecy of Mr. Kalm was true ;
but this does not follow : for this country, by
putting America out of the protedion of its
laws, forced It, for felf-prefervation fake, into
that ftate of Independency. Admitting, how
ever, that America did mean Independency, I
will now afk. Were the meafures purfued the
means to prevent their becoming fo? I appre
hend not: For although the force of this coun
try be fufficient for conqueft, ten times its force
would be infufficient to hold the country in fub-
jedion. Three millions of people, not only
with their affedions loft, but their inveterate
hatred gained, at three thoufand miles over the
Atlantic, diftant from the arm of power, are
not fo eafily held proftrate at the feet of Parlia
ment, as Lord North was direded to fay could be
• Vid. Votes of the Cpngrefs, reprinted for J. Almon, oppo*
iite Bnrlington-houfe, Piccadilly, and alfo the laft Petition of
the Congrefs to the King.
done

( 59 )
done. No : One hour of juftice and moderation
would have done more, than all the German
Blood-hounds hired from all the German Traf*
fickcrs in Blood, in all the petty Principalities of
Germany can atchieve in twenty years to come.
But to return to the learned Lord. Ha\ ing
fet up Independency, and upon what grounds I
have ihewn, as the obicd of America ; his
Lorlhip argued, that the Rubicon was parted,
that we fhould kill the Americans, or the A-
mericans would kill us, and that we could not
look hack, but muft go torward, though our
dellrudion be certain and inevitable. In thort
he drove us on, until we are till now driven,
like lb many ajVcs, into a Pom:J . and arc fo
impomded, that Fourteen Shillings Land-Tax
in the Potmd, nay, all the PcurJs, Sliillings,
and Pence in the Nation, will not uv/'mmd us.
Such is our difgnccful, and truly to be la
mented, fituation. The contempt of ourfelvcs,
and the mockery of all Europe befides. Bid-
licd bv Frenchmen, infultcti by Spaniards, mc-
moriali/ed by Dutchmen j and yet, happy
would it be for us, if thcle were the only
cakniitics that we arc to furier.
Another argument for our entering into this
favage NN'ar was, that the Americans were
Cowards ; an argument as full of indignity to
this country, as it w.is of reproach to him that
piade it. Of Indignity, for are \\'e to go to
war

( ^ )
war with our enemies heeaufe jhey 3rc cow-ards ?
Does Englifh valour want fuch motives of in-
-ducement for its exertion .'' Shameful reflec
tion I Of reproach, for it w^s the argument
of the firft Lord of the Admiralty, the Earl of
Sandwich, that high Officer of the State, placed
at the Head of the Britifh Navy. And is this
the language of the gallant Navy of England ?
No : the brave love the brave, and had rather
meet bravery in the wounds of themfelves, than
cowardice in the difgrace of others. To fight
with Cowards Is the lofs of Honour, and
" Honour Is the Sailor's, as the Soldier's care."
But the Americans are not Cowards, and this
I fay for the honour of this country. If they
were, fuch an Army and fuch a Navy doing
no more than has been done in America, would
well warrant the propriety of thofe incitements
to adion, which the 'Earl of Sandwich thought
neceffary to hold out in the cowardice of Ame
rica. Wh'^n the Americans, therefore, are called
Cowards by us, let us remember that it is not
"them, but ourfelvcs, that we accufe of Cowardice.
The laft argument I fhall take notice of, (for
it is endlefs to recount the abfurdltles that have
been urged in fupport of this iniquitous war
fare) and which I mention for that it feems to
contain a fecret that fhould be known, is the
argument of Lord Cardiff, fon of the Earl of
Bute. His Lordihip faid, as a reafon for carry.-

C 61 )
ing on this War of Parliament, that fhe Amerr*
cans had offered to lay kingdoms at the feet of
the CrowHj but which his Majefty diidained to
accept *. This is ah heavy charge, and, as I
ani as much an enemy to arbitrary ^wer in
the Crown, as I am to arbitrary power in Par
liament, if true, I muft confefs, except fo far
as the j-iaftice of this nation is concerned In fuch
a war, I fhould feel Kttle concern elfe for Ame
rica: but as it feems very unnatural that men
fhould be furrendering their liberties, at the
very time that they are fighting for them, fb I
have reafon to believe that this argument has
been formed upon gfotMids that will not fupport
it. It Is true, the Americans acknowledge th^
authority of the King, and will not acknowledge
fhe authority of the Failiament. It is from,
hence, therdbre, I prefo-me, inferred, that the
Americans are laying kingdoms at the feet of
his Majefty; and if fo, to explain this matter,
is to remove the charge. The Americans were
the fubjeds of the Crown of England, and of
courfe owed allegiance to the King of England.
They were never the fubjeBs of their fellow-
fubjeBs the Parhament of England, and there-
*^fore neither owed nor profeffed allegiance to
Parliament. Befides, the King of England, by
the Conftitution of England, cannot levy taxes
on his fubjeds ; and therefore, for the Amerl-
* The Archbiftiop of York has adopted the fame aflertion.
See his Sermon > p. zz, and 2 j. cans

