AN ANSWER TO THE DECLARATION OF THE GENERAL CONGRESS.

WHEN Independent States take up arms, they endeavour to impreſs the World with a favourable opinion of their own cauſe, and to lay the blame of hoſtilities on the in⯑juſtice of their Opponents. But if Nations, ac⯑countable to none for their conduct, deem it ne⯑ceſſary to reconcile others to their proceedings, the neceſſity is ſtill more urgent with regard to thoſe who, breaking through every political duty, draw their ſwords againſt the State of which they own themſelves the Subjects. The opinions of man⯑kind are invariably oppoſed to ſuch men. Their aſſertions are heard with diſtruſt, their arguments [2] weighed with caution; and, therefore, it is as ne⯑ceſſary for THEM to adhere to truth, in the former, as it is prudent to avoid ſophiſtry in the latter.

This conſideration, however obvious it may ap⯑pear to others, ſeems to have totally eſcaped the attention of the body of men who lately ſat at Philadelphia under the name of "The General American Congreſs." In a paper publiſhed un⯑der the title of "A DECLARATION by the Re⯑preſentatives of the United Colonies of North America"^*, the facts are either wilfully or igno⯑rantly miſrepreſented; and the arguments deduced from premiſes that have no foundation in truth. But, as whatever falls from men who call them⯑ſelves the Repreſentatives of a People, muſt fall with ſome degree of weight on the minds of the undiſcerning part of mankind; it becomes, in ſome meaſure, neceſſary to examine briefly the reaſons held forth by the Congreſs to juſtify the rebellion of their Conſtituents. On a ſubject ſo trite, ar⯑guments advanced by other Writers may ſometimes recur; but novelty is leſs the object of this part of the diſquiſition, than perſpicuity and preciſion.

The Declaration of the Congreſs begins with an involved period, which either contains no meaning, or a meaning not founded on the prin⯑ciples [3] of reaſon. They ſeem to inſinuate, that no body of men, in any Empire, can exerciſe ‘"an unbounded authority over others;"’ an opinion contrary to fact under every form of Government. No maxim in policy is more univerſally admitted, than that a ſupreme and uncontroulable power muſt exiſt ſomewhere in every State. This ultimate power, though juſtly dreaded and reprobated in the perſon of ONE MAN, is the firſt ſpring in every Political Society. The great difference, between the degrees of freedom in various Governments, conſiſts merely in the manner of placing this ne⯑ceſſary diſcretionary power. In the Britiſh Em⯑pire it is veſted, where it is moſt ſafe, in King, Lords, and Commons, under the collective ap⯑pellation of the Legiſlature. The Legiſlature is another name for the Conſtitution of the State; and, in fact, the State itſelf. The Americans ſtill own themſelves the ſubjects of the State; but if they refuſe obedience to the laws of the Legiſ⯑lature, they play upon words, and are no longer Subjects, but Rebels. In vain have they affirmed that they are the Subjects of the King's preroga⯑tive, and not his Subjects in his legiſlative qua⯑lity; as the King, with regard to his Subjects in general, is to be conſidered only in his executive capacity as the great hereditary Magiſtrate, who carries into effect the laws of the Legiſlature, the [4] only diſcretionary and uncontroulable power in a free State.

The diſcretionary and uncontroulable authority of the Britiſh Legiſlature being granted, their right to tax all the Subjects of the Britiſh Empire can never be denied. Some ill-informed reaſoners in politics have lately ſtarted an obſolete maxim, which has been ſeized with avidity by the Ame⯑ricans, That ‘"the Supreme Power cannot take from any one any part of his property without his conſent;"’ or in other words, That Repreſen⯑tation is inſeparable from Taxation. The Colo⯑niſts, ſay they, have no Repreſentatives in Parlia⯑ment, and therefore Parliament has no right to tax the Coloniſts. Upon this principle, ſcarce one in twenty-five of the people of Great-Britain is re⯑preſented. Out of more than ſeven millions, fewer than three hundred thouſand have an excluſive right to chuſe Members of Parliament; and, there⯑fore, more than three times the number of the Americans have an equal right with them to diſ⯑pute the authority of the Legiſlature to ſubject them to taxes. The truth is, Repreſentation never accompanied Taxation in any State. The Romans were a free nation; yet the Senate, that is, the great body of the Nobility, poſſeſſed the ſole right of taxing the people. In this kingdom, the [5] Houſe of Commons have an excluſive right of modifying and regulating the quantity of public ſupplies, and the manner of laying taxes: but the Commons, by their own authority, cannot en⯑force the raiſing the ſupplies they vote. That pri⯑vilege is inherent in the ſupreme and unac⯑countable power veſted in the three branches of the Legiſlature united; who are in fact the State, as the virtual Repreſentatives of the whole Em⯑pire, and not the delegates of individuals.

Why it has been ſo generally received as a maxim, in this country, That Taxation and Re⯑preſentation are inſeparable, requires to be ex⯑plained. Men, little acquainted with the Conſti⯑tution, derived the opinion from their finding, that it is the indiſputable right of the Com⯑mons, that all grants of ſubſidies and parlia⯑mentary aids ſhould originate in their Houſe. But though they firſt beſtow thoſe ſubſidies and aids, their grants, as has been already obſerved, have no effect without the aſſent of the other two branches of the Legiſlature. The common reaſon given for this excluſive privilege is, That as the ſupplies are raiſed upon the body of the people, the people only ought to have the right of taxing themſelves. This argument would have been con⯑cluſive, if the Commons taxed none but thoſe by [6] whoſe ſuffrages they obtained their ſeats in Parlia⯑ment. But it has appeared, that more than ſeven millions of people, beſides the Peers, who are in poſſeſſion of ſo large a ſhare of property in the kingdom, have no voice in the election of the Mem⯑bers who ſit in the Lower Houſe. The Commons, therefore, and their Conſtituents not being the only perſons taxed, the former cannot poſſibly have the only right of raiſing and modelling the ſupply, from the mere circumſtance of Repreſentation. But if they have it not from Repreſentation, they muſt in fact derive it from the ſupreme and diſcretion⯑ary power, which is repoſed in them, in con⯑junction with the two other branches of the Legi⯑ſlature. It appears, upon the whole, that Taxa⯑tion is the reſult of that diſcretionary authority placed in the hands of the Legiſlature, and ex⯑erted by them for the neceſſary ſupport of the State. To this authority the whole Empire muſt ſubmit, and conſequently no one of its ſubjects can claim any exemption.

The Counties Palatine of Cheſter, Durham, and Lancaſter, were anciently in the ſame predicament with the Americans, on the article of Taxa⯑tion. The Earl of Cheſter and the Biſhop of Durham became, by preſcription and im⯑memorial [7] cuſtom, poſſeſſed of a kind of regal juriſdiction, within their reſpective territo⯑ries. A ſimilar form of Government was eſta⯑bliſhed by King Edward III. in the County of Lancaſter; which was erected firſt into an Earldom, and then into a Dukedom, in the perſon of Henry Plantagenet; whoſe heireſs carried the ſame rights and privileges to John of Gant, that King's fourth ſon, and his poſterity. But though the SUBORDI⯑NATE SOVEREIGNS of theſe Counties could pardon treaſons, murders and felonies; though they appointed all Judges, nominated all Juſtices of the Peace, and, in ſhort, poſſeſſed excluſively the whole internal Government of their ſeveral Counties; their SUB⯑JECTS (if the expreſſion may be uſed) were ‘"al⯑ways bound by the Acts and Statutes"’ ^* of an Aſſembly, in which they had no Repreſentatives. They were alſo ‘"liable to all payments, rates, and ſubſidies, granted by the Parliament of Eng⯑land"’ ^†.

Thoſe Counties (it muſt be confeſſed), like the Americans, conſidered their being excluded from having Repreſentatives in an Aſſembly by which [8] they were taxed, a grievance. Accordingly, the Town and County of Cheſter, as far back as the thirty-fifth of Henry VIII. petitioned the Legiſla⯑ture for the privilege of ſending Members to Par⯑liament; and their requeſt was granted by an ex⯑preſs Statute^*. The County and City of Durham made a ſimilar application, and with the ſame ſuc⯑ceſs, in the twenty-fifth of Charles II^†. Had the Americans, inſtead of flying to arms, ſubmitted the ſame ſuppoſed grievance, in a peaceable and dutiful manner, to the Legiſlature, I can perceive no reaſon why their requeſt ſhould be refuſed. Had they, like the County and City of Cheſter, repreſented, that ‘"for lack of Knights and Bur⯑geſſes to repreſent them in the High Court of Parliament, they had been oftentimes TOUCHED and GRIEVED with Acts and Statutes made with⯑in the ſaid Court, derogatory to their moſt an⯑cient juriſdictions, liberties and privileges, and prejudicial to their quietneſs, reſt and peace;"’ this Country would, I am perſuaded, have no ob⯑jection to their being repreſented in her Parlia⯑ment.

[9] But the Colonies, though that circumſtance is only inſinuated in the Declaration, have uniformly affirmed, that granting the ſupremacy of Parlia⯑ment ſhould extend over the whole Empire, yet that they themſelves have a right to an exemption from Taxes either by the conceſſions of the Legi⯑ſlature, or by charters from the King. It ſeems incompatible with reaſon, ſay they, that the Co⯑lonies ſhould have internal Legiſlatures of their own, poſſeſſing the authority of taxation, and that, notwithſtanding, the Britiſh Parliament ſhould re⯑tain its power of laying impoſts. The firſt of theſe aſſertions is not founded in truth. The Charters give no exemption from Taxation; on the contrary, ſome of them expreſsly ſubject the Co⯑lonies to the ſupreme Legiſlature of Great-Britain; and had the Charters mentioned an exemption, the Legiſlature, by virtue of its ſupreme, univerſal, and diſcretionary power, can recal any rights they have conferred, when the good of the State renders that meaſure neceſſary. Though the King may give away by Charter a right that militates againſt himſelf, as hereditary Chief Magiſtrate, he cannot authorize, by any deed whatever, an exemption from the general laws of the State. In ſuch a caſe ONE of the THREE branches of the Legiſlature would uſurp the power of the THREE UNITED; a ſoleciſm as great in polity, as it is in mathe⯑maticks [10] to aſſirm, that a part is greater than the whole.

It may be neceſſary, perhaps, to make an apo⯑logy for entering ſo minutely into the argument in favour of the right of Taxation. The Americans themſelves have deſerted that ground. They ſpeak no longer as ſubjects. They aſſume the language of rivals, and they act as enemies. The queſtion between them and Great-Britain (for it is no longer between them and Government) conſiſts of dependence or independence, connection or no connection, except on the footing of a Sovereign State. They have already arrogated to themſelves all the functions of Sovereignty. They have formed a great deliberative Council. They have taken the whole executive power into their own hands. They have ſtruck a new currency, raiſed armies, appointed generals; and that they have not choſen ANOTHER SOVEREIGN, muſt be aſcribed more to their Republican principles, than to any remains of loyalty for their lawful Prince.

