The TRUE MERIT OF COMMON SENSE, &c.

A Piece, entitled Common Senſe, ad⯑dreſſed to the Inhabitants of America, being lately re-printed at Charles-Town, and great Pains taken to ſpread the Notion of Independency from Great Britain, and to form an American Republick, it be⯑comes the Buſineſs of every Perſon moſt ſe⯑riouſly to conſider the Tendency of ſuch a Propoſal; and all ſuch as look upon it as ruinous and deſtructive, muſt at leaſt be in⯑excuſable, in their own Breaſts, if they do not endeavour to point out the many Miſ⯑takes and Oddities on which that Pamphlet is grounded.

The Novelty of the Thing, the Averſion a free-born People muſt ever have to ſubmit to what they think Slavery, the Fears of be⯑ing brought to an abject Submiſſion to op⯑preſſive Laws, the Dread of being deprived of Property, and perhaps of Life, with a Variety of other Conſiderations, may have [2] given this Pamphlet, with many Perſons, a Degree of Weight which does not appear due to its intrinſic Merit; and perhaps it may, without Impropriety, be ſaid, that their Extent of Reading has not led the Gene⯑rality of Americans to a very accurate and extenſive Acquaintance with the Subject in Queſtion; however that be, it is ſuppoſed in a Matter of ſuch infinite Moment, every confiderate Man would wiſh to be thoroughly informed of what may be ſaid on both Sides of this Queſtion.

If my Conjectures of the Author do not deceive me, he is a Gentleman for whom I have a real Eſteem; but "the Wiſe and Wor⯑thy need not the Triumph of a Pamphlet;" and therefore, without any Apology, I will venture to ſubmit ſome of his and my Remarks to the Judgment of every impartial Reader.

What Reaſons may have induced the Au⯑thor to ſend his Thoughts abroad, under the Title of Common Senſe, is needleſs to enquire; if he means that his Opinion is the Common Senſe of all America, or that all thoſe who do not think with him are deſtitute of Com⯑mon Senſe, Time, without any Reaſoning, may convince him of his Miſtake.

I conceive his Notions about Society and Government are only introductory to his main View; I ſhall take no further Notice of them, than, as they appear to me, to lay a very indifferent Foundation for a very indif⯑ferent Building.

[3]Suppoſing, as he aſſerts, there were "a Difference between Society and Government, and their Origins very different," he will hardly be able to conceive Society ſubſiſting with⯑out Government; and tho' Society be re⯑duced to its ſmalleſt Number, yet even two Perſons, probably, could not live long hap⯑pily together, without agreeing upon ſome Rule of Conduct, which is, in other Words, ſubmitting to ſome Government. The Author begins with giving us a very diſcouraging Idea of Government in any Shape. The firſt Notion of Government which this Founder of American Independency proceeds upon is, that "it is produced by our Wickedneſs," and, in its beſt State, "is a neceſſary Evil." I am greatly afraid the Government he pro⯑poſes muſt be the Product of our Wicked⯑neſs, but I cannot yet agree with him, "that it is a neceſſary Evil."

To give us a clear Idea of the Deſign and End of Government, he ſuppoſes "a ſmall Number of Perſons ſettled in ſome ſequeſ⯑tred Part of the Earth; he then forms them into Society, then repreſents them as relax⯑ing in Duty and Attachment, (Page 4,) and then forming themſelves into Government, to ſupply the Defect of Moral Virtue." I would aſk him, whence thoſe firſt Set⯑tlers came? by what Means they reached the ſequeſtred Country? and whether they muſt not have agreed on Emigration, a Place of Deſtiny, and a Method of pro⯑ceeding? [4] that is to ſay, whether there was not ſome Society and Government una⯑voidably among them; and whether they muſt not be conſidered in a State of Society and Government, prior to any Formation of it, in the Method aſſerted by this Author? It ſeems more natural to conceive the Origin of Society and Government in the following Method: Of all Human Beings, one muſt have been the firſt, and prior, of Conſe⯑quence, to Society. The firſt Human Being, we are accordingly informed by Revelation, was a Man, and God ſaw it was not good for him to be alone, Gen. ii. 18. It is ex⯑preſſly ſaid, that Woman was created with a View to bring Man into a State of Society, Gen. ii. 18. His Priority of Exiſtence, and the Manner of her Formation, and being brought unto Man, muſt have rendered her in ſome Meaſure dependent on Adam, even while they both continued in their original Perfection. By the expreſs Will of the Crea⯑tor, the Government was eſtabliſhed in the Man, Gen. iii. 17. 1 Tim. ii. 22. and being the Ruler of his Wife, he neceſſarily became alſo the Ruler of his Children; and from this very natural View of the Matter it would ſeem, that Government and Society are nearly coeval, and that the very firſt Mode of Go⯑vernment muſt have reſembled Monarchy more than any other. From this it will by no Means follow, that the firſt Man was the abſolute Sovereign of all his Poſterity, or [5] that Monarchy is the only Government of Divine Inſtitution; but as it is impoſſible that Society and Government could have commenced any other Way, ſo to ſubject all Men to one, or the Head of a Family, is contradictory in itſelf; for if Fatherhood gives an abſolute Power over the Children, then it reſts in all Parents, and, conſequently, had Seth commanded his Children to have reſiſted Adam, they would, on this Scheme, have been obliged to do it, tho' by another Part of it, they were obliged to unlimited Obedience to Adam. I therefore perfectly a⯑gree with the Author, when he ſaith, "What⯑ever Form of Government appears moſt likely to enſure us Security, with the leaſt Expence, and greateſt Benefit, is preferable to all others;" and all I plead for is, that in ſome Inſtances Monarchy has done this, and may do this as much as any Form, whenever the Monarch makes the good of his Subjects his principal Study and Endeavour. It is a Fact, (tho' I am far from recommending an Imitation of the Example,) that ſince Denmark made their King abſolute, they have, for a Century, been happier, and better governed, than they had been for a Century, or perhaps ever before. If I were to form a Judgment of the Author's Skill and Depth of Thought, as to the Nature of Government, from his Definition of it, I confeſs I ſhould be under ſome Difficulty; he certainly muſt have an undoubted Right to claim it, as being entirely original. "It is, [6] (ſaith he,) pray what? It is a Mode, a Mode rendered neceſſary by the Inability of Moral Virtue, to govern the World." There may be Meaning in this, but all I can pick out is, that Government is not a Subſtance, but a Mode. A very rare and ſagacious Diſcovery.

If his Maxim, "That the more ſimple a thing is, the leſs it is liable to be diſordered, and the eaſier repaired," which is undoubt⯑edly a very true one, be applied, as it is by him, to Government, I ſhould think it muſt plead for Monarchy. The ſimpleſt Idea that can be formed of Government, is one to rule, and one or more to obey; the moſt per⯑fect Government is where the moſt perfect Being rules, and all his good Creatures im⯑plicitly and perfectly obey; and tho' no ſuch Government can obtain among ſinful Men, yet certainly Monarchy is much more ſimple than Ariſtocracy or Democracy. This the Author could not help being aware of, and allows, but in perfect Contradiction to the Principle on which he ſets out, calls "abſolute," i. e. the moſt ſimple Govern⯑ment, "a Diſgrace to Human Nature;" then declares, almoſt in the ſame Breath, that "ſuch Governments have an Advantage not to be found in any other Form, and leaſt of all in the Britiſh Conſtitution." If his "firſt Idea of Government, is derived from a Principle in Nature, which no Art can overturn; that the Firmneſs of a Government lies in its Simplicity; and that all Govern⯑ments [7] that are complex, of Courſe are pre⯑carious," then every judicious Reader muſt obſerve, that the whole Treatiſe is a conſtant Contradiction to the Principle on which the Author builds the Whole of his Plan and Aſſertions. He ſets out with an Aſſertion, that Simplicity is eſſential to Permanency, and then writes a Treatiſe againſt that Sim⯑plicity, and propoſes a Plan of Government far more complex, and conſequently far more unnatural, than thoſe he pretends to aboliſh.