( 62 )
cans to acknowledge the authority of the King*
is no furrender of their property to the King 3
whereas if they acknowledged the authority of
Parliament, who do exercife the right of taxa
tion over the People when reprefented, it would
be, without their being reprefented, a furrender
of their property to Parliament ; and a forging
of chains for themfelves. Under the acknow
ledged authority, then of the Crown, the Ame
ricans ftill preferve their conftitutional Rights :
under the required acknowledged authority of
Parliament, they would lofe them ; and this Is
the reafon that the Americans acknowledge the
one, and will never acknowledge the other.
But it is feared, that fome future King, not his
prefent Majefty, for he has not a wifh to go
vern biit through his Parliaments, may, upon
requifition to his faithful American fubjeds,
procure fuch large grants of money, a5 fhall
enable him to govern without Parliaments.
Indeed, if we are to judge of what America
may do, by what it has done, upon fuchlike
occafions, this argument is not without its
force ; and therefore, to prevent fuch generofity
from being hereafter hurtful to this country,
(and there cannot be a better time for it,
as it is the objed of his prefent Majefty to
maintain the fupremacy of Parliament,) let an
Ad be paffed, (if it be not too late) declaring
that all money obtained from the Colonies by
requifition from the Crown, fhall be carried Into

( H )
into the Exchequer, and accounted for in Par
liament. This will remove the danger appre
hended, and prevent thofe lovers of flavery,
the Americans, from making, at any future pe
riod, the Crown of England arbitrary.
Upon the whole, when I perceive a war, and
fuch a war too, fo weakly fupported, and yet
fo violently purfued j when I find the moft
elevated of the Church, preaching and publlfh-
ing to the world paffive obedience and non-re-
fiftance to the fupremacy of Law*, whether
that Law be right or wrong, whether it be
• TheArchblfhopofYork fays, " the foundation of legal free
dom, is the fupremacy of lava." This I fuppofe h, an apology
for his Grace's allegiance to the Quebec-Aft, and for his mak
ing this aft a pattern for cramming Bilhopricks down the Throats
of the Americans, by the help of the Civil Power, that is, on the
points pf Bayonets. See his Sermon, pag. 19 and pag. 24.
His Lordihip fays too, " As there are in the nature of things,
" but two forts of Government ; that of Law, and that of Force ;
" it wants no argument to prove that underthe laft Freedom cannot
". fubfift." This is a diftinflion without a difference ; for when
Laiu is contrary to the natural or civil rights of mankind, ic
is Force, and the worft of all force : for it is as " a wolf in
iheep's doathing," and cometh unawares, " like a thief in the
sight. See p. 19 of the. above fermoh.
Again, his Lordihip fays, " Thefe indeed" (that is " Def-
•' potifm and Anarchy) have ufually gone together, for no Anar-
*• chy ever prevailed, which did not end in Defpotifm." This
is a Bull, but an Irifti one; and not a Popiih Bull. If where
Anarchy prevails Defpotifm ««<//, .Anarchy and Defpotifm 'can
not ufually go together. See p. 20.
His Grace will excufe the Attention I have paid him in the
courfe of my obfervations : but as I am unfortunately one of thofe
Parties who have (according to him) " no Principle belonging
" to them," and are '« in the laft ftage of political Depravity,"
I was willing to examine, a little, his Lordihip'* principles ;
that if I appioved them, I might adopt them.

( ^4 ),
good or bad, whether it be to eftablifh Popery
or Proteftantifm, whether it be dfiaded by afi
honeft, or by a corrupt and abandoned Parlia
ment } when I fee men that were pillored in
the relgtv of good old George II. penfibned in
this, and for the fame reafons j when I hear
of others hired to r^sbt Out t^e \fdry idea of
fublic virttie from the rninds, 9iM tear bene
volence frdtn the beart-s oi Englifh men -, v^hen
I refled, btrt why add snore io fhe fehck cata
logue of public dafiget& ? It is- ikh6 to look at
home : it is timej e'VeW With- Stentdtian voice,
to call for unioff aM6n'g the Friends of the
Conftitution : it is time that private opinwn
fhould yield to public fafety J it Is time thaft /W%
keep both " watch and t^aifd*," for if fhe liber
ties of our fellow-fubjeds in America are to be
taken from thera, if iS fof the 'idttt m\f t6
fuppofe that we can preferve our oWn. 'f he
dagger uplifted againft the breaft of America,
is meant for the heart of Old Erfgknd. Noh
agitur de veBigalibuSy Libert as in aubio eft.
In fine, thefe ard my Sdntinients, and thefe
my Principles. They are the Principles of the
Conftitution J and under this perfuafion whilft-
I have figned them with my Name, I will, if
neceflary, as readily, feal them with my Blood.
FINIS.

Hiaicers
Syracuse, N. y,
MI. JM 21, 1908

"')''

..J:^'

i J*

1 ^a. JS'SiJ't^SB'- V,'^

.1^'

-J, - ,

¦,t -^

-H/'-l f