In this ſituation of affairs and opinions, it is matter of little ſurprize, that men who deny the autho⯑rity of the State ſhould load the Legiſlature with opprobrious epithets. The Congreſs accordingly ſtigmatize Parliament with various charges of [11] tyranny, violence, and oppreſſion. Paſſing from this ſtrain of general ſcurrility, they enter into warm encomiums on the anceſtors of their Conſti⯑tuents. But they now deviate as much from truth in their applauſe, as they had done before in their cenſure. They affirm, that the anceſtors of the Coloniſts obtained the lands which they have tranſ⯑mitted to the preſent race, ‘"without any charge to the country from which they removed."’ Their very enemies could not wiſh to meet them on more advantageous ground. The ſums ex⯑pended upon the various Provinces, ſince their firſt eſtabliſhment, for their ordinary ſupport, go⯑vernment, and protection, have been ſo enor⯑mous, that without the authority of incon⯑teſtible vouchers, they could ſcarcely obtain credit^*.

[12] But, even granting that the Coloniſts had ob⯑tained their lands without any charge to the Mother-country, were they capable of keeping thoſe lands without her aſſiſtance? Was it not to defend the Americans, that Great-Britain involved herſelf in the laſt expenſive war? Did not thoſe very ‘"United Provinces,"’ who now pretend to ſet the power of this Kingdom at defiance, lay themſelves in the duſt at her feet, to claim her aid and protection againſt a SINGLE Colony? Did they not complain in the ſame abject terms with the Britons of old, ‘"That the Barbarians drove them into the ſea, and that the ſea drove them back on the Barbarians?"’ Did not Great-Britain, like a Guardian Angel, ſtretch forth her hand to their aid; and, by expelling their enemies from the Continent of America, reſcue them, not only from danger, but the very fear of danger? Did ſhe not, over and above the many millions ſhe ex⯑pended upon the fleets and armies employed in defence of the Colonies, advance more than ONE MILLION to pay THEIR own native forces, em⯑ployed in THEIR own Cauſe^†?

[13] Did not the Mother-country, with more than a mother's fondneſs, upon all occaſions nouriſh, cheriſh, [14] and ſupport this prodigal child, that left the houſe of his parent, ‘"to feed on huſks, with the ſwine of the deſart?"’ Has ſhe not (to ſum up the whole in one point of view) uniformly protected the Colonies in war, encouraged their produce with bounties in time of peace^‡, entered [15] into all their quarrels with their neighbours, made their enemies her own; and, for their ſake, has ſhe not, in ſome degree, ſubjected herſelf to an annual tribute to Indian ſavages, in whom ha⯑bitual injuries had raiſed an irreconcileable hatred to their oppreſſors? Did ſhe not, too fatally, re⯑linquiſh great advantages on every other ſide of a ſucceſsful war, to eradicate the very ſeeds of future conteſts in America; and, by giving the Colonies unlimited ſecurity from ABROAD, procure for them that proſperity at HOME, which has encouraged them, like parricides, to raiſe the dag⯑ger againſt her own breaſt?

The Congreſs, in the next paragraph of their Declaration, affect to reprobate the laſt Peace, though they have derived ſo many and ſo great advantages from that treaty. The conduct of the Americans ought alſo to induce this Kingdom to regret the ſtipulations ſhe made for their ſecu⯑rity. Had Canada remained in the hands of the French, the Colonies would have remained duti⯑ful ſubjects. Their fears for themſelves, in that caſe, would have ſupplied the place of their pre⯑tended affection for this Nation. They would have ſpoken more ſparingly of their own reſour⯑ces, as they might daily ſtand in need of our aid. Their former incapacity of defending themſelves [16] would have always recurred to their minds, as long as the objects of their former terror ſhould continue ſo near their borders. But their habi⯑tual fears from France were, it ſeems, removed only to give room to their ingratitude to Great-Britain.

The effrontery with which the Congreſs reprobate the late Peace, is ſcarcely equal to their folly in applauding the Miniſter who had car⯑ried on the war. With peculiar inconſiſtency they affect to commence an aera of ‘"Public Ruin,"’ from Mr. Pitt's reſignation in 1761; yet the whole ‘"object of their wiſhes"’ is to be placed on the ſame footing as in the year 1763. They do not recollect, or rather they pretend to forget, that the moſt ſplendid actions in the war, happened after Mr. Pitt retired from his office. They are ignorant, or deſignedly conceal, that the com⯑merce of this kingdom has amazingly encreaſed, and, in conſequence, its revenue, ſince the aera from which they date public ruin. They know, or they ought, from their own experience, to know, that notwithſtanding their ſhutting their ports againſt our manufactures, permanent and profitable ſources of commerce have been opened in other quarters; that inſtead of being diſtreſſed by their preſent interruption to trade, our Mer⯑chants [17] find themſelves incapable of fulfilling their commiſſions from foreign ſtates; that as the ſureſt teſt of the flouriſhing condition of commerce, the courſe of exchange, to the amount of ſeveral per cents. is univerſally in favour of Great-Britain; and that, as the ultimate and in⯑vincible proof of the public proſperity, the con⯑fidence of the people in the meaſures of Govern⯑ment, and their contempt for the rebellious efforts of the refractory Colonies, the national Stocks ſuffer neither fluctuation nor fall in the price.

Having repreſented the pretended ruin brought upon the Britiſh Empire by the late Peace, the Congreſs deſcend to the fictitious grievances of America ſince the ſame period. They affirm, that ‘"the Colonies were judged to be in ſuch a ſtate, as to preſent victories without bloodſhed, and all the eaſy emoluments of ſtatutable plunder."’ This figure of rhetoric, if it has any meaning, conveys one contrary to the truth. The Coloniſts having obtained ſuch amazing ad⯑vantages by a Peace, which they now reprobate, it was deemed juſt and proper by Mr. Grenville, then at the head of the Treaſury, that they ſhould bear a proportionable ſhare of the national burdens incurred by the war. But as their prior [18] inability to bear internal Taxes had precluded him from having a precedent, he only threw out, as it is vulgarly expreſſed, in the beginning of the year 1764, his intentions of raiſing a revenue in America by a Stamp-Duty, ſimilar to that eſtabliſhed in Great-Britain; referring the conſideration of the whole af⯑fair to the next Seſſion. His object was, to give time to the Colonies to propoſe ſome other mode of Taxation, ſhould that ſuggeſted to Parliament ap⯑pear either improper or burdenſome. During the whole of the ſummer 1764, though ſome diſcon⯑tented ſpirits murmured, not a ſingle doubt was ſtarted againſt the ABSOLUTE RIGHT of Parliament to impoſe Taxes on every Member of the Britiſh Empire. The time allowed to the Colonies fur⯑niſhed them with no expedient for raiſing a tax more ſuitable to the purpoſe of a Revenue (which, by the bye, was to have been ſpent among them⯑ſelves); and, therefore, in the beginning of the year 1765, the famous Stamp-Act was paſſed, againſt a very inconſiderable Minority, in both Houſes of Parliament.

In this Kingdom, as well as in every State poſſeſſed of freedom, there are always to be found factious perſons, who oppoſe every meaſure of Go⯑vernment. In their eagerneſs to diſgrace the Mi⯑niſter, they too frequently obſtruct the ſervice, [19] and defeat the intereſts of their Country. Every ſide of a ſpeculative point is armed with argu⯑ments, that may impoſe on the ignorant, and en⯑courage the ſanguine. The Oppoſition in Parlia⯑ment, in ſhort, committed themſelves too far in favour of the prejudices of the Americans, with regard to the Stamp-Act, to ſupport it with vi⯑gour, when they themſelves, very unexpectedly^*, came into Office, a few months after it had paſſed into Law. Though their view of the object chan⯑ged with their elevation, they found that the flame which their own factious ſpeeches, in the preceding Seſſion, had raiſed in America, was too vehement to be extinguiſhed without conceſ⯑ſions. A natural timidity of diſpoſition, joined to the common want of firmneſs which accompa⯑nies novelty in Office, rendered them inclinable to purchaſe preſent quiet for themſelves, at the ex⯑pence of the future advantage of their Country. But ſtill they wavered on the point of irreſolution, till Mr. Pitt's oratory weighed down the ſcale. The Stamp-Act was repealed; and from that mo⯑ment may be dated ‘"the commencement of"’ what the Americans call ‘"an Aera of Public Ruin."’

[20] To enter into the motives of Mr. Pitt's oratory, for the total and abſolute repeal of the Stamp-Act, would be to deſert a great and public ſubject for the ſake of tracing the private views of an ambi⯑tious man. In his Argument, if what he advanced deſerves the name, he fell in with the vulgar and, it may be ſaid, falſe maxim, That no profit ought to be expected from the Colonies, but That reſult⯑ing from their Commerce. This opinion of Mr. Pitt, whether it proceeded from ignorance or de⯑ſign (and it probably proceeded from both), has formed a popular error in former times, as well as in the preſent age. Many, who have pretended to underſtand perfectly the affairs of this kingdom, moſt firmly, but in my opinion very weakly, be⯑lieved that the great ſecret of our political intereſt conſiſted in forcing, in a manner, a monopoly of foreign commerce. It was from this perſuaſion, that the popular Orator uſed, upon the occaſion juſt mentioned, a figure of rhetoric at once fooliſh and abſurd, when he affirmed, that the Coloniſts ſhould be prohibited ‘"from manufacturing even the hob⯑nail of a horſe-ſhoe!"’ One might be tempted to aſk the Orator, how this prohibitory mandate could be enforced; or if it could, whether it is leſs arbi⯑trary, than to demand an internal tax from the Americans, for the ſupport of their own govern⯑ment, and even for the general ſupport of the State, [21] and as a ſuitable return for the protection which they have ever derived from the Government of this kingdom?

The Congreſs had ſurely forgot this ſtrange rhetorical figure of the great Orator, when they were tempted to date PUBLIC RUIN, from his re⯑ſignation in 1761. They have alſo forgot, or they do not chuſe to remember, that he ac⯑quieſced in the DECLARATORY BILL, brought in and paſſed by the Marquis of Rocking⯑ham's Party, who were in office, in the begin⯑ning of the year 1766. This Bill expreſly declares, ‘"that all his Majeſty's Colonies and Plantations in America have been, are and of right ought to be, ſubordinate to and dependent upon the Im⯑perial Crown and PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN; who have full power and authority to make laws and ſtatutes of ſufficient validity to bind the Colonies and People of America, ſub⯑jects of the Crown of Great Britain, IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER."’

Mr. Pitt, to preſerve ſome degree of conſiſtency, objected to the words ‘"IN ALL CASES WHATSO⯑EVER."’ But his oppoſition was ſo languid, that he did not attend the Houſe when the Bill was paſſed; and only five Peers were found to follow [22] his opinion, when it came under debate in the Houſe of Lords.

‘"The Declaratory Act,"’ as the American Congreſs affirms, ‘"comprehends all the grievances of which they complain."’ Yet that very Congreſs, with pe⯑culiar effrontery, not only approve, but even praiſe the conduct of the very Party by whom the Bill was introduced, and the MAN, by whoſe CRIMINAL ACQUIESCENCE (to uſe one of his own phraſes) it paſſed into a law. THAT Party and THAT MAN, being now in oppoſition to Govern⯑ment, the Americans endeavour to ſecure their ſupport, by flattering their vanity at the ex⯑pence of truth! They forget paſt demerits in the hopes of preſent ſervices. But when they expect to deceive a whole Party into their intereſt, they themſelves are made the tools of that Party; and, like the figure of the Negro, near Temple-bar, are turned round by the machine, which they pre⯑tend to move.