As the Author's great Aim is to overthrow the Conſtitution, and to build ſomething, at preſent unknown even to himſelf, on its Ruins, he accordingly next labours to cure us of the Prejudices which hitherto we entertained in its Favour; if he has ſucceeded, or does ſucceed in the Attempt, I muſt aſcribe it to a Maxim he advances, and I can look upon as true only on this Suppoſition, "Time makes more Converts than Reaſon." Let us hear him: "To ſay that the Conſtitution of England is a Union of three Powers, checking each other, is farcical; either the Words have no Meaning, or they are a flat Contradiction." Now, that the three different Branches of the Legiſlature are, and always have been, a Check upon each other, Hiſtory clearly proves; of all Proofs, Facts afford the ſtrongeſt, and what exiſts, implies neither Farce, Un⯑meaning, nor Contradiction. "The Preroga⯑tive, (ſaith Rapin,) of the Sovereign, of the Nobles, and of the People, are corrected by [8] each other, in ſuch a Manner, that they are one another's mutual Support; and at the ſame Time either of thoſe three Powers can lay invincible Obſtacles in the Way of what⯑ever Enterprizes one of the other two, or even both together could form, to make themſelves independent."

Where is the Abſurdity of the Suppoſition, "that a King, (or any Man, or Sett of Men,) ought not to be truſted without being looked after." It may be very reaſonable to put it in a Man's Power to do Good, and yet to re⯑ſtrain him from doing Harm: This cannot hurt the beſt Man, and may be ſome Security againſt the worſt; it may happen, "that the Commons may be wiſer and more worthy of Confidence than the Crown," and it may alſo happen otherwiſe, and the only Remedy that can be propoſed is preciſely that which the Author turns into Ridicule, i. e. to make Crown and Commons mutual Checks upon each other. There is ſomething exceedingly confuſed in the Paragraph where the Author labours to ſhew the Ridicule of Monarchy, and hard to determine what he means by the "different Parts of it, which unnaturally oppoſe and deſtroy each other." The Folly of any Man, in any Condition, may "ſhut him from the World, and the Means of In⯑formation;" his State need not. The pre⯑ſent Emperor, and King of Pruſſia, are pro⯑bably more minutely acquainted with the State of their Dominions than any one of [9] their Subjects; I ſhould think an Engliſh King alſo might be at Liberty to read Com⯑mon Senſe, or a News-Paper.

To his Queſtion, "How came the King by a Power which the People are afraid to truſt, and always are obliged to check;" I anſwer, all Power that is not under the Guidance of infinite Wiſdom needs check⯑ing: But, becauſe it is unſafe to truſt a Ruler with unlimited Power, is he to be without any Power at all? Or, becauſe there can be no Ruling where there is no Power, is it therefore neceſſary or prudent to entruſt him with Power without Limits? We have two Inſtances at leaſt where the Commons checked and ſtopt the Power of the Crown, and thus reſtored and preſerved the Liberty of the Subject; and the Remark of Rapin is very judicious: "If the Parliament had been contented with re-eſtabliſhing the Govern⯑ment upon its ancient Foundation, it is very likely it had never afterwards been eaſily ſhaken, but it is very hard to obſerve a juſt Medium upon ſuch Occaſions. This was the very thing which won the King Friends, which he had infallibly been without if the Ballance had been held with a ſteady Hand." This Obſervation of a Foreigner may even now deſerve particular Attention.

If the Author is an Engliſhman, it muſt be owned he has pretty well got the better of the National Pride and Reaſon of an Engliſh⯑man; and ſo little Merit has the Conſtitu⯑tion [10] in his Eyes, that he would have us be⯑lieve it as a plain Truth, "that it is wholly owing to the Conſtitution of the People, and not to the Conſtitution of the Government, that the Crown is not ſo oppreſſive in Eng⯑land, as in Turkey." As to the Conſtitution of the People, it is certain that the Turks killed more of their Emperors, than ever the Engliſh did of their Kings; and if the Author can think Turkiſh Deſpotiſm preferable to the Engliſh Conſtitution, it may ſerve as a Hint of what may be expected of a Govern⯑ment formed upon his Principles.

The Propoſition, that "Mankind are origi⯑nally Equals in the Order of Creation," ex⯑tended as far as it may lead, is a very levelling Principle. There are ſome natural Diſtinc⯑tions which cannot fail having very great Effects; one Man is born ſooner than an⯑other, and all Men certainly not equal in Point of Senſe and bodily Strength; ſome have greater Opportunities to advance them⯑ſelves than others, and from ſuch Circum⯑ſtances, however accidental, ſome Superiority almoſt inſenſibly takes Place; and though Kings and Subjects are not a Diſtinction of Nature, yet that ſome ſhould rule, and others obey, is eſſential to Society. No Society can ſubſiſt without Government, and no Govern⯑ment without Rule and Obedience; and however Nature may put a Ridicule upon hereditary Succeſſion, "by giving an Aſs for a Lion," it muſt be owned that ſome ſeem [11] by Nature formed to rule, and others to obey; ſome by a happy Mould to amend the Errors of old, and eſtabliſh new Forms of Government, like our Author; and others, implicitly to acquieſce in any Government, whether under the Direction of a Monarch, or our Author.

Heaven and Hell have their Governments. —"Male and Female are Diſtinctions of Nature;" but I ſuppoſe the Author would not give up the Government of the Male to the Female Part of the Creation; and if the Female will not give it up to the Male, which (Mankind being all equal in the Order of the Creation) they ſurely need not, then there will be War, and this War muſt con⯑tinue as long as both Parties are able to carry it on, and deſtroy all Society, i. e. all Man⯑kind in the End, or elſe iſſue in the Sub⯑miſſion of one to the other, or Indepen⯑dency, and Separation of both. To eſtabliſh a perfect Equality in Sentiment and Power, will be found too difficult among imperfect Beings.

As every Argument that has an Appear⯑ance of Scripture to ſupport it, with many Perſons, is deciſive, the Author makes no ſmall uſe of it againſt Kings and Kingly Go⯑vernment; it will be very eaſy to ſhew that his Remarks prove nothing leſs than what is intended.

"In the early Ages there were no Kings and conſequently no Wars." Let him remember, [12] that War is mentioned before Kings; no Kings are mentioned before the Flood, but nevertheleſs the Earth was full of Violence, Gen. vi. 15.

I do not know how Holland came in, in Support of this Aſſertion, but ſo it is that he immediately adds, "Holland, without a King, has enjoyed more Peace for the laſt Century, than any of the Monarchical Governments in Europe." Either he muſt never have read Hiſtory, or think no Body elſe ever did. This Aſſertion of his muſt either eſtabliſh his groſs Ignorance, or for ever ſink his Cha⯑racter, as a Writer of Candour, or Man of Veracity.