The Congreſs, in a ſtrain of eloquent adulation, ſpeaks with raptures of ‘"that illuſtrious Band of diſtinguiſhed Peers and Commoners,"’ who now declaim, argue, and proteſt, in favour of their own Rebellion. It has appeared that the Act of which they moſt complain, was the manufacture of that [23] very ‘"illuſtrious Band,"’ encouraged by the ne⯑gative oppoſition made by the Earl of Chatham, whoſe advice the Band followed, as it ſoon after appeared, to their own political deſtruc⯑tion. Beſides, was it not under the Adminiſtra⯑tion of the Earl of Chatham, in the years 1767 and 1768, though the Americans date their miſ⯑fortunes from the reſignation of Mr. Pitt in Octo⯑ber 1761, that the Bills impoſing internal duties, and conſequently eſtabliſhing internal Taxation in America, were paſſed into laws^*? Did not the preſent Adminiſtration, whoſe meaſures the Con⯑greſs affect to reprobate throughout, repeal all thoſe Acts, except the duty on Tea^†, to gratify the prejudices of the Americans, and, if poſſible, to re-eſtabliſh tranquility in all the Provinces? With what colour of reaſon, therefore, can the Ameri⯑cans lay the blame either of their real or pretended grievances on the Noblemen and Gentlemen now in office; and yet approve of the conduct of thoſe very perſons who paſſed the Declaratory Act, and followed it with Bills of impoſts raiſed in the Colonies?

In reprobating the Declaratory Act, the Con⯑greſs recur to their uſual maxim, That Taxation [24] and Repreſentation are inſeparable. Though it has been already ſhewn, that they are as much repre⯑ſented as twenty-four in twenty-five of the inhabi⯑tants of Great-Britain; though it has been prov⯑ed, that whole Provinces, not repreſented, had been for ſeveral ages ſubjected to impoſts laid by the Legiſlature; though it ſhall, hereafter, appear that they themſelves have been uniformly taxed by the Britiſh Parliament; this argument they hold forth as invincible, and found upon it their preſent re⯑ſiſtance to the ſupremacy of the Parent-kingdom. In purſuing it injudiciouſly and too far, they actually diſcover the expediency, and even neceſ⯑ſity of that ſupremacy, of which they ſo loudly complain. The Parliament of Great-Britain, ſay they, will certainly perceive, ‘"that an American revenue, if not diverted from the oſtenſible purpoſes for which it is raiſed, will actually lighten their own burdens, in proportion as they increaſe ours."’ But is it not equitable, is it not juſt, is it not neceſſary, that all the ſubjects of the empire ſhould bear, as equally as poſſible, the public burdens of the empire? Why ſhould the Americans, who have ſo largely, ſo uniformly, and ſo effectually experienced the protection of Government, be the only perſons exempted from paying their ſhare of its expences? Is it either reaſonable or ſuitable to the common uſage of Na⯑tions, [25] that thoſe who deſert their country ſhould enjoy greater privileges than thoſe that remain? The Americans having been ſpared during the in⯑fancy of their Colonies on account of their poverty, endeavour to eſtabliſh into an inherent right what was actually an indulgence.

Though this indulgence has been a ſource of error to the more ignorant part of the Americans, there are ſurely many among them, who know, that Parliament hath been uniformly accuſtomed to extend its ſupremacy over all the Colonies. In matters of revenue, in commerce, in civil, in all judicial regulations; and, in ſhort, with regard to the general conſtitution of their government, the Provinces of North-America, till taught other⯑wiſe by a diſappointed Faction in this Kingdom, allowed, that the whole fabrick of their polity might be new-modelled and reformed by the ſu⯑perintending power of Parliament. In fact, it has been ſo new-modelled and reformed, whenever abuſes in the Adminiſtration of their Government, under their civil polity, or the general intereſt of the Britiſh Empire, made it neceſſary for Parliament to interpoſe its authority. Inſtances of this inter⯑poſition, in both caſes, preſent themſelves, in al⯑moſt every volume of the Statutes, from the Reſto⯑ration down to the preſent reign; yet the Ameri⯑cans falſely inſinuate, that it was in the preſent [26] reign the exerciſe of the authority of Parliament (except only in the regulation of trade) firſt com⯑menced.

A brief recital of ſome of thoſe inſtances may throw light on a ſubject, rendered obſcure and perplexed by the prejudices of the ignorant, and the arts of deſigning men. To gain the ears of the Populace, by awakening their ancient jea⯑louſies, the Americans affect to aſcribe the preſent ſyſtem of meaſures to principles of Toryiſm, which, they pretend, prevail in our Councils. But, unfortunately for this part of their plan of decep⯑tion, it will appear, that moſt of the Acts which bind America in coercive regulations, were paſſed ſoon after the Revolution; in the reign of the very Prince, who brought about that great event. The WHIG Miniſters of King William (perceiving that the Colonies, even then, had entertained views of placing themſelves on a ground of inde⯑pendence on Parliament) adviſed their Sovereign, and their advice now ſtands on record, to purſue meaſures, which, in their conſequence, ſhould effectually ſecure their thorough dependence on the Legiſlature of this Kingdom.

In conſequence of the advice given by a WHIG Miniſtry to a King who had mounted the throne [27] upon WHIG principles; and alſo upon the ful⯑leſt evidence of the frauds and abuſes committed in the Plantations, in violation of the Act of Navi⯑gation; the Act of the 7th and 8th of William III. ‘"for preventing frauds, and regulating abuſes, in the Plantations"’ was paſſed. By that Act, a power was given to the Commiſſioners of the Trea⯑ſury and Cuſtoms in England, ‘"to eſtabliſh ports, and appoint Officers, in the Plantations; and thoſe Officers to have the ſame authority for viſiting ſhips and goods, and entering houſes and warehouſes, as was exerciſed by the ſame Officers in England."’

All penalties and forfeitures were made recover⯑able in the Courts at Weſtminſter, or in Courts of Admiralty, in the Plantations; which Courts were then, for the firſt time, eſtabliſhed throughout all America. In any action or ſuit concerning his Majeſty's Duties, the offence might be laid in any precinct or diviſion of the Plantations, where the ſame ſhould be alledged to have been com⯑mitted, at the diſcretion of the Officer or Informer. All laws, by-laws, uſages and cuſtoms repugnant to any laws of Great Britain which relate to the Plantations, or mention the ſame, are declared ‘"illegal, null, and void."’ Many other reſtrictions, [28] too tedious to be mentioned, were at the ſame time enacted and impoſed.

But it was not in matters of Trade ONLY, that Parliament, during the reign of King William, ſuperintended and controuled the Colonies. The Coloniſts, it was found, had encouraged Pirates, in various places; and no juſtice could be obtained in THEIR Courts againſt offenders, whom they openly abetted. To remedy this ſhameful abuſe, a remarkable Act was paſſed, in the 11th and 12th of William III. This Act aboliſhed all juriſdiction in that caſe, in the Courts in the Plantations. The SOLE power of trying ſuch offences, in the Colonies, was veſted in Commiſſioners, appointed under the Great Seal of England, or Seal of the Admiralty, according to the courſe of the Admiralty, that is to ſay, WITHOUT JURY. The Commiſſioners were alſo impowered to iſſue warrants, in any of the Colonies, for arreſting ſuch Pirates or their ac⯑ceſſaries. They might, at diſcretion, either try the criminals in America, or ſend them to Eng⯑land to be tried. Should the Governors of any Charter or Proprietary Government refuſe to aſſiſt the Commiſſioners; ſhould any perſon in authority, in the Colonies, refuſe to pay obedience to the Act; [29] ſuch refuſal, in either caſe, was declared to be a forfeiture of the Charter.

An Act paſſed in the 10th and 11th year of the ſame reign, confines the advantage of the Fiſhery of Newfoundland to Britiſh ſhips fitted out from Great-Britain. The execution of the orders and regulations reſpecting that Fiſhery, was placed in the hands of the Admirals, in the reſpective harbours; that is to ſay, in the hands of the Maſter of the ſhip that ſhould firſt arrive from Great-Britain. The deciſion in all queſtions of civil ſuit is veſted in ſuch Admirals, with appeal to the Commander of the King's ſhips. All criminal offences are to be tried, in any County of England, by the King's Com⯑miſſioners of Oyer and Terminer and Goal deli⯑very.

The opinions of this Nation concerning the Government of the Colonies, may be collected from the above Acts. The authority of Parliament to bind America, in all caſes whatſoever, and when⯑ever the general intereſt of the whole Empire re⯑quired it, was never diſputed; and it was often exerted to correct abuſes, and to ſuppreſs the ideas of independence, which began, even then, to be [30] cheriſhed by the Colonies. The ſame principles, and the ſame policy, were carried down by Parlia⯑ment through the three ſucceeding reigns of Queen Anne, and of George I. and George II.

Early in the firſt of thoſe reigns, the groſſeſt abuſes were committed by the petty Legiſlatures in the Colonies, with reſpect to Coin. The interpoſition of Parliament became neceſſary to correct thoſe abuſes. An Act was paſſed in the 6th of Queen Anne, for that purpoſe; when the Coun⯑cils of that Princeſs were guided by Whigs. By this Act the rates of Foreign Coin, in the Planta⯑tions, were aſcertained; and a ſevere puniſhment was inflicted on thoſe who ſhould take them at higher rates. The American Trade was placed in the ſame reign under further reſtrictions, by Act of Parliament. Rice and Molaſſes were added to the liſt of enumerated commodities. In the reign of George I. Furrs and Copper-ore of the Plan⯑tations were ſubjected to the ſame reſtrictions.

The Britiſh Parliament confined not to Acts their ſenſe of the undoubted right they poſſeſſed of controuling the Colonies, in all caſes whatſoever. In the Journals of both Houſes, there are many Proceedings which furniſh proofs of their unde⯑viating [31] adherence to the ſame principles. In the year 1702, a Bill was brought into the Houſe of Commons, for aboliſhing all the Charter and Pro⯑prietary Governments in America, and reuniting them to the Crown. In 1705, the Houſe of Lords came to ſeveral Reſolutions on the ſubject of laws enacted in ſeveral of thoſe Governments. They declared thoſe laws to be repugnant to the laws of England, and deſtructive to the Conſtitu⯑tion. This proceeding was likewiſe followed by a Bill for aboliſhing thoſe Charters.

Theſe Bills, it muſt be confeſſed, were not car⯑ried into laws. But they did not fail, through any doubt entertained by the Legiſlature againſt their propriety. They were loſt through a change in the ſituation of thoſe, who brought forward the meaſure. That the opinion of the Legiſlature continued the ſame on this ſubject, is evident; as the ſame propoſition was again taken up in the year 1716; when a WHIG Miniſtry governed the Kingdom.

In the reign of George II. the inſtances of the controuling authority of Parliament over the Co⯑lonies, are more numerous and ſtriking. By an Act of the 2d of George II. Chap. 35. ſevere pro⯑hibitions [32] and penalties are impoſed and inflicted on ſuch perſons as ſhall cut and deſtroy whole Pine⯑trees. Though ſuch trees are growing within the limits of a Townſhip, the penalties are directed to be ſued for and recovered in the Courts of Admi⯑ralty. The Merchants of Great-Britain having, in the 5th of the ſame reign, preferred a Petition to Parliament, complaining of the difficulties they met with in the recovery of debts in the Planta⯑tions; an Act was paſſed, which ſubjected all real Eſtates in the Colonies to juſt debts and demands; and to be aſſets, in the ſame manner as in England, for the ſatisfaction of debts due by Bond. The ex⯑portation of Hats from any of the Colonies, and even the conveyance of them by land from one Colony to another, is prohibited, under ſevere penalties, by an Act paſſed in the ſame Seſſion.

In the year 1733 the Province of Maſſachuſett's-Bay preſented a Petition to the Houſe of Com⯑mons, praying that they might be heard by Coun⯑ſel on the ſubject of Grievances. The chief of theſe was, ‘"That the Crown had reſtrained their Governour, by inſtructions, in certain caſes re⯑lative to the iſſue and diſpoſal of Public Money, and the emiſſion of Paper-Bills of Credit."’ The Commons, having conſidered the matter, came to a [33] Reſolution, ‘"That the Petition was frivolous and groundleſs, a high inſult upon his Majeſty's Go⯑vernment, and tending to SHAKE OFF THE DE⯑PENDENCY of the ſaid Colony upon this King⯑dom, to which in LAW and RIGHT THEY OUGHT TO BE SUBJECT."’ Complaint having, at the ſame time, been made to the Houſe, ‘"That the Repreſentatives of that Colony had CENSURED a perſon for giving evidence, before a Committee of the Houſe, in the caſe of a Bill then depend⯑ing in Parliament;"’ it was reſolved, ‘"That the paſſing ſuch cenſure was an AUDACIOUS PRO⯑CEEDING, and a high violation of the privi⯑leges of the Houſe."’ A Committee was ac⯑cordingly appointed to enquire who were the abettors of this unwarrantable proceeding.

We may perceive, from the above circumſtance, how jealous Parliament HAVE BEEN of their ſu⯑premacy and uncontroulable authority over the Colonies. Another inſtance muſt carry the proof of this poſition beyond the power of reply. In the year 1740, the Houſe of Commons entered into a conſideration of ‘"the abuſes committed in the Colonies, in reſpect to the emiſſion of Paper Bills of Credit."’ After a long examination, they came to various Reſolutions. They reſolved, [34] ‘"That the Act paſſed in the 6th of Queen Anne, aſcertaining the rates of Foreign Coin in America, had not been duly obſerved. That many indi⯑rect practices, in that reſpect, had been introduced, contrary to the true intent of the Act. That an Addreſs ſhould be preſented to his Majeſty to require the Governors of his Colonies to take effectual meaſures for the ſtrict obſervance of the Act of the 6th of Queen Anne. That another Addreſs ſhould be preſented, requeſt⯑ing his Majeſty to iſſue his Royal Proclamation, to ſettle and aſcertain the rates of Foreign Gold Coins. That the CREATING and iſſuing Bills of Credit, in the Britiſh Colonies, by virtue of Acts of Aſſembly, had fruſtrated the deſign of the Act of the 6th of Queen Anne. That an humble Addreſs of Thanks ſhould be preſented to his Majeſty, for the orders he has already given on that head; and, That he ſhould alſo be requeſted to require and command the Go⯑vernors of the reſpective Provinces, not to give their aſſent to any Act, whereby Bills of Credit might be iſſued in lieu of Money."’

Theſe ſpirited Reſolutions of the Commons checked, for ſome time, the abuſes in the emiſſion [35] and circulation of Paper-Money. The New-England Government, however, did not continue long to pay any regard to ROYAL Inſtructions, though ſupported and enforced by the authority of the Houſe of Commons. The frauds committed awakened again the attention of Parliament. In the 24th of George II. an Act was paſſed, ‘"to regulate and reſtrain Paper-bills of Credit in the Four New-England Governments."’ The Go⯑vernors of thoſe Colonies were prohibited, under pain of being removed from their Governments, and for ever rendered incapable of any public office or place of truſt, from aſſenting to any Act, Order, or Vote, for the iſſue of any Paper-bills of Credit; and all ſuch Acts, Orders, or Votes, were declared to be, ipſo facto, null and void.

In the year 1741 the Colonies took up the idea of a LAND-BANK, which had proved ſo unſucceſs⯑ful in England in the reign of King William. The ‘"American Aſſemblies,"’ it appeared to Parliament, ‘"had PRESUMED to publiſh a ſcheme for ſupplying a pretended want of a medium in trade, for ſetting up a Bank on land ſecurity, and to ſolicit ſubſcriptions."’ To correct this evil, an Act was paſſed, in the 14th of George II. [36] ‘"to reſtrain and prevent ſuch unwarrantable prac⯑tices; and to extend to America, the penalties inflicted by a Statute of the 6th of George I. on perſons guilty of ſuch practices in theſe king⯑doms."’ They were alſo ſubjected, by the ſame Act, to the penalty and forfeiture ordained by the Statute of proviſion and PREMUNIRE of the 16th of Richard the Second.

There are ſeveral other Statutes by which Par⯑liament with equal force aſſert their authority over the Colonies. In ſome of theſe they carry this authority beyond the limits, with which they have hitherto circumſcribed it in this Kingdom. In the 29th of George II. cap. 35. Officers of the Army are empowered to enliſt, in the Colonies, ap⯑prentices and indented ſervants. The perſons ſo enliſted were exempted from arreſts in civil actions, where the value of the action exceeds not ten pounds. To theſe ſtriking inſtances of the con⯑trouling power of Parliament over the Colonies, may be added the Act of 23d of George II. cap. 29. By that Act, ‘"every perſon erecting or working any mill or other engine for ſlitting or rolling iron, or any plating forge or furnace for making ſteel, is ſubjected to a penalty of 200l. to be recovered in any of the Courts in Weſtminſter-Hall, [37] or in the Court of Exchequer in Scot⯑land."’

The foregoing recital of Statutes binding the Colonies, prior to the preſent reign, of which the Congreſs ſo much complain, is ſufficient to con⯑vince the diſpaſſionate, that the controuling power of Parliament has been perpetually exerted, and never diſputed. There is hardly any object of Legiſlation in which the laws of this Country have not bound America. Taxation has been purpoſely omitted in the above detail. That article, as the great object of conteſt, ought to be ſeparately ſtated. I ſhall, therefore, throw into one point of view, all the inſtances of the exerciſe of the power of the Britiſh Parliament in that caſe.

The firſt inſtance of Taxation is the Act of the 12th of Charles II. for granting to the Crown a duty of Tonnage and Poundage. This Act is in point. It directs, that the duties abovementioned ‘"ſhall be payable upon commodities not only imported into the realm of England, but alſo into the DOMINIONS THEREUNTO BELONGING."’ The Colonies are here included in expreſs words. It is true, indeed, that the Duties of Tonnage [38] and Poundage were NOT collected in America. The reaſon was, that the commerce of the Plantations was ſo inconſiderable, that the revenue ariſing from it could not pay the expence of collection.

But whatever might have been the reaſon for NOT collecting the Duties of Tonnage and Poundage in the Colonies, the Law was certainly underſtood to extend to America. In the year 1680, the Aſſem⯑bly of the Iſland of Jamaica refuſed ‘"to raiſe levies for the ſupport of Government."’ Upon this refuſal, the Lords of the Council made a Minute ‘"to confer with the Judges upon the queſtion: Whether the ſubſidies upon the Tonnage and Poundage upon goods that may by Law, or ſhall be directly carried to Jamaica, be not payable, according to Law, by his Majeſty's ſubjects inhabiting that Iſland, or trading there, by virtue of the Acts of Tonnage and Poundage, or other Acts made in England?"’ Unfortunately it does not appear, whether the conference was ever held; or if it was actually held, what was the reſult.

The 25th of Charles II. cap. 7. is the next Act that binds America, in point of Taxation. By that Act certain duties are made payable in the Plantations, upon ſugar, tobacco, cotton, wool, [39] indigo, ginger, logwood, fuſtic, and other dying woods, and cocoa-nuts exported to any other place, except England. Theſe Duties continue to be paid to this day.

In the 9th of Queen Anne, an Act was paſſed, impoſing certain Duties on all prize-goods taken in America, and imported into any of the Colonies. Theſe Duties were as follows: ‘"All European goods (wine and brandy excepted) which have been uſually ſent to the Plantations, are to pay THERE ſuch Cuſtoms, as are payable for the like goods imported into the Plantations from Great-Britain. Other goods taken as prizes ſhall be liable THERE to ſuch Duties as were payable for the ſame, by any Act of Aſſembly, in the ſaid Plantations."’

To theſe Acts, ſubjecting his Majeſty's ſub⯑jects in America to Taxes impoſed by the Britiſh Parliament, ſeveral others may be added. The Act of the 9th of Queen Anne, for eſtabliſhing a Poſt-office. The various Acts paſſed for levying and inforcing the collection of the duty of ſix⯑pence per month, out of Seamen's wages, for the ſupport of Greenwich Hoſpital. All theſe [40] Acts extend to America. They bind the Colonies, as well as the Mother-Country. Their authority was never diſputed; and the Taxes impoſed by them have been uniformly raiſed. The Act of the 2d of George II. cap. 7. is ſtill more explicit and deciſive in the words. It requires the pay⯑ment of the Duties for Greenwich Hoſpital, ‘"by ſeamen belonging to American ſhips, whether employed upon the high ſeas, or in any port, harbour, bay or creek, within ANY of the Co⯑lonies."’

It appears from this detail of facts, that the right of Parliament to bind the Colonies, in all caſes whatſoever, is not a claim founded on mere theory: on the contrary, that the controuling power of the Legiſlature is warranted by conſtant uſage, and uninterrupted practice. That the De⯑claratory Act, of which the Americans complain, contains no new, no aſſumed powers over the Plantations; and that there is ſcarce any channel of Legiſlation, through which the Britiſh Parlia⯑ment has NOT exerted its ſupremacy, in as full and ample a manner as it has been exerted over the inhabitants of Great-Britain; and all this prior to the preſent reign, in which the Congreſs place the commencement of ‘"Public Ruin."’

[41] The American Congreſs, with a partiality for themſelves ſcarcely conſiſtent with their deſign of gaining others, in the next paragraph of their De⯑claration, call the Acts, which were the CONSE⯑QUENCE of the reſiſtance of their conſtituents, the CAUSE of their rebellion. In deſcending to particu⯑lars, their firſt complaint is ſtated againſt ‘"the ex⯑tenſion of the juriſdiction of the Courts of Admi⯑ralty and Vice-Admiralty beyond their former limits;"’ by which, they alledge, ‘"the ſubject is deprived of his inherent right of a trial by Jury."’ The Congreſs ſurely forget, or it is not conſiſtent with their deſign to remember, that the alterations of which they complain were made at the requeſt of their conſtituents. The rea⯑ſons aſſigned for this requeſt were, that the Courts of Admiralty eſtabliſhed formerly in the various Provinces, poſſeſſed ſo little dignity, on account of the dependence and poverty of the judges, that juſtice was either ſacrificed to connexions, or bi⯑aſſed by avarice. Beſides that, Appeals to Great-Britain could be ſeldom made, on account of the expence and diſtance. To remedy this evil, the preſent eſtabliſhment of Courts of Admiralty in America was formed. Four great Courts of Vice-Admiralty were erected. The Judges were ren⯑dered independent by ample ſalaries. The line [42] of Appeal became ſhort, eaſy, and obvious; and as to trial by Jury, the whole world knows that the Court of Admiralty in England never admitted that mode of trial in CIVIL caſes.