"The quiet and rural Life of the firſt Patriarchs," was not ſo entirely ſo as the Author pretends; there was Murder before there were Kings, Abraham was concerned in War, and there ſubſiſted Strife between him and Lot, ſo that the Land could not bear them, Gen. xiii. 6, 7. "If Government by Kings was firſt introduced by the Hea⯑thens," yet we read very early of one that was a King of Peace and Righteouſneſs, and compared to the Son of God; and if the Heathens paid divine Honours to their de⯑ceaſed Kings, probably it was becauſe they were good Kings and Benefactors; but it will never warrant the Author to ſay, that the "Chriſtians pay greater, and diviner Hon⯑ours to their King while yet living," than [13] the Heathens did who worſhipped them after their Death.

I call it a daring Aſſertion, when the Author ſaith, (Page 11,) "The Will of the Almighty expreſſly diſapproves of Government by Kings." Tho' he ſtiles the Paſſage, Render therefore unto Caeſar the Things which are Caeſar's, "the Scripture Doctrine of Courts;" they are not the leſs the Words of him, all whoſe Words are faithful and true; and thoſe who would judge properly of the Merit of his Aſſertion, need only be at the Trouble of reading a ſingle Paſſage, viz. "Submit your⯑ſelves to every Ordinance of Men, for the Lord's Sake, to the King as ſupreme," 1 Pet. ii. 13; and when he obſerves, that at the Time of our Saviour, "the Jews were without a "King," he errs, becauſe he attends not to the Scripture. The Jews, as a Nation, then avowed, We have no King but Caeſar, John xix. 15; and he has not mended the Mat⯑ter, by adding, that "they were in a State of Vaſſalage to the Romans," i. e. they had no King, but were Vaſſals to the Roman Em⯑peror.

The Hiſtory of Iſrael, under the Judges, is not the cleareſt Part of their Hiſtory; it is as full fraught with Wickedneſs and Con⯑fuſion as the Annals of moſt of their Kings; and it does not add much to the Honour of his favourite Propoſition, that ſome of their worſt Tranſactions are introduced with the Remark, "At that Time there was no King [14] in Iſrael," Judges xviii. 1, and xix. 1.; and that it is twice repeated in the ſame Book, "There was no King in Iſrael, and every Man did what was Right in his own Eyes," Judges xviii. 6, and xxi. 25. When he ſaith, "Mo⯑narchy (perhaps he meant the eſtabliſhing of it) is ranked in Scripture as one of the Sins of the Jews, for which a Curſe in Reſerve is denounced againſt them," I ſhould have been glad to ſee the laſt Part ſupported by ſome Quotation. Of the Tranſactions he alludes to, I ſhall take ſome Notice:

In the Caſe of Gideon, I would obſerve, that "Rule thou over us," and "Be thou our King," are not equivalent Expreſſions; there may be Rule without Kingſhip; and though the Author is bitter againſt Kings, I ſuppoſe he will allow that, without any Impiety, ſome may rule and others obey their Rulers. Neither can the Author prove that Gideon declined this Honour, it being highly pro⯑bable that he did rule over them to his dying Day, even for the Space of Forty Years.

The Rejection of the Theocracy, which had hitherto obtained, and the Deſire of hav⯑ing a King over them, like the Heathen Nations, was undoubtedly a very great Wick⯑edneſs; but wicked and fooliſh as it was, many of the Author's Inferences from it can⯑not be ſupported.

It is trifling to find Fault with the Term. One whoſe Authority poſſibly he would re⯑ſpect, (Cromwell) obſerved, the Harm lay not [15] in the four Letters K, I, N, G. There have been very good Kings, and very wicked Judges; and the Author, one would think, chooſes to be miſtaken, when he ſaith, "The Scripture takes no Notice of David officially as a King, but only as a Man after God's own Heart." The contrary is true; "God choſe David, and took him from the Sheep-folds; he brought him to feed Jacob, his People; ſo he fed them according to the Integrity of his Heart, and guided them by the Skillfulneſs of his Hands," Pſalm lxxviii. 72, 73. He is taken Notice of as King, Pſalm xxi. 1—9; and, what muſt be particularly diſagreeable to the Author, he had the Pro⯑miſe of an hereditary Kingdom. I have ſworn unto David, "I will build up thy Throne to all Generations; it ſhall be eſta⯑bliſhed for ever as the Moon, and as a faith⯑ful Witneſs in Heaven," Pſalm lxxxix. 3, 4, 35.

The Author is not happier when he makes the Almighty enter his "Proteſt againſt Monarchical Government," and ſaith, "this muſt be true, or the Scripture is falſe." Now that Kings and Monarchy are not abſolutely ſinful, and that God Almighty has not pro⯑teſted againſt their Exiſtence, I ſuppoſe will appear ſufficiently clear from the following Paſſage: "Thou ſhalt in any wiſe ſet him King over thee, whom the Lord thy God ſhall chooſe;" and then, among other Rules preſcribed, he cautions him, "that his Heart may not be [16] lifted up above his Brethren, and that he turn not aſide from the Commandment, to the Right Hand, or to the Left, to the end that he may prolong his Days in his Kingdom; he and his Children, in the Midſt of Iſrael," Deut. xvii. 15, 20.

What the Author alledges againſt Heredi⯑ditary Succeſſion, may appear very plauſible to ſuch as only ſuperficially conſider the Mat⯑ter; but whatever Inconveniences it may cauſe or imply, the Danger in keeping Government altogether elective will uſually be found to over-ballance any Advantage. What the Author calls "the ſtrongeſt natural Proof againſt it," does not amount to much; if Nature turns Hereditary Succeſſion into Ri⯑dicule, "by frequently giving an Aſs for a Lion," it will follow, that whenever Nature gives a wiſe Son unto a wiſe Father, ſhe ap⯑proves Hereditary Succeſſion, and diſapproves the Care of a Parent to provide for his Fa⯑mily, whenever ſhe deprives him of Children, or leaves him none but worthleſs Deſcend⯑ants; but, excluſive of what Nature may do, or not do, upon this Occaſion, I would aſk, Whether it never happens in Republicks that the Choice falls upon Aſſes as well as upon Lions? There are Aſſes among all Ranks of Men, Authors not excepted.

Leſt the Author ſhould too much plume himſelf upon the Wit of his Compariſon be⯑tween original Sin and Hereditary Succeſſion, I would obſerve, that every Compact made [17] between Parties and their Heirs muſt be bind⯑ing on Poſterity, and there is neither Hard⯑ſhip nor Abſurdity in this; whether the Com⯑pact be a prudent and beneficial one is the only Queſtion. I dare ſay, the Author of Common Senſe would now chearfully enter into any Treaty that would ſecure Liberty and Hap⯑pineſs to himſelf and all his Deſcendants, upon the ſimple Condition, that himſelf ſhould remain an honeſt Man as long as he lived; he would not think himſelf juſt to his Poſterity, if he neglected ſo eaſy and honour⯑able an Opportunity to make them all free and happy; aſſuredly, all his Sneers notwith⯑ſtanding, he would be willing that Poſterity ſhould be as free and happy as himſelf, if to continue free and honeſt ſhould be the only Condition.