The complaint of the Congreſs, with regard to the Bill for ſhutting the Port of Boſton, is ri⯑diculous as well as unjuſt, as the inhabitants of that place had it in their own power to remove the grievance. The deſtruction of the Eaſt-India Company's tea, at Boſton, is well known to have been the deliberate act of a very great majority of the inhabitants. To obtain reparation by the common courſe of law was impoſſible, where the number of the offenders ſcreened them effectu⯑ally from juſtice. It was a public crime, and the puniſhment ought to have been general. In pur⯑ſuance of that plan of tenderneſs, which has been fatally loſt on the Americans, the Bill for ſuſ⯑pending the trade of Boſton was rendered condi⯑tional. A door was left open for an immediate reconciliation, ſhould the Aſſembly of Maſſachu⯑ſet's-Bay make a public grant, for repairing the damage ſuſtained, by a Company of Merchants, through a public outrage. Yet the Congreſs ſtigmatize with the name of injuſtice, a coer⯑cive ſtatute rendered abſolutely neceſſary by [43] the ſhameleſs depredations of the inhabitants of Boſton; and which ſtatute, they themſelves had it in their power to terminate, in an inſtant, by doing an act of common juſtice.

With equal effrontery, and with ſtill leſs reaſon, the Congreſs exclaim againſt the alteration made in the form of the government of Boſton. With their uſual fallacy in argument, the Americans wiſh to eſtabliſh it as a maxim in polity, That Charters granted by the CROWN, can neither be reverſed or altered by the LEGISLATURE. They might as well go at once to the whole ſupremacy; and ſave themſelves the trouble of thus ſupporting a cauſe untenable on any other grounds. The three branches of the Legiſlature united make daily al⯑terations in the Conſtitution of Great Britain; and, if their Supremacy extends over the whole empire, they have the ſame right to alter the conſtitution of the American Colonies. If the Americans deny this poſition, all argument is at an end; and they avow an independence, which, in THEIR circumſtances, marks them out for enemies. After all, this alteration of which the Congreſs affect to complain, is no more than putting the inhabitants of Maſſachuſet's-Bay on the ſame footing with the other Colonies. They have re⯑ceived in miniature the counter-part of the con⯑ſtitution [44] of the Mother-Kingdom; and have THEY a right, or can THEY wiſh to be more free than the freeſt nation in the world?

The Act for regulating the Government of Quebec, furniſhes the Congreſs with an ample field for declamation. To inveigh againſt Po⯑pery and Arbitrary Power has been ever a fa⯑vourite topic with men, who wiſh to profit by the prejudices of the people. Had the Congreſs attended to the general principles of the Britiſh Conſtitution, they might have informed them⯑ſelves, that His Majeſty, without the inter⯑poſition of the two other branches of the Legiſ⯑lature, might have permitted the inhabitants of Canada to remain for ever under French laws. There is no maxim in the Law of England more generally known or leſs controverted than, That in conquered or ceded countries, which have al⯑ready laws of their own, ſuch laws remain in full force, till they are altered and changed by the Sovereign. Had His Majeſty, therefore, enter⯑tained ſuch deſigns, as the Congreſs obliquely lay to his charge, why ſhould he call in the aid of the Legiſlature to execute what was already done by the Common Law? The Congreſs will not, ſurely, affirm, that the ſyſtem of govern⯑ment eſtabliſhed by the Legiſlature in Quebec, [45] is ſo arbitrary in itſelf, or ſo fit for the purpoſes of deſpotiſm, as the Conſtitution which ſubſiſt⯑ed in that Province under the French. Ought they not to conſider, that no other form of government could have been eſtabliſhed, ſo ſuitable to the diſpoſition of the inhabitants, the tenures of their property, and the toleration of their religion, to all which they had an undoubt⯑ed right, by the terms of their Capitulation and the articles of the ſubſequent Treaty of Peace?

The Oppoſition at HOME, as well as the Patriots ABROAD, have found an extenſive ſubject for pa⯑thetic eloquence, in the form of Government now eſtabliſhed by Law in Canada. The FORMER have either very treacherous memories, or they change without any ceremony their opinions with their ſituation. Under the adminiſtration of the EARL of CHATHAM, Mr. Morgan, Lord SHELBURNE'S Secretary, was ſent PRIVATELY to America, as Commiſſioner, to ſettle and regulate a new code for the Government of Quebec. The Governor and Chief Juſtice of that Province, if I am not miſtaken, were joined with Morgan in this SECRET, but important commiſſion. The meaſure, it is ſaid, was conſidered by the Board of Trade; it was certainly debated, if not adopted by the Cabinet, [46] as far back as the year 1767, during the plenitude of the Earl of Chatham's power. Lord Camden was Chancellor, and gave his ſanction to regulations MORE ALLIED TO DESPOTISM than thoſe he repro⯑bates at preſent. The Duke of Grafton, the Earl of Shelburne, General Conway, and ſeveral others of ‘"that illuſtrious Band,"’ on whoſe virtues the Ame⯑ricans expatiate with rapture, approved this POPISH, ARBITRARY, TYRANNICAL ſyſtem of Government^*: yet all theſe are, now, true Americans, ſtrenuous Proteſtants, Whigs of the ancient mould, determined aſſertors of public freedom, avowed enemies to OPPRESSION, POPERY, and ARBITRARY POWER!

The Congreſs enumerate, among their com⯑plaints againſt the Britiſh Legiſlature, the Reſo⯑lution of Parliament to give its due force to an unrepealed ſtatute paſſed in the time of Henry VIII. It is declared in the Reſolution, that upon this ſtatute, treaſons and miſpriſions of treaſon com⯑mitted in any of his Majeſty's dominions beyond ſea, ſubject to the Crown of Great-Britain, may be tried in England. Though this Reſolution is conſidered by the Congreſs as a part of the ideal [47] ſyſtem of enſlavement, with which they charge the King and Parliament, it contains no novelty, no uncommon ſtretch of law. A thouſand in⯑ſtances of the ſame kind are upon record, long before the preſent diſputes with America began. One inſtance is extremely remarkable; I mean, the tranſactions in the Caſe of the Inſurrection in Antigua, in the year 1711. All the proceedings were founded on the Act of Henry VIII. Some of the Inſurgents were ſent to England; they were tried upon that Statute; and that circumſtance has eſ⯑tabliſhed a precedent which cannot be controverted. But had even a new law of this kind been made, what reaſon could the American Congreſs have to complain? Have not the prejudices, inſur⯑rections, and even rebellion of their own country⯑men totally interrupted the common courſe of juſtice over all the vaſt Continent which they in⯑habit; and ſhall the generality of the crime be ad⯑mitted a competent excuſe againſt puniſhment?

From condemning the Acts of the Legiſlature, the Congreſs paſs to complaints againſt their So⯑vereign, as well as his principal ſervants. They alledge, that the ‘"Americans have inceſſantly and ineffectually beſieged the Throne for ten years;"’ yet conceal the reaſon, which was, [48] That their demands, rather than requeſts, were ſuch as the Sovereign could not grant, conſiſtent with the powers veſted in him by the Conſtitution. They complain, that fleets and armies have been ſent to their country, to enforce the coercive laws enacted by the Legiſlature, for the eſtabliſh⯑ment of its ſupremacy; yet they paſs over in ſilence the outrages committed by themſelves, which rendered that meaſure neceſſary. Did they not draw the ſword with one hand, when the other was ſtretched forth with petitions for relief from pretended grievances? Did they not purchaſe arms, ammunition, and artillery, form maga⯑zines, enliſt ſoldiers, and prepare, in every re⯑ſpect, for rebellion and war, when they affected to ſpeake the language of ſubmiſſion and peace?

All theſe are facts that cannot be controverted. The Congreſs know the truth, but purſue their plan of deception. ‘"They hoped in vain,"’ they ſay, ‘"for moderation in their enemies";’ yet their own conduct has been one continued ſeries of violence, oppreſſion, and injuſtice. Having diſ⯑claimed their allegiance to the Sovereign, diſ⯑obeyed the acts of the Legiſlature, deſtroyed the property, and inſulted the perſons of the ſervants of the State, aſſumed the functions of ſovereignty, and ruſhed into actual rebellion; they complain [49] of a want of moderation in Government, for ex⯑erting the power veſted in it by the Conſtitution, for reſtoring tranquillity, enforcing legal ſubmiſſion to the laws of the State, and for protecting the injured and puniſhing the guilty.

Throughout the whole of their ſtrange Decla⯑ration, the American Congreſs appear to adapt their reaſonings to the weakneſs of the prejudiced, and their facts to the credulity of the ignorant. They affirm, that they have uniformly endea⯑voured to procure an accommodation with the Mother-Country; yet they reprobate the Reſolu⯑tion of the Commons, on the 20th of February, which opened a fair channel for agreement. They call the Reſolution ‘"an inſidious manoeuvre, cal⯑culated to divide the Americans, and to eſta⯑bliſh a perpetual auction of taxation, where Colony ſhould bid againſt Colony, all of them uninformed what ranſom ſhould redeem their lives; and thus to extort from them, at the point of the bayonet, the unknown ſums that ſhould be ſufficient to gratify, if poſſible to gratify miniſterial rapacity, with the miſerable indulgence left them of raiſing, in their own mode, the preſcribed tribute."’ We may learn, from this tedious and involved ſentence, how much [50] the Congreſs have profited by the ſpeeches of Pa⯑triotiſm in the Britiſh Parliament. A noted Orator, who has been ſuſpected of having penned the DECLARATORY BILL, (which, the Congreſs alledge [...] contains the whole maſs of American grievances,) uſed almoſt the ſame words in the Houſe of Commons, on the day the Reſolution came under debate. But former demerits have been forgot, in what the American Demagogues fooliſhly conſtrue into preſent ſervices.

To ſhew the nature of the Propoſition which the Congreſs ſtigmatize with the name of an ‘"in⯑ſidious manoeuvre,"’ ſome previous facts muſt be explained. On the ſecond of February, a Motion was made in the Houſe of Commons, for an Addreſs to his Majeſty, which was ſoon after preſented, with the concurrence of the Lords. In this Addreſs, the two Houſes having ſtated ſome facts, were induced to declare, that a rebellion actually exiſted at that time in the Province of Maſ⯑ſachuſet's bay: That this conduct was the more in⯑excuſable, when it was conſidered with how much temper his Majeſty and the two Houſes of Parlia⯑ment had acted, in ſupport of the Laws and Con⯑ſtitution of Great-Britain: That they were reſolved never ſo far to deſert the truſt repoſed in them, as to relinquiſh ANY PART of the SOVEREIGN AU⯑THORITY [51] over ALL his MAJESTY'S DOMINIONS, which the law inveſted in his Majeſty and the two Houſes of Parliament: That the conduct of the Americans was ſufficient to convince them of the neceſſity of this ſupremacy and power: [...]hat, however, they had always been, and always ſhould be ready to pay attention and regard to any real grievances, which ſhould be laid before them in a DUTIFUL and CONSTITUTIONAL manner: That they requeſted his Majeſty to take the moſt effec⯑tual meaſures to enforce due obedience to the laws and authority of the Supreme Legiſlature: And that they were reſolved, at the hazard of their lives and fortunes, to ſupport his Majeſty againſt all rebellious attempts, in the maintenance of the juſt rights of his Majeſty and the two Houſes of Parliament.