In human Governments it is impoſſible to guard againſt all Inconveniencies; that may be counted the beſt which has the feweſt. Republican Governments are not without their Dangers; and if Men that think them⯑ſelves born to reign are apt to grow inſolent, it is a Misfortune, from which thoſe who have neither Right nor Capacity to rule others, are not at all exempted; and frequently the People, i. e. a few People, have choſen others over them, "the moſt ignorant and unfit" of any that could poſſibly be found within their Bounds. Poland is the laſt Kingdom that remained elective; but though it contains Twenty Millions of Inhabitants, it has long [18] been the moſt inſignificant; and ſo many Wars have attended their Elections, as, at laſt, al⯑moſt annihilated the Kingdom.

After the Civil War, the Crown was, per⯑haps, more arbitrary than before; for the People, weary to ſubmit to many Tyrants, rather choſe to ſubmit to one. The Benefit of that Convulſion was loſt, becauſe the Conſtitution was thrown off of its Baſis; at the Revolution, the Conſtitution and Succeſſion was preſerved, and the Liberty of the Nation eſtabliſhed more than ever.

There is ſomething remarkable in the Hiſtory of Holland. They, more than once, declared againſt Hereditary Succeſſion. To prevent this, after the Demiſe of William I. to whom they were under ſuch great Obli⯑gations, they declared themſelves Sovereign States, but were ſoon brought ſo low, as to offer themſelves to France, and to Queen Elizabeth, and would have been willing to ſubmit to any Maſter but their old one; and after receiving the Duke of Leiceſter to ad⯑miniſter the Supreme Power, they were ſtill more glad to part with him again, and to make Prince Maurice, of Naſſau, (then very young,) their General, who was the proper Heir, whoſe Father had laid the Foundation of their Republick, and who gained them the Power and Title of a Free State. In 1672 and 1747, the next Heir, King William, and the late Stadtholder, again became their Saviours, and they found the Neceſſity and [19] Advantage of aboliſhing the perpetual Edict againſt a Stadtholder, and to make the Office hereditary in the Males and Females of the Naſſau Family.

In following the Author's Thoughts on the preſent State of American Affairs, I have no Objection to the Preliminary Conditions by him propoſed; let him hear me, and let our Readers hear us both, and coolly judge for themſelves. I alſo agree with him, as to the Worth and Importance of the Cauſe; but if he takes a nearer View, he will find that the preſent Britiſh Empire in America, ſo far from being "an Eighth Part of the habitable Globe," is, perhaps, not an Eighth Part of North America; but this is immaterial to the Merit of the Cauſe.

To clear his Way, the Author takes No⯑tice of ſome Objections to his Plan, and his Anſwers to them muſt now be conſidered: He does not deny "that America has flou⯑riſhed under her Connection with Great Bri⯑tain," but roundly anſwers, America would have flouriſhed as much, and probably much more, had no European Power taken any Notice of her. In Reply it may be ſaid, that Ame⯑rica, in that Connection, has flouriſhed, is a certain Fact; what the Author advances, at beſt is mere Suppoſition and Uncertainty, and there is Reaſon to believe America owes her Progreſs to her Connection, becauſe the Colonies of no other Nation are equally flou⯑riſhing, and the French and Spaniſh Colonies [20] now wear a very different Aſpect ſince they be⯑came Britiſh. Beſides, if Great Britain had taken no Notice of America, perhaps France might. It is far from being certain, and it is indeed notoriouſly falſe, that America, unconnected with Great Britain, might not have been a tempting Object to France; and however this may be, certain it is, and by Common Senſe acknowledged, that America flouriſhed in her Connection with Great Britain; and while the Connection is advantageous, it can hardly be worth while to run the Riſk of an Expe⯑riment to the contrary, only that we may aſcertain the Queſtion, whether we might not as well have done without Great Britain. Common Senſe alſo allows, "that Britain has protected us;" but ſaith, "ſhe would have defended Turkey from the ſame Motive." Be it ſo, ſtill I cannot find that it did America any Harm to be protected; and think it moſt wretched Policy to ſuppoſe, that, ſeparated from Great Britain, we ſhould always be at Peace with France and Spain; for (beſides that I would rather be at War with both, than with Great Britain,) there is no State but what may be involved in War on its own Account; and it would certainly be very con⯑ſiſtent with the Views and Policy of France and Spain to make Conqueſts, which at once would weaken America and Great Britain; and that they may ſtill have a Deſire for Ca⯑nada and Florida, though they both had de⯑clared [21] themſelves independent of Great Bri⯑tain, need not in the leaſt be doubted.

If "Europe, though not England, is the Parent Country of America," this contradicts what the Author aſſerts, (Page 45.) "It is evident they belong to different Syſtems, Eng⯑land to Europe, America to itſelf;" and though he reprobates the Term, Mother Country, becauſe America has not been peopled from England alone, yet all that came into America, whereſoever they came from, came into it as into an Engliſh Government, and Thouſands of Foreigners, for the Sake of being natura⯑lized, and enjoying the Benefits of a Conſti⯑tution, on which they ſet greater Value than this Author. Though not one Third of the Inhabitants of a Province ſhould be of Engliſh Deſcent, yet the Author may be perſuaded, their Proportion is ſtill ſmaller who have no Feelings for Great Britain; who, like him, have renounced their Oath of Allegiance, think Abſolute Governments preferable to Limited Monarchy, or any one Plan his Wiſ⯑dom could contrive, or his forward Zeal ob⯑trude, ſuperior to the Britiſh Conſtitution.

He very juſtly aſks, (Page 37,) "What have we to do with ſetting all the World at De⯑fiance?" But whom has this Author ſpared? I ſhould think it good Policy to leſſen the Number of our Enemies, and increaſe that of our Friends; the Author does directly the contrary; he is angry with all "that think well of the European World." He has wrote [22] againſt every King and Prince in the Univerſe; he calls his (or at leaſt my) Natural Prince, "a Pharaoh," and "a Royal Brute;" he treats the whole Britiſh Nation as our profeſſed Enemy; he abuſes the City of London, though it has heartily eſpouſed the American Cauſe; he abuſeth the Pennſylvania Aſſembly; he inveighs againſt every Man of Moderation; he avows Principles of Revenge, which would rather ſuit the Character of a Devil than a Chriſtian; he labours, to his utmoſt, to render our Quarrels perpetual, and little better than bids Defiance to all Mankind, when he ſaith, "our preſent Numbers are ſufficient to repel the Force of all the World," (Page 61.) Al⯑ready none but his few Friends have eſcaped his Laſh, and his Common Senſe is very ſuffi⯑cient to warn us of what may be expected, when he and they once become the Ruling Powers. His Challenge, "to ſhew a ſingle Advantage this Continent can reap from be⯑ing connected with Great Britain," is fully anſwered in ſome Diſſertations publiſhed ſome Years ago at Philadelphia; and the Advan⯑tages of a perpetual Union are capable of being proved to a Demonſtration. In this Connection we have flouriſhed, this Connec⯑tion is capable of being made reciprocally more advantageous, and I challenge him, in my Turn, to ſhew, that in any other Situation we can be equally ſafe, free, and happy.