In this Addreſs the two Houſes of Parliament, while they held forth the Sword in one hand, evi⯑dently tendered the Olive-branch with the other. The Americans themſelves were made the ar⯑biters of their own fate. The choice of war or peace was left in their own hands. But as the offer of Parliament to liſten to the real grievances of the Coloniſts was deemed too general to form a foundation for an agreement between them and the Mother-country, the Miniſter, wiſhing to con⯑ciliate [52] matters with America, even contrary to the opinion of many Friends to this Country, laid before the Houſe of Commons ſome EXPLICIT PROPOSITIONS, which might anſwer that end. Ac⯑cordingly, on the twentieth of February, the fol⯑lowing Propoſitions were introduced to a Com⯑mittee of the whole Houſe, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer: ‘"That it is the opinion of this Committee, that when the Governor, Council, and Aſſembly, or General Court of his Majeſty's Provinces or Colonies ſhall propoſe to make pro⯑viſion according to their reſpective conditions, circumſtances, and ſituations, for contributing their proportion to the common defence; ſuch proportion to be raiſed under the authorities of the General Court, or General Aſſembly of ſuch Province or Colony, and diſpoſable by Parlia⯑ment; and ſhall engage to make proviſion alſo for the ſupport of the Civil Government, and the adminiſtration of juſtice in ſuch Province or Colony; it will be proper, if ſuch propoſal ſhall be approved by his Majeſty in Parliament, and for ſo long as ſuch proviſion ſhall be made accordingly, to forbear in reſpect of ſuch Pro⯑vince, or Colony, to levy any duties, tax, or aſſeſſment, or to impoſe any further duty, tax, or aſſeſſment, except only ſuch duties as it may be expedient to impoſe for the regulation of [53] Commerce; the nett produce of the duties laſt mentioned, to be carried to the account of ſuch Province, Colony, or Plantation reſpectively."’

This Reſolution, which was carried by a great majority, plainly marked the ground for a nego⯑tiation, and an equitable agreement with the Co⯑lonies. It was moderate, comprehenſive, and explicit. It named the perſons from whom the propoſals muſt come, and thoſe to whom they were to be made. The end and purpoſe of the Con⯑tribution were explained. The appropriation of the expected revenue was ſpecified, and precluded every ſuſpicion of its being miſapplied. Though the offer was conditional, it was plainly conclu⯑ſive, as long as the Americans themſelves ſhould adhere to the agreement. They had it in their power to tax themſelves, the great point for which they profeſſed to contend; and the only right re⯑ſerved by the Legiſlature was to determine the QUANTUM of the ſupply; and they alone can de⯑termine it, as being the ſupreme power, who are the ſole judges of what is neceſſary to ſupport the State. The Propoſition, upon the whole, was AT LEAST as favourable to the pretenſions of the Americans, as to the claims of the Mother-Country. The former, therefore, muſt have accepted the [54] propoſal, had what they held forth to the Public formed the real principles of their oppoſition.

The Minority in Parliament, who deemed no⯑thing ſo fatal to their own views, as an agreement with the Americans, upon equitable, and conſe⯑quently permanent terms, oppoſed this Propoſi⯑tion as inſidious in its nature, and for that pur⯑poſe rendered obſcure and perplexed in its lan⯑guage. The American Demagogues, whoſe in⯑fluence can only exiſt in the midſt of anarchy and confuſion, oppoſed it with ſimilar views. The latter, indeed, have approved ſo much of the SENTIMENTS, or rather PROFESSIONS of the former, that they have, in their Declaration, echoed back their very words in Parliament. The argument before went only to the claim of the Americans to be permitted, in their Aſſemblies, to ſettle the mode of Taxation. They then demanded an ex⯑cluſive privilege of fixing the amount or quan⯑tum of the ſupply; and now they will give no ſupply at all. But if neither the mode nor the QUANTUM is to be left in the power of Parliament, what power has Parliament left, with regard to the taxing of the Americans? Ought the BRITISH LEGISLATURE to lay HUMBLY the wants of the Public before the PETTY LEGISLATURES of [55] America, and requeſt their aid for the general ſupport of Government? What would this be, but the total emancipation of the Colonies from that ſupremacy for which we contend?

The Americans, formerly, declared themſelves willing to contribute to the exigences and expences of the State, provided the demand ſhould come by requiſition from the King, and not by an imme⯑diate exertion of Parliamentary authority. This offer his Majeſty declined, with that patriotiſm which has uniformly marked his OWN meaſures, during his reign. Anxious for the happineſs of ALL his ſubjects, he choſe to be the Monarch of ONE great and free nation, rather than the Sove⯑reign of a number of petty States, weakened by their own diſunion. Had his Majeſty been actuated by thoſe motives of ambition, which are not uncom⯑mon among Princes, he would have eagerly cloſed with the offers of the Americans. Inſtead of mak⯑ing himſelf dependent, for the maintenance of his dignity, upon the grants of ONE Aſſembly, he might have extricated himſelf from even the fear of pe⯑cuniary difficulties, by a proper management of many Aſſemblies. The Repreſentatives of one Pro⯑vince might be gratified into the views of the Crown, from the revenue of another; Britiſh Mem⯑bers might receive the wages of corruption in [56] America; and American Repreſentatives be ſent for the price of their votes to this Kingdom.

But ſucceeding events have demonſtrated, that the Americans were not ſincere, in any one of their declarations, in favour of an amicable accommoda⯑tion. The Propoſitions voted, on the 20th of Fe⯑bruary, came up to their own former demands; yet they evaded them, by treating them as inſidious. The truth is, they knew their own demerits to⯑wards this Country, and they could not believe, that propoſals ſo highly favourable could have been, on her part, ſincere. One good, however, has reſulted from the Propoſitions. The Colonies, by rejecting them, have left no doubt remaining concerning their real intentions. They confine no longer their claims to the excluſive privilege of taxing themſelves. They aim, evidently, at a total independence in all matters whatſoever; and more particularly with regard to the Act of Navigation. They have long made ſecret but moſt dangerous encroachments on this PALLADIUM of our Commerce. They now publickly avow their reſolution to pay no regard to any Parliamentary reſtrictions, whether ancient or recent, on THEIR Commerce. They now openly trade all over Eu⯑rope; and the obtaining the privilege, which they have, at length, uſurped, has been the primary [57] cauſe of their reſiſtance to Parliament. The manufacturers and merchants of this Country have been long no ſtrangers to this American po⯑licy; yet the Congreſs have the effrontery to ex⯑pect, that the mercantile intereſt of Great Britain will eſpouſe their cauſe.

The American Congreſs, having in a looſe, curſory, and ſuperficial manner, advanced ſome pretended arguments to juſtify their rebellion, deſcend to the miſrepreſentation of facts, with the ſame deſign. They affirm, ‘"That General Gage, who had occupied Boſton as a garriſon, ſent out a large detachment of his army, on the 19th of April, who made an unprovoked aſſault on the inhabitants of the Province of Boſton, at Lexington."’ On this allegation of the Con⯑greſs, it may be remarked, that the rebellious conduct of the Town of Boſton, where all the au⯑thority of legal government had been long extin⯑guiſhed by the tyranny of a rabble inſtigated by factious leaders, had rendered a force neceſſary in that place, to reſtore order and tranquillity, to protect the innocent, and to reſtrain the exceſſes of the turbulent and guilty. That the military pre⯑parations made in all parts of the Province, and eſpecially at the Town of Concord, with the avowed intention of oppoſing all legal authority, [58] induced and even forced General Gage (though fatally too late) to ſend out a detachment of the troops under his command, to prevent hoſtilities, by ſeizing the means of carrying them on. That ſome of the Inhabitants of the Province, in ‘"war⯑like array,"’ ſtood in the way of this detach⯑ment, with arms in their hands; and that when or⯑dered to remove in a peaceable manner, they made ‘"an unprovoked aſſault"’ on his Majeſty's troops, by firing FIRST upon them, and killing ſome, and wounding many.

The audacity of the Congreſs, in aſſerting FALSEHOODS, demands a brief detail of the TRUTH. General Gage, having been informed, that arms, ammunition, cannon, and other implements of war, had been collected in the town of Concord, ordered a detachment of the Army to march with all poſſible ſecrecy to that place. He gave orders to the detachment, to obſerve the moſt ſtrict diſcipline, and to reſent no inſults offered them by the country people, except actual hoſ⯑tilities. The General's orders were, in truth, too implicitly obſerved. There was not one LOADED MUSQUET in the whole detachment, except thoſe in the hands of FIFTY Marines, who formed the van, when they were FIRED upon, by the country people, at Lexington. The affidavits of the [59] rebels, on this ſubject, are impoſitions and perjuries. There is not a man, whether officer or ſoldier, in the whole detachment, conſiſting of 800 men, but is ready, in the moſt ſolemn manner, to atteſt the truth of this fact.

It were to be wiſhed, for the honour of the inſurgents, that their BARBAROUS CRUELTY to the wounded ſoldiers, were more problematical than their firing FIRST on the King's troops. The ſoldiers who fell by the firſt fire of the rebels, were found ſcalped, when the detachment returned from Concord to Lexington Bridge. Two ſol⯑diers who lay wounded on the field, and had been ſcalped by the ſavage Provincials, were ſtill breath⯑ing. They appeared, by the traces of blood, to have rolled in the agonies of this horrid ſpecies of death, ſeveral yards from the place where they had been ſcalped. Near theſe unfortunate men, another dreadful object preſented itſelf. A ſol⯑dier who had been ſlightly wounded, appeared with his eyes torn out of their ſockets, by the bar⯑barous mode of GOOGING, a word and practice pe⯑culiar to the Americans. Humanity forbids us to dwell longer on this ſcene of horror. The rebels, to break the force of accuſation, began to recriminate. They laid ſeveral inſtances of wanton cruelty to the charge of the troops; yet nothing is [60] better aſcertained, than that not one of the ſoldiers ever quitted the road, either upon their march or return from Concord.

The Congreſs ſtigmatize the expedition to Lex⯑ington and Concord, with the epithets ‘"of an un⯑provoked and wanton aſſault."’ Was the col⯑lecting warlike implements at Concord, raiſing men throughout the Province, diſciplining troops in every diſtrict, forming magazines, purchaſing ammunition, and preparing arms, no provocation? Were not the whole Country aſſembled before they knew of this expedition? And was not their be⯑ing ſo completely provided with the means of re⯑pelling hoſtilities, a ſufficient proof, that they had previouſly reſolved to commence them? Could TEN THOUSAND men, the number that attacked (though at a PRUDENT diſtance) the troops on their retreat, have been collected by accident, or called together by a ſudden alarm? Are not the Congreſs conſcious to themſelves, and was not Ge⯑neral Gage ſufficiently apprized, that the people of Maſſachuſets-Bay had determined to begin hoſ⯑tilities, had the expedition to Concord never hap⯑pened? The truth is, the march of the troops had only haſtened the execution of the plan of rebellion ſettled before in the ſecret Councils of the Provin⯑cial Congreſs.