We muſt either ſtand alone, or be con⯑nected with ſome other Power. All wiſe [23] States ſecure unto themſelves Friends and Allies, and the Author himſelf gives ſufficient Hints, that he does not wiſh we ſhould ſtand alone. If we are to have any Connections with other States, political or commercial, the Queſtion will be, with what States it will be moſt to our Advantage to be in Connection? The Author does not rightly ſpeak it out, but he has an undoubted Eye to France and Spain. I abhor and deſpiſe the Thought. France and Spain are the Enemies of our Re⯑ligion; they will, I hope, never be able to render us the Services that Great Britain hath already; and none but a Madman would look for Protection againſt Great Britain, to thoſe who ſo lately lay at Britain's Mercy, and have ſo evidently been unable to protect themſelves.

His Argument in favour of Separation from Great Britain, which he draws from the Time when America was diſcovered, is very fanciful. At the Time of the Reformation, ſome French Proteſtants did, indeed, endea⯑vour to find an Aſylum in America, but they were all cut off by the Cruelty of the Spaniards. Every Proteſtant Settlement was made by the Engliſh, and if Popiſh and Prieſt⯑ly Bigottry perſecuted at Home, it muſt be owned the Britiſh Government has opened a Door to the Perſecuted, and ſuffered them to live unmoleſted in America; however, if the Author will derive any Weight in the preſent Quarrel, from the Time and Deſign of Pro⯑vidence [24] in the Diſcovery of America, he may pleaſe himſelf whenever a Reconciliation ſhould make this Continent, as he ſaith, "not worth living in." Providence, by the late ſeaſonable Diſcovery of Otaheite, and the Iſlands in the North Weſt, graciouſly meant to open a Sanctuary for him and his Friends.

That "the Authority of Great Britain over this Continent ſooner or later muſt have an End," is aſſerted without any Proof, and in Oppoſition to the Continental Congreſs; that Authority, properly exerciſed, may con⯑tinue, with mutual Advantage, to the End of Time. In anſwer to his Caricatura of thoſe who do not wiſh for Separation, it may, at leaſt, with equal Juſtice be ſaid, all that are for Separation, are either intereſted Men, who expect to be Gainers by the Change, or at leaſt to continue important during the Confuſion; weak Men, who having never read much, and, taking up Matters upon the bare Aſſertions of others, cannot ſee; prejudiced Men, who will not ſee; and a certain Sett of hot Men, who think well of nobody but themſelves, and thoſe who join with them in Opinion, and thoſe uſually alſo are weak Men who cannot ſee far off; prejudiced Men, wedded to their own Opinions; and intereſted Men, who may alſo be afraid of being called to an Account for Actions too barefaced to be juſtified upon any View or Principle, politi⯑cal or moral, and who puſh Matters, not from any Deſire to ſerve the Cauſe, but becauſe [25] they think there is no other Chance of Safety to themſelves. Men deeply in Debt, and of deſperate Fortunes and Principles, are always the moſt likely to raiſe and keep up publick Confuſions.

No Man can feel more for the unhappy innocent Sufferers at Boſton, and I wiſh for a Reconciliation, that the Authors and Ad⯑viſers of ſo much Cruelty may be brought to anſwer for their Conduct to the Juſtice of a great and generous Nation. The Author, it ſeems, is of the Number of thoſe who are diſtant from the Scene, but his lively Ima⯑gination and Reſentment are happy enough to make him feel and paint all its Horrors.

I ſhall follow the Author's Arguments a⯑gainſt Reconciliation, not as they would ap⯑pear ſummed up in a natural Order, but as, out of the Fullneſs of his Heart, he has choſen to interweave them with every Page of Common Senſe.

His main and leading Argument ſeems to be, That it is impoſſible to forget or forgive the Injuries America has received; and that who⯑ever had a Houſe burnt, or a Relation killed, if he can make up the Matter after that, "hath the Heart of a Coward, and the Spirit of a Sycophant." I anſwer, had there been no Quarrel, there would have been no Need of a Reconciliation; more Huſbands and Fa⯑thers have been killed in the Miniſterial Army than of the Americans; and if that could give the Author Satisfaction, the Loſs of the [26] Americans hath not gone unavenged. But how inhuman and horrid is the Principle on which he proceeds: Upon his Suppoſition, two Na⯑tions once at War muſt never again make Peace; but if Humanity cannot ſet Bounds to the Rage of Man, Providence will; and none are more likely to have everlaſting Wars, than thoſe who renounce Peace and Reconciliation for ever. In our little Wars in America with the Natives, few Provinces but what have felt Horrors in Reality, which, in the Account of the Author, are ſtill ex⯑aggerated, and yet we were glad to make Peace. In the late War, the Miniſter of the Elector of Saxony ſet out with a Reſolution to leave nothing but Water and Ground in the Territories of Brandenburgh; the King of Pruſſia, in his Turn, did all poſſible Miſchief to his Reſidence and Territories, but after all, both were glad to make Peace. Nature has not deſerted our Connection, and the Ocean that always lay between us, will not become impaſſable by a juſt Reconciliation. Why ſhould it be thought impoſſible, that Great Britain may be as juſt and mild as ſhe has been, and America become as free and happy as ſhe ought in that Connection. The Na⯑tion will not be miſguided always; the ſame Miniſtry may not continue always, and thoſe that would puſh Matters to the utmoſt Ex⯑tremity, whoever they be, and wherever they may live, none will live for ever. It is not generous to ſay, "that Britain has not ma⯑nifeſted [27] the leaſt Inclination towards a Com⯑promiſe;" the Cauſe of America has been pleaded by ſome of the firſt Men in the Na⯑tion, and with an Ability and Strength, which, ſooner or later, muſt anſwer the End.

If "the Object contended for, ought always to bear ſome juſt Proportion to the Expence;" it will alſo follow, that it is prudent to count the Coſt, before we contend for any Object. Whether a thing is juſt and prudent, whe⯑ther an Object is attainable, whether the Means of attaining it are at hand, are always very proper Conſiderations; and nothing will prove a Remedy that is worſe than the Diſeaſe. The Author next pretends to offer ſome Argu⯑ments, why Reconciliation would be the Ruin of this Continent. They ought to be conſidered.

The Firſt, he derives from the Negative of the Crown, and the unfriendly Temper of the King. Allowing the latter Part of this Argument the utmoſt Weight, it would be merely perſonal and temporary; I am afraid, however, if there is Weight in it at all, it ariſes from Reſentment, to what will be thought undutiful and indecent Treat⯑ment. Kings no more than private Men are inſenſible to perſonal Injuries. Monarchs, as well as Subjects, may be miſinformed or miſ⯑taken; but to call the King "the greateſt Enemy this Continent hath, or can have," in my Opinion, can only ſerve to prejudice Subjects againſt the King, and lead the King to think, that he is looked upon as an Enemy [28] by his Subjects. While the Conſtitution ſubſiſts, the King's Negative muſt ſubſiſt alſo; and this Power of the King has not ruined England, nor is it the Cauſe of the preſent Diſturbances in America.

"After Matters are made up, can there be any Doubt the whole Power of the Crown will be exerted to keep America as low and humble as poſſible;" more probably not. France is very indulgent to Alſace and her American Colonies, to make them in Love with French Government. If we could have no Confidence in Engliſh Juſtice and Generoſity, which would be very ungene⯑rous, ſtill we might expect the Miniſter, by this Time, knows better than eaſily again to quarrel with America. The King can do no Wrong; let us be reconciled, and formally ſue for Juſtice againſt thoſe, by whom we ſhall appear to have been injured.