[61] The aſſertions of the Congreſs concerning tranſactions within the town of Boſton, are as utterly devoid of truth, as their account of what happened in the country. The hoſtile intentions of thoſe WITHIN, were as apparent as the rebellion of their brethren WITHOUT was certain. The great law of ſelf-defence muſt therefore have juſti⯑fied General Gage for having deprived the former of arms, which they almoſt avowedly intended to raiſe againſt all legal authority. After the ſkir⯑miſh at Lexington and Concord, all ſupplies from the country were cut off from the town of Boſton. Many of the inhabitants deſired to remove, with their effects. Their requeſt was granted; but it was at the ſame time demanded, that they ſhould deliver up their arms. This was, at firſt, ap⯑proved by all; but great clamours ſoon after fol⯑lowed. Such of the inhabitants as were well af⯑fected, or pretended to be well affected to Go⯑vernment, alledged, that none but the ill-inclined ſhewed any inclination to remove; and that when they ſhould become ſafe with their effects, the town would be ſet on fire. A great demur having alſo ariſen about the meaning of the word EFFECTS, whether MERCHANDISE was included; and the General being likewiſe ſenſible, that the per⯑mitting articles of that kind to be carried to the rebels, might ſtrengthen them in their reſiſtance; [62] he retained the goods. But they are ſtill ſafely kept for the owners, ſhould they either continue faithful, or ſeize his Majeſty's mercy, and return to their duty.

The next paragraph of the Declaration, as it is not ſupported by truth, is addreſſed to the paſ⯑ſions. The Congreſs complain, with an attempt at the pathos, ‘"of the ſeparation of wives from their huſbands, children from their parents, and the aged and ſick from their relations and friends."’ But is it not notorious to the whole world, that this SEPARATION, which the Con⯑greſs affect to lament, was the neceſſary conſe⯑quence of the rebellion of their countrymen? Did they not ſurround the town of Boſton, with an armed force, with the avowed intention of deſtroy⯑ing his Majeſty's forces, Generals, and Governor? And were the gates to be left open ‘"to let ruin enter,"’ as one of their own writers ex⯑preſſes himſelf? Have the people of Boſton ſuf⯑fered more hardſhips than the inhabitants of be⯑ſieged towns uſually ſuffer? Have they not even ſuffered ſewer reſtraints than men in their ſituation had reaſon to expect? Was not Dr. Warren, the Chairman of the Provincial Congreſs, a notorious abettor of the inſurrection, a nominal General in a rebel army, permitted to come into Boſton, under [63] pretence of viſiting a ſick friend, on the day pre⯑ceding the action on Bunker's-hill, where he was killed in arms againſt his King and Country? Is this a mark of thoſe cruel reſtraints, thoſe melancholy ſeparations, of which the Congreſs complain? But THEIR buſineſs is to engage the paſſions, where they can make no impreſſion with their arguments.

In the next paragraph of their Declaration, the Congreſs, with their uſual want of impartiality and fairneſs, mention the CONSEQUENCES of their own rebellion, as the cauſe of their taking up arms. They obſerve, that General Gage iſſued a Proclamation, ‘"declaring all the inhabitants of Maſſachuſets-Bay rebels, ſuſpending the courſe of the Common Law, and publiſhing inſtead thereof the uſe and exerciſe of the Law Martial."’ But, did he declare them rebels till they had at⯑tacked his Majeſty's troops, ſeized his forts and garriſons, beſieged his army in the capital of the Province, and not only interrupted the common courſe of juſtice, but even totally annihilated all legal authority? It is with peculiar effrontery, that the Congreſs number the ſuſpenſion of the common courſe of juſtice among their grievances, after all law and order had been trodden under foot by their own countrymen.

[64] With the ſame degree of arrogant folly the Congreſs complain, that ‘"their countrymen were killed on Bunker's-hill, that Charles-town was burnt to the ground, that their ſhips and veſſels have been ſeized, that their ſupplies of provi⯑ſions have been intercepted, that General Carle⯑ton is inſtigating the Canadians and Indians againſt them, and that domeſtic enemies are en⯑couraged to attack them."’ All theſe things may certainly have happened; but have they not happened in conſequence of their own rebellion? Have they a right to attack others, and have others no right to defend themſelves? Do the in⯑habitants of Maſſachuſets-Bay think, that as they have broken through all the ties that bind the ſubject to the Sovereign, the law of nature and of nations ought alſo to be ſuſpended to gratify their ambition, to flatter their folly, to favour their extravagant ſchemes of independence? To the above imaginary catalogue of American grievances, may be oppoſed the juſt complaints of Great-Britain. Have not the rebels carried their hoſtilities to every corner againſt the Parent-State, that firſt gave them exiſtence, and reared them to proſperity? Have they not attacked her troops at Lexington and at Concord, fired upon Boſton, burnt the Light-houſe, taken Ticonderago and Crown Point, and even penetrated into Canada? [65] And have they not uſed every artifice to inſtigate the Savages to make war on their Sovereign and Mother-Country? Almoſt all theſe injuries pre⯑ceded the juſt exertions of this Kingdom to puniſh their rebellion.

The concluſion of the Declaration, though la⯑boured, contains nothing but empty declamation, and therefore merits little notice. The ſame diſ⯑regard to truth, or rather the ſame attention to miſrepreſentation, which diſtinguiſhes the reſt of that ſtrange compoſition, is carried down to the end. They alledge, ‘"that they are reduced to the al⯑ternative of chuſing an UNCONDITIONAL ſub⯑miſſion to tyranny, or reſiſtance by force."’ The Congreſs ſurely forget, or it ſuits THEIR purpoſe to paſs over in ſilence, the favourable (perhaps too favourable) conditions offered to them, by the Re⯑ſolution of the Commons, in the month of Fe⯑bruary laſt. The terms couched in that Reſolu⯑tion were ſo obviouſly advantageous to America, that the Oppoſition in Parliament declared them INSIDIOUS; or, in other words, ‘"too good to be ſincere."’ An amicable ſettlement had ceaſed to have been an object with the Demagogues ABROAD; and it would have ruined the ſchemes of the Faction at HOME. The FORMER derived their influence, conſequence, and power, from [66] anarchy and confuſion. THEY could exiſt only in a ſtorm. The reſtoration of peace and tran⯑quility muſt have reduced THEM to their original inſignificance; and as for the LATTER, rendered deſperate by diſappointed ambition, they would not heſitate to ruin their Country, to procure the fall of their rivals.

Such being the ſtate of opinions among the leaders of Faction on both ſides of the Atlantic, ‘"reſiſtance by force became naturally the choice of the Congreſs."’ To deceive an unhappy peo⯑ple, over whoſe minds they had eſtabliſhed a tempo⯑rary dominion, they boaſt of ‘"their perfect union, and their great INTERNAL reſources; and that foreign aſſiſtance is attainable."’ As to the firſt, we have no reaſon to give it implicit credit. The ſhew of unanimity, which now ſubſiſts in America, appears, from undoubted information, to be the effect of fear, more than any love for the deſpe⯑rate cauſe of the rebels. Men of property are, from intereſt, enemies to confuſion; and the in⯑telligent, foreſeeing the inevitable iſſue of hoſtilities againſt the invincible power of a mighty Empire, are averſe to a conteſt, that, on the ſide of the Americans, muſt terminate in ruin. But BOTH are terrified into ſilence by the tyranny of a miſled rabble; or their STILL VOICE is drowned in the clamours of Faction and tumult of Party.

[67] The INTERNAL RESOURCES of the Americans are as problematical, as their unanimity in rebel⯑lion. Conſiſt theſe mighty reſources in a wretched Paper-currency, eſtabliſhed on no oſtenſible fund of credit; and voted by an illegal Aſſembly, whoſe authority is feeble, on account of its novelty, and tranſitory, as it ariſes from temporary prejudices? Should force, or even folly, ſtamp a domeſtic value on the paſte-board dollars of the Congreſs, what foreign nation will receive them for its manu⯑factures and commodities? Are the Americans themſelves capable of furniſhing all the great implements neceſſary for the proſecution of war? Can they ſupply their armies with tents, with powder, with cannon, or with muſquets? Is any one of theſe articles manufactured in a ſufficient quantity in America? And how can they be procured in Europe, with the wretched cur⯑rency of the General Congreſs?

The Coloniſts, had not reaſon been warped by prejudice in every part of their conduct, might have foreſeen, that their commencing a war de⯑prived them inſtantly of the reſources for carrying it on. Their whole Coaſt is lined, it is to be hoped, at this very moment, with our ſhips of war, to put a total ſtop to their Commerce. They have, therefore, loſt at one ſtroke their whole [68] trade in Corn and Rice with Spain, Portugal, and the Mediterranean; which, at a moderate computation, brought annually One Million Five Hundred Thouſand Pounds to North America. They have loſt the ſupplying our own Weſt-India Iſlands, as well as thoſe of other nations, with proviſions; a branch of Commerce eſtimated little ſhort of a Million annually. They have loſt their Fiſhery, an article too great for computation; and they have loſt the exportation to Great-Britain of commodities which would not have anſwered in any other market, had the ſea remained open to their Navigation.

But if the Americans have little reaſon to de⯑pend on DOMESTIC RESOURCES, they have ſtill leſs to hope from FOREIGN AID. Will France, in the preſent ſtate of her finances, involve herſelf in a ruinous and expenſive war, to gratify the re⯑venge of a Faction in this Country, or to favour the ambition of Demagogues beyond the Atlantic? Will Spain give her aſſiſtance to raiſe an INDEPEN⯑DENT EMPIRE in America? Will ſhe encourage her own American ſubjects to riſe againſt her au⯑thority, by abetting the rebellion of the American ſubjects of Great-Britain? Can either Branch of the Houſe of Bourbon be ſo blind to its own in⯑tereſt, as to wiſh to ſee a Sovereign State erected [69] ſo near its ſettlements, which from their proximity, their produce, and their wealth, muſt, in ſuch a caſe, become objects of invaſion, depredation, and conqueſt? What has either France or Spain to fear from THIS KINGDOM, whoſe intereſt conſiſts ſolely in preſerving what ſhe has already acquired? But have not BOTH every thing to fear, ſhould a new Sovereignty ſtart up in America, in which a want of reſources would, in ſome degree, juſtify the providing itſelf at the expence of wealthy neighbours?

Having endeavoured to terrify Great-Britain with their DOMESTIC reſources and FOREIGN aids; the Congreſs thinking, perhaps, they had gone too far, conclude with aſſurances, that ‘"they have not YET determined to diſſolve their union with the Mother-Country."’ But that UNION, it ap⯑pears from the ſequel, muſt not be conſtrued into SUBORDINATION, on the part of the Americans. The general ſupremacy of the Legiſlature, which by pervading the whole Britiſh Empire renders it ONE State, muſt not, it ſeems, croſs the At⯑lantic, but in ſuch proportions as may ſuit the in⯑clinations of the Congreſs. ‘"THEY have taken up arms,"’ as they openly avow, ‘"againſt that Supremacy;"’ and ‘"THEY will not lay them down till hoſtilities ſhall ceaſe on the part of Great-Britain."’ This is the Ultimatum offered by the [70] Congreſs: Withdraw your armies, recal your fleets, and you may have peace from the Ameri⯑cans; for, as ‘"they fight not for conqueſt,"’ they do not YET mean to transfer hoſtilities into the heart of theſe kingdoms!