The Author calls ſome things ridiculous, that either have no Exiſtence, or do not de⯑ſerve to be ſo called. No Youth of Twenty-one ever ſaid in England, "to Six Millions of People, older and wiſer than himſelf, I forbid this Act of yours to be Law." There has been no Minority ſince Edward VI. who was a wiſe and good Prince, and far more worthy to reign, than many before and ſince. Holland was more than once indebted for her Safety and Preſervation to Princes of the Houſe of Orange, who were but Youths; and when Democratical Rulers had brought [29] her on the Brink of Ruin, Count Maurice of Naſſau, and the late King William, were but Twenty-one when they had the Supreme Command, retrieved their Affairs, and ſaved the Nation.

His ſecond Argument, in my Opinion, has leſs Weight; "the beſt Terms we can obtain, can amount to no more than a Temporary Ex⯑pedient." Why ſo? If once we are ſettled again upon good Terms, ſuch as claimed by the Continental Congreſs, why ſhould we not remain united on ſuch Terms for ever? The Fear that many of the American Inhabi⯑tants would ſell their Effects, and quit the Continent, on his own Principles is perfectly idle. Whither would they go? "Every Spot of the Old World being over-run with Oppreſ⯑ſion." However, if any ſhould not like to live in America, they might tranſport them⯑ſelves to ſome ſequeſtred Part of the Earth, and try the Experiment of forming a more perfect Government, upon the Plan of the Author.

But "the moſt powerful of all Arguments is, that nothing but Independence can keep the Peace of the Continent, and preſerve it in⯑violate from Civil Wars." As this is Specu⯑lation rather than Argument, what if the contrary ſhould prove the Caſe; and upon the very Propoſal of it, ſomewhere or other, "a Revolt ſhould happen more fatal than all the Malice of Great Britain." Should this ever prove the Caſe, the Man will have [30] much to anſwer for, whoſe Rancour and Raſhneſs has hurried on ſo great a Calamity. "It is but ſeldom that our firſt Thoughts are truly correct;" and I imagine the whole Pamphlet contains chiefly firſt Thoughts of the Author.

"The Colonies have manifeſted a Spirit of good Order and Obedience to the Conti⯑nental Congreſs," while they laboured at a Reconciliation. Whether the Temper of the People at large, will be the ſame, if their Aim and Conduct ſhould be directly the re⯑verſe, is a Queſtion of great Moment. The Fears, "that one Colony will ſtrive for Superiority over another," will not appear ſo very childiſh, when the Conduct of ſome leading Men is duly conſidered.

When the Author ſaith, "The Republicks of Europe are all (and we may ſay always) in Peace; Holland and Swiſſerland are with⯑out War, Foreign or Domeſtic;" he declares War againſt Truth, and muſt have a very low Opinion of the Americans, if he could think to miſlead them by ſuch palpable Falſhoods. The Republicks of Venice and Genoa have been involved in great Wars; and though Republicks have little or no Liberty, Holland has been involved in moſt Wars in this Century, and loſt all their Bar⯑rier Towns, and Bergen-op-Zoom, in one of the laſt. The Hiſtory of Swiſſerland alſo would furniſh him Inſtances of War, ſuffici⯑ent to prove, that the moſt determined and [31] prudent People may ſuffer by a few Fire⯑brands; and whatever Advantages there may be in Republican Governments, all Political Writers will allow, that Monarchical can more eaſily enter into Negotiations, and carry them on with greater Speed, Secrecy, and Succeſs.

I have nothing to ſay about his Plan to form a Continental Government; I wiſh it may never take Place, and therefore will not point out the Weakneſs of a Scheme, which, undoubtedly, will defeat itſelf, if ever it ſhould be tried to be carried into Execution.

To haſten the Execution of his Plan, the Author urges, that otherwiſe ſome Maſſanello may gather together the Deſperate, and in⯑forms us, that this Thomas Ancillo prompted the People of Naples to revolt, and, in the Space of a Day became King. Maſſanello never was King, but a popular Leader, and his true Hiſtory is not uninſtructive; he headed a Mob, raiſed on Account of a Duty laid on Fruit, and, driven to Deſpair by a brutiſh Anſwer of the Vice-Re, bidding them to ſell their Wives and Children in Payment, at firſt, while he was moderate, he became very formidable, and a ſolemn Treaty was entered into by him and the Vice-Re, and publickly ſworn to in the Church; next he became intoxicated with Power, or even delirious, and raved againſt his own Followers; he was then ſhot, in or about a Church, and immediately as much [32] execrated by the Mob as before he had been followed and applauded.

I ſhould hardly take Notice of his Decla⯑rations againſt Reconciliation and Peace, were it not to point out ſome Expreſſions which ought to characterize the Author. To ſay, "That the Almighty has implanted in us in⯑extinguiſhable Feelings" to keep up Reſent⯑ment and Hatred; and that they are "the Guar⯑dians of his Image in our Heart," is really flying in the Face of God Almighty. It ſurely muſt ſhock every conſiderate Perſon, to ſee that aſcribed to God Almighty, which is a Diſgrace to Man; and if it is not appli⯑cable to the Aſſertion, that Paſſion and Ha⯑tred are the Guardians of the Divine Image, I am unacquainted with any Propoſition that deſerves to be called a Doctrine of Devils; Juſtice will always be the more perfect and impartial if uninfluenced by Affections, and the Touches of Affections, whether Love or Hatred, above any thing have a Tendency to warp Juſtice.

There are many things which I paſs over, not becauſe I think them true, or unanſwer⯑able, but becauſe it may be unſeaſonable to ſhew their Abſurdity; it is impoſſible, how⯑ever, that the following ſhould eſcape any conſiderate Reader's Notice.

"Our preſent Numbers are ſufficient to re⯑pel the Force of the whole World." Doubtful as this may appear to many, I am perfectly convinced of the Truth of it, if ever it ſhould [33] happen that all the World ſhould at once bring all their Force againſt us, which we may be well perſuaded will never happen. There is no Potentate now upon Earth that would ſeriouſly affirm his Numbers are ſuffi⯑cient to repel the Forces of all the World. To his Maxim, "No Nation ought to be with⯑out a Debt," I add, nor a Fund to pay it. I apprehend National Debts can be of very little Service, without a proportionable Na⯑tional Credit.

If any Man has a Mind to believe that "the Navy of England, at this Time, is not worth above Three Millions and a Half Ster⯑ling," for me he may; and ſo alſo if hence he ſhould conclude the Author of Common Senſe pays very little Regard to his Readers, in palming Aſſertions upon them which they may well doubt whether he can believe himſelf.

If "a Twelvemonth ago any common Pirate might have laid the City of Philadelphia under inſtant Contribution, nay, any daring Fellow, in a Brig of fourteen or ſixteen Guns, might have robbed the whole Continent," it ſeems ſurprizing that it was never attempted. Per⯑haps others have a greater Dread of the Bri⯑tiſh Navy than our Author; perhaps to this Dread we were indebted for our Safety. Is it more ſurprizing that we were ſo very weak a Year ago, as to be at the Mercy of a ſingle Brig, or that we are ſince grown ſo ſtrong, as to be able to cope with, and expect to get the better of, the whole Britiſh Navy?