The haughty Monarch who dreamt of univerſal monarchy in the laſt century, could ſcarcely have expreſſed himſelf in more inſolent terms to the petty Princes ſurrounding his dominions, than the Congreſs have done to the powerful Empire to which they owe the allegiance of ſubjects. Some allowance ought to be made for THEIR ignorance, and a great deal for the petulance of men new to conſequence and authority; but, even in that caſe, the inſolence of the Declaration is calculated to raiſe indignation, as well as contempt. The Congreſs, however, are only the echoes of a deſ⯑perate Faction in this Kingdom, who have uni⯑formly, in their public exhibitions, degraded the ſtrength, power, and authority of Great-Britain, to exalt America on the ruins. With an effron⯑tery without example in any other age or nation, THESE MEN aſſume the name of Patriots, yet lay the honour, dignity, and reputation of their Country under the feet of her rebellious ſubjects. With a peculiar refinement on Parricide, they bind the hands of the MOTHER, while they plant a [71] dagger in thoſe of the DAUGHTER, to ſtab her to the heart; and to finiſh the horrid picture, they ſmile at the miſchief they have done, and look round to the ſpectators for applauſe.

It appears, upon the whole, that the Declara⯑tion, which ought to contain all the argument in favour of the Americans, contains, in fact, no⯑thing that does not militate againſt their cauſe. The right of taxing all the ſubjects of the Em⯑pire, for the general ſupport of the State, is a part of that Supremacy which the firſt principles of the Conſtitution have veſted in the Britiſh Legiſla⯑ture. This Supremacy has been exerted by Par⯑liament, and admitted by the Americans, ever ſince their anceſtors migrated from theſe kingdoms. If they now deny it, by that very act they ceaſe to be ſubjects, and become rebels. But granting, for the ſake of argument, that Taxation is no part of the ſupremacy of Parliament, the very conduct of the Americans not only juſtifies, but even renders it abſolutely neceſſary, that a precedent ſhould be made. They own, ‘"that their internal reſources are great."’ The inability of con⯑tributing to the neceſſities of a State, from whom they have derived their origin, their ſupport, their protection, and their proſperity, is no longer a pretence; and if they will give no Revenue as [72] ſubjects, they owe a debt as allies. They affect to maintain armies by land. They threaten to ſend fleets to ſea. They alledge, that their reſources are capable of ſupporting a rebellion againſt the Mo⯑ther-Country; yet they juſtify that rebellion by the demand made by the Mother-Country, for their bearing a part of their own FUTURE EXPENCES.

That the FORMER expences of America have drawn from Great-Britain an incredible treaſure, may be ſeen from the following authentic eſtimate. We ſhall begin this eſtimate with the acceſſion of the Houſe of Hanover to the Throne of theſe Kingdoms.

[73] To this amazing ſum might be added, by implication, the other expences of the two laſt Wars. The FORMER of thoſe wars was undertaken for the protection of the American Commerce, or rather American SMUGGLING, to the Spaniſh Co⯑lonies. We entered into the LATTER for the defence of the Coloniſts; we carried it on for their ſecurity; and terminated it for their SOLE advan⯑tage. The two laſt Wars have coſt this Country, at a moderate computation, ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLIONS. To this extraordinary waſte of treaſure, what have the Colonies to oppoſe to balance the account? Is it a languid Com⯑merce, which ſcarcely makes its returns once in three years?

We have heard much (indeed, a great deal too much) of this Commerce from factious men on both ſides of the Atlantic. This is the mighty engine which they wield over the heads of the ignorant; the great bug-bear with which they terrify the timid. To eſtimate the value of the American trade with any degree of preciſion, is impoſſible. The accounts kept in the Cuſtom⯑houſe are no authorities. When exports pay no duty, a door is opened to falſe entries. The [74] vanity of ſome Merchants, the intereſt of others, too frequently induce them to magnify, beyond meaſure, the quantity of their export trade. Be⯑ſides, the mercantile abettors of American reſiſt⯑ance thought they ſerved the Colonies, whilſt they gratified their own private views. We may con⯑clude, that the Commerce with North America has been greatly over-rated, as the TOTAL LOSS of it has NOT affected this Kingdom. We ought, per⯑haps, to aſcribe to ITS INSIGNIFICANCE what we are taught to attribute to an INCREASE in other channels of trade.

Like all monopolies, the Commerce with North-America, ſuch as it has been, was much more pro⯑fitable to the Merchant, than advantageous to the Manufacturer. One-third of this commerce with any State in Europe (from which the returns are an⯑nual) would have brought equal profit to the ma⯑nufacturer, and would have enabled him to em⯑ploy an equal number of hands. Political im⯑poſtors will not fail to advance magnificent fictions on this head, and the ignorant cannot ceaſe to give them credit. On a ſubject where proofs are ſo diffi⯑cult to be obtained, one may hazard a conjecture. The money expended by this Nation upon America, [75] for the PROTECTION of HER inhabitants and the ENCOURAGEMENT of HER Commerce, would have been more than ſufficient to purchaſe ALL the manufactures ever exported from Great-Britain to the Colonies now in rebellion. I mean not to include, in this conjectural eſtimate, any ſums ex⯑pended by us in any OTHER part of the world during the two laſt (truly American) Wars.

The Americans, with a degree of folly ſcarce excuſeable in the moſt conſummate ignorance, claim a merit with Great-Britain, for the Revenue ariſing from impoſts laid upon ſome of their com⯑modities, in THIS Kingdom. The chief of theſe are Rice and Tobacco. The Revenue ariſing from Rice is ſo inſignificant, that it ſcarce deſerves to be mentioned. If exported to the ſouth of Cape Finiſterre, Rice pays no duty at all. The con⯑ſumption here and the re-exportation to the North⯑ward are very inconſiderable. In like manner, Tobacco, when re-exported, pays no duty; and it is a matter of great doubt, whether the frauds committed in the draw-backs may not nearly bal⯑lance the oſtenſible Revenue ariſing to the State from the home conſumption.

[76] But granting, a great Revenue ſhould ariſe from Rice and Tobacco to the State, what favour do we owe to our Colonies on that head? That Re⯑venue is paid by OURSELVES. The Tax is on the Conſumer, and not upon the Planter. Should Siberia ſupply us with Rice and Tobacco, the price would not probably be greater to the Con⯑ſumer, nor the Revenue leſs to the State. If the Americans claim any merit from thoſe Taxes, what do we NOT owe to the Emperor of China? The Revenue from Tea is much more conſider⯑able than that from Rice and Tobacco. A Con⯑greſs at Pekin might accuſe us of ingratitude on this ſubject, with as much juſtice as the Aſſembly lately ſitting at Philadelphia.

It is evident, from the above ſtate of facts, that the Colonies have no claim to an exemption from Taxation, on account of any advantage that has accrued to this country from their commerce. But Taxation has now ceaſed to be any part of the diſpute. It goes to the whole authority of the Mother-Country. The Americans offer no longer the very name of Obedience. But why ſhould I ſpeak of Obedience? This VERY CONGRESS, whoſe Declara⯑tion is the ſubject of this diſquiſition, have paſſed [77] a VOTE OF INDEPENDENCE. They have long acted as rebels, they NOW affect to contend as enemies. Their abettors in this Kingdom are no ſtrangers to this circumſtance; yet they dignify avowed re⯑bellion with the title of ‘"A GLORIOUS STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM."’

Such is the conduct of the Americans, to which that of Great-Britain has all along formed a ſtrik⯑ing contraſt. With the indulgence and patience of a Parent, ſhe ſoothed, flattered, and even court⯑ed them to a reconciliation. In pity to the weakneſs, in condeſcenſion to the folly, in conſidera⯑tion to the prejudices of a froward child, ſhe held out the olive branch when ſhe ought, perhaps, to have ſtretched forth the rod of correction. Her pity, her kindneſs, and affection, were loſt upon the Ameri⯑cans. They advanced rapidly from claim to claim, and conſtrued her forbearance into timidity. Each Act that was repealed furniſhed a ſubject for tri⯑umph, and not an object for gratitude. Each con⯑ceſſion became the foundation of ſome new de⯑mand, till, at length, by aſſuming all to them⯑ſelves by rebellion, they left the Mother-Country nothing to beſtow.

[78] In this ſituation of affairs, Great-Britain muſt purſue one of two lines of conduct, with regard to her refractory Colonies. She muſt either put up with the loſs of ALL her expence, and emancipate them for ever, or reduce them to that ſtate of dependence which ſubjects owe to the ſupreme au⯑thority in every Empire. As the latter line muſt of neceſſity be purſued, it ought to be purſued with a mixture of ſpirit and prudence. To be in every reſpect in a condition to force equitable terms, is the beſt ſecurity for their being vo⯑luntarily offered. But ſhould terms be offered by the rebels, the RIGHTS of THIS COUNTRY muſt be more regarded in the accommodation, than the CLAIMS of AMERICA. To permit the Colonies to GAIN by one rebellion, is to ſow the ſeeds of another. But if the Colonies, as communities, are not permitted to gain by their refractory conduct, I am far from wiſhing that individuals ſhould loſe any part of their rights as Britiſh ſubjects.

To propoſe a plan to the Americans, in their pre⯑ſent political frenzy, would be to ſpeak to the winds. To make them leſs free than the other ſubjects of the State, can never be the deſign of this Country. To obtain greater privileges, can [79] ſcarcely be their own deſign. If they are not madly bent on independence, let them propoſe the conditions on which they wiſh to continue ſubjects. But if they are to continue ſubjects, they muſt perform their duty as ſuch, and con⯑tribute toward the expence of the State, for the general protection. The Legiſlature of this King⯑dom cannot poſſibly depart from any part of its ſu⯑premacy over the Colonies; but it is in the power of the Colonies to ſhare in that ſupremacy. If they complain of being taxed without having the pri⯑vilege of ſending Members to Parliament, let them be repreſented. Nay, more: Let their repreſentation increaſe in proportion to the Revenue they ſhall furniſh. If they wiſh rather to vote their QUOTA towards the general ſupply, through their own General Courts and Aſſemblies, the reſolution of Parliament on that ſubject is ſtill open to their choice.

But as long as they aſſume the language of a Sovereign State, this Kingdom can enter into no negociation, can meet no compromiſe. Nations, as well as individuals, have a character, a certain dignity, which they muſt preſerve at the riſque of their exiſtence. Great-Britain has obeyed the [80] dictates of humanity beyond the limits preſcribed by her reputation. To tempt her further, is full of peril, as her indignation begins to riſe. She has long had reaſon to complain of American in⯑gratitude; and ſhe will not bear longer with American injuſtice. The dangerous reſentment of a great people is ready to burſt forth. They already begin to aſk, with vehemence, Is this the return we ought to expect from Colonies, whom with parental indulgence we have cheriſhed in infancy, protected in youth, and reared to man⯑hood? Have we ſpent in their cauſe ſo much treaſure, and have they the ingratitude to refuſe to bear a ſmall portion of our burdens? Have we ſpilt ſo much of the blood of their enemies, and do they repay us by imbruing their hands in our own? The law of God and of Nature is on the ſide of an indulgent Parent, againſt an undu⯑tiful Child; and ſhould neceſſary correction render him incapable of future offence, he has only his own obſtinacy and folly to blame.