[34] "If America had a Twentieth Part of the Naval Force of Britain, ſhe would be by far an Over-match for her." Suppoſing the Bri⯑tiſh Navy to conſiſt of Two Hundred Veſſels, the Twentieth Part would be Ten Veſſels; a great Diſproportion, truly! But, according to Common Senſe, the Exiſtence of even theſe Ten Veſſels is ſtill liable to an IF; but if we had them, who can doubt, that, as the Whole is equal to all its Parts, ſo a Twentieth Part muſt alſo be equal to the Whole.

To unite the Sinews of Commerce and De⯑fence is certainly ſound Policy; but whether ſtopping all Trade and Intelligence will bring about, or keep up this Union, Time muſt ſhew.

That with "the Increaſe of Commerce England loſt its Spirit," I ſuppoſe the Au⯑thor does not mean to prove, from the Hiſ⯑tory of the laſt War, and from the Riſks Great Britain runs at preſent in the Quarrel with her Colonies; it will not follow that the more Men have to loſe, the leſs they are will⯑ing to venture.

I come now to the many ſtrong and ſtriking Reaſons, as the Author is pleaſed to call them, that "nothing can ſettle our Affairs more expediouſly than an open and determined De⯑claration for Independence;" he mentions four; how ſtrong and ſtriking three of them may appear muſt be left with every Reader, but what he calls the fourth is no Reaſon at all.

The firſt he grounds on the Cuſtom of Nations, when any two are at War, for ſome [35] other Power, not engaged in the Quarrel, to ſtep in as Mediator, and bring about the Pre⯑liminaries of a Peace. This ſometimes is the Caſe, but then it is between two con⯑tending Nations, that are both acknowledged independent by other States, and more eſpe⯑cially by the State that offers a Mediation. Upon his own Principle we muſt be acknow⯑ledged independent by others, before any Na⯑tion can directly interfere; and I apprehend our Author does not ſufficiently diſtinguiſh between two very different Things, viz. our declaring ourſelves independent, and our be⯑ing acknowledged and treated ſo by others. However, the Author ſeems to have ſome Thought of "Preliminaries of Peace," very inconſiſtent with the Feelings that he ſaith, (Page 60,) diſtinguiſh us from the Herd of common Animals; but perhaps Peace will not be ſo diſgracing when introduced among us by foreign Nations.

The Author's ſecond Reaſon deſerves very great Attention; it runs thus: "It is unrea⯑ſonable to ſuppoſe, that France or Spain will give us any Kind of Aſſiſtance, if we mean only to make uſe of that Aſſiſtance for repairing the Breach, and ſtrengthening the Connection be⯑tween Britain and America, becauſe theſe Powers would be ſufferers by the Conſequence." I apprehend here is much more meant than expreſſed. I ſhall only make ſome very ge⯑neral Remarks:

• 1ſt, Aſſiſtance from France and Spain a⯑gainſt Great Britain is here expreſſly avowed; this Avowal of Aſſiſtance from our natural, hereditary, Popiſh Enemies, will be conſidered in a very ſerious Light by Thouſands of thinking Perſons, in Britain, America, and every Proteſtant Country.
• 2dly, To obtain this Aſſiſtance, the Author would renounce our Connection with Britain, i. e. with Proteſtants, our Parent State, and, at leaſt, Numbers among them, who have been and are our Friends.
• 3dly, In his Opinion it is certain we can⯑not obtain any Aſſiſtance from them, unleſs we declare ourſelves independent, and he would have us apply to France and Spain, on purpoſe to be able to effect a Separation from Great Britain for ever.

A Variety of political, moral, and conſci⯑entious Conſiderations here crowd in upon me, which I muſt ſuppreſs; but on the Sup⯑poſition that his Propoſal to ſome may ſeem juſt and prudent, I would ſtill hint a few Doubts as to its anſwering the End. I would aſk,

Is the Author ſure, that, if we declare our⯑ſelves independent of Great Britain, we ſhall obtain Aſſiſtance for aſking for it, from France and Spain, and what is it to be? Is this Aſ⯑ſiſtance to conſiſt of Men? That would be needleſs, as we have a Force of our own "capable to repel all the World;" or of Money? But that again we do not want, ſee⯑ing [37] we can make as much as we pleaſe; or in Ships? But this alſo we ſhall have no Oc⯑caſion for, as ten Ships, (which we certainly can fit out, if any at all) in our Author's Opinion, are an Over-match for all the Britiſh Navy. But be all this as it may, can France or Spain publickly avow our Cauſe, without unavoidably entering into War with Great Britain? Suppoſing it in their Power, will they run the Riſk of it, only to raiſe unto them⯑ſelves a moſt formidable Rival in independent Colonies? Will they become our Protectors upon cheaper Terms than Great Britain, and can they afford it?

Suppoſing we obtain Aſſiſtance from France or Spain, will not their firſt and moſt natural Requeſt be, (as it was Queen Elizabeth's to the Dutch, and by them complied with,) to be put in Poſſeſſion of ſome of our Sea Ports. Auxiliaries have frequently become Maſters; a ſmall Number of Troops and Ships could not effect for us any great Matters, and a large one might bring about greater Matters than we might wiſh.

Whether the ſhrewdeſt Politicians dwell in France, Spain, Britain, or America, I will not take upon me to ſay; but I ſhould think the Suppoſition very natural, that France or Spain might afford the Colonies all the ſecret Aſſiſtance they could, without entering into a War, probably with a View to keep up the Ball, weaken both Parties, and, in the End, to reap ſome Benefit from the Folly of the Par⯑ties engaged in this unnatural Quarrel. Large [38] Promiſes, undoubtedly, would never be want⯑ing. But it will ſurprize many, no doubt, that Common Senſe would break off the Connec⯑tion with Great Britain, becauſe to her "A⯑merica is only a ſecondary Object, and ſhe hath never done us any good but for her own Sake," and propoſes a Connection with France and Spain, in Expectation they would make our Happineſs not their ſecondary but primary Conſideration, and aſſiſt us, not in the ungenerous Manner Great Britain has done, for their own Sake, but from the nobler Deſign of protecting the Liberty and Inde⯑pendence of America.

If his third Reaſon hath any Truth or Weight, "we muſt, at preſent, in the Eye of Foreign Nations, be conſidered as Rebels;" and, adds he, "the Precedent is ſomewhat danger⯑ous to their Peace, for Men to be in Arms under the Name of Subjects." I anſwer, Foreign Nations and Writers, even in this Caſe, make a great Diſtinction between a People that profeſs Subjection, while they only ſtruggle for Redreſs of what they think Grievances, and thoſe who altogether renounce Allegiance and Dependence. Foreign Nations formerly called the Hungarian Inſurgents, and lately the Corſicans, Malcontents; but all Nations (except France) called the Scotch, in 1745, Rebels. In the Author's Mode of Reaſoning, however, as we are now in Arms, and "com⯑mon Underſtanding cannot ſo eaſily ſolve the Paradox as we that are on the Spot," in the [39] Eyes of other Nations we muſt be looked upon as Rebels; well, and what follows? "The Precedent is ſomewhat dangerous to themſelves;" then, I ſuppoſe, we are not to expect any Trade from or with them, while they look upon us in this Light, nor look to them for Aſſiſtance. This the Author ſeems tacitly to look upon as the Caſe, and an In⯑convenience; and how is it to be remedied? Why, that they may not look upon us as Rebels while we ſtill profeſs Allegiance, and promiſe all we can promiſe, to get Redreſs, we are next to diſown all Dependence and Allegiance, and then, of Courſe, the Powers who looked upon the Precedent as dangerous to ſee Subjects in Arms, will be convinced, that, now we have broke through every Tie, and renounced all Dependence, we can no longer be Rebels, by openly commending our Proceedings, and taking up Arms in our Fa⯑vour. Rare Reaſoning in Common Senſe! That Foreign Nations may be convinced we ſeek nothing but Redreſs from our hitherto King and Parent State, we are to ſhake off all Al⯑legiance, and engage with the Enemies of our Nation in War againſt him, we always called our Sovereign. Rare Reaſoning, truly! O Common Senſe!

What he calls his fourth Reaſon, is evi⯑dently no Reaſon at all, but only a Propoſal to publiſh a Manifeſto of our Sufferings, an Apology for our Conduct, and an Offer to live peaceably with all Foreign Courts. — [40] The Continental Congreſs has ordered a Nar⯑rative of American Sufferings to be publiſhed, which undoubtedly is very proper and neceſ⯑ſary, but whether in Foreign Courts it will be productive of any more than Contempt of the Britiſh Miniſter, and cold Pity and Praiſes of the Americans, Time muſt ſhew.

After the Example of the Author of Com⯑mon Senſe, I ſhall now conclude with a few Miſcellaneous Obſervations. Though it was his Wiſh that this Declaration ſhould be made immediately, the Winter is paſt, and, upon his own Plan, we may ſafely conclude, ſo will the next Summer before his Scheme can be brought even upon the Carpet. Every Co⯑lony muſt declare itſelf independent, before, agreeable to his Advice, they can all meet in Continental Conference, and throw the re⯑ſpective Independence of each Province into one Common Stock. Should any two or three Colonies have an Averſion to Independence, and the Arguments of Common Senſe be thought inſufficient only in one of the Middle or more important Colonies, a Diviſion in⯑ſtantly takes Place; and if the others ſhould attempt to reduce the refractory Colony, an inteſtine War is begun, and may ſpread far more dangerous, as the Author juſtly obſerves, than all the Malice of Great Britain; and be⯑fore every Colony has determined for itſelf, and fixed upon a Continental Conference, many Things may happen.

[41]Suppoſing this Independency is declared, what may be the Conſequence? I muſt ap⯑prehend the Conſequence muſt be very ſeri⯑ous, and without any Spirit of Prophecy, it may be preſumed the Effects will be very intereſting.

In America, thoſe that ſhall ſet it up, will, doubtleſs, make Uſe of every Means their Art and Power can ſuggeſt to maintain it; thoſe that are of a contrary Opinion will not like the Proceedings; thoſe that are for, and thoſe that are againſt it, will reſpectively make it a Common Cauſe. All that love a limited Monarchy, the Britiſh Conſtitution, all that think themſelves ſtill bound by the Oath of Allegiance, all that would rather wait for Juſtice from Britiſh and Proteſtant Genero⯑ſity, than throw themſelves into the Arms of France and Spain, all that dread a long Con⯑teſt, or are fearful of the Event, all that are conſcientiouſly againſt all War and Fighting, all that look upon this pretended Remedy as worſe than the Diſeaſe, will diſlike Inde⯑pendency.

When the Czar of Ruſſia was hemmed in by the Turkiſh Army, and Charles preſſed the Grand Vizir to avail himſelf of his Diſtreſs, and deprive him of his Empire, the Vizir fooliſhly aſked, And who then ſhall be Em⯑peror of Ruſſia? Before our preſent Con⯑nections are given up, it is poſſible there may be ſome Men in every Province weak enough to look about and aſk, Who ſhall be our Go⯑vernors? [42] As the Author is entirely for Elec⯑tive Governments, he cannot think ſuch a Queſtion unreaſonable; to exchange even a bad Thing for another as bad, cannot quit coſt. If our Government is not Democrati⯑cal, upon the Plan of the Author, it will be good for nothing; and if it be Democratical, poſſibly we may meet with ſome Troubles in Elections; and to eaſe the People of the Trouble of demoliſhing the Crown, perhaps ſome one may ariſe and take away that Trou⯑ble, and then rule with a heavy Hand. What has happened may happen again. If I am not greatly miſtaken, ſome of the leading Men in ſome Provinces ^* already ſat, and voted in a Provincial Congreſs without being choſen by the People.

When the News arrives in Foreign Courts, how will it be received? The Corſicans, in our Days, offered to ſubmit to any one that would eaſe them from the truly intolerable Yoke of the Genoeſe, but without Effect. They declared themſelves independent, fought bravely for forty Years, and are now a deſpi⯑cable Province to France. In the Corſican Civil Wars divers Nations interfered, but none but the Engliſh openly countenanced their Cauſe, and the Engliſh no longer, or further, than ſuited their own Convenience; and their Hiſtory and Fate too plainly ſhew, how little Reaſon a diſcontented or oppreſſed People [43] may have to depend on Foreign Aſſiſtance and Favour.

What may be the Iſſue of the Conteſt none can tell. "The Events of War," ſaith Com⯑mon Senſe, "are uncertain;" but we may ex⯑pect it will be long. Holland ſtruggled about Seventy, and Switzerland Three Hundred Years, before they were univerſally acknow⯑ledged Free States, but then they had not a Force ſufficient to repel all the World, though England, inſtead of being againſt them, did Holland conſiderable Service by deſtroying the Spaniſh Armada.

If America proceeds upon the Author's Plan, and declares againſt all Reconciliation and Con⯑nections with Great Britain, what muſt fol⯑low is obvious. She will either fight till ſhe brings America to her Terms, or America muſt fight till ſhe brings Great Britain to her's. Perhaps neither the one nor the other is impoſſible; but how much Time and Trea⯑ſure, and how many Lives it may coſt, none can tell. In ſhort, our Differences muſt end either in the Overthrow of the one or the other, or muſt be made up by Treaty at laſt. The Event may be dubious, but there can be no Doubt that Twenty Years Quietneſs, (were it only a Ceſſation of Arms,) would add Three Millions to the Inhabitants of Britiſh Ame⯑rica; and whoſoever carries on determined and juſt Meaſures with the leaſt Riſk, and greateſt Prudence, bids fairer to enſure Suc⯑ceſs, than thoſe who precipitately hurry on [44] Matters to a Criſis. If Time could be gained for the moſt violent in Great Britain, &c. to cool, it would do more towards healing our Difference, than either Force or Reaſon has done hitherto; but, as Mr. Burke, in his Speech, moſt juſtly obſerves, "In Civil Wars great Difficulties always attend moderate Men, who adviſe to lenient Meaſures; their Modera⯑tion is attributed to Want of Zeal, and their Fears for the Publick Safety to a Want of Spi⯑rit." Againſt all ſuch, Men who have Ends to anſwer, and Views to ſerve, raiſe a for⯑midable Outcry, but the Tumult ſoon ſub⯑ſides. Time will, in the long-run, prove a Friend to Reaſon, place every Man's Views, Character, and Actions, in a true Light, and fix everlaſting Diſgrace upon all ſuch as art⯑fully would have built their Greatneſs on their Country's Ruin; and he that is higher than the Higheſt, will finally render unto every Man, whether King or Subject, as his Works have been, whether they have been good or bad. Six Things he is ſaid to hate, and the Seventh is even an Abomination to him, "It is he that ſoweth Diſcord among Brethren."