of members so much greater, as they are larger tha Cornish boroughs, and more populous than Hunting donshire. Thus we shall have an army of parliamen men, who, like the Polish nobility at their dicts, wil not be able to hear one another speak, and will be mor ready to draw the sword, than to make laws. And i such a Parliament is to be chosen every year, as you in." timate it should, the nation will spend half her time in raising armies of pot-boilers, to raise another army of law-givers.

From these, and many such inconveniences, it appears, Sir, that your scheme of equal representation is absurd and impossible; and that, before you can bring it to bear, you must first get all Britons to be equally wise, rich, noble, learned, experienced, and diligent. Secondly, You must take all of one age and sex: And Thirdly, You must contrive to make them all live in the same place, and at the same time. If you consider the difficulty of such a task, I flatter myself, Sir, that you will be less ready to find fault with the Constitution, and to make the injudicious wish for a revolution productive of equal representation, that is, of an absolute impossibility. Much less will you persuade injudicious patriots, that the King and the majority in Parliament "commit robbery," and "stab our vitals," when they tax the Colonists, as they do two out of three of their subjects in England, that is, without a direct representation.

You try, indeed, to obviate this difficulty, by intimating that the vast body of free-born Englishmen, who have no right to choose their representatives, or who, through absence, cannot exercise their right, may 66 consent to the disposal of their property, because they have always this security, that those who take an active part in the disposal of their property, must, at the same time, dispose of an equal proportion of their own." Whereas, "the American can have no voice in the disposal of his property; and what is worse, those who are to have the power of disposing of it, are under every

possible temptation to abuse that power, because every shilling they take out of the pocket of an American, is so much saved in their own."

66

As this is your capital argument, I shall give it a full answer.-(1.) It is improbable that our law-givers would save a dirty shilling in their pockets, by oppressively taking one out of an American's pocket. If I am rightly informed, they are so far from abusing their power in this respect, that when they take sixpence for the use of Government out of an American's pocket, they take sixteen shillings out of their own.n.—(2.) Our excellent Constitution obviates your ungenerous suspicion, by ordering, that the legislators, who compose the lower house of parliament, shall all be men of fortune, raised by their circumstances above the felonious trick you speak of.-(3.) You mistake, when you say that "the American can have no voice in the disposal of his property;" for as many of the Colonists as choose to purchase a freehold in England, may become electors; and as many as have a sufficient fortune, may become candidates at the next election. You speak yourself of your late American candidate, who was a friend to America." If I mistake not, we have American members in the house; and the papers inform us that Sayer, Esq., who is a native of Boston, claims a seat in the parliament; and, if he obtain it, he will not only represent his borough, but also in connection with his fellow-members, he will represent the Commonalty of all the British empire. Hence it is, that the minority in parliament, though they are not the special representatives of the Colonists, plead their cause so warmly, even against the privileges of the electors whom they particularly represent.-(4.) Supposing these American members have no estates beyond the Atlantic; are there not several members in both houses of parliament, who have a large--a very large property in America; and who, when they tax the Colonists, take far more money out of their own pockets, than they probably do out of the pockets of Messrs. Adams and Hancock ?-(5.) If

than the rule of proportion allows, should they i have humbly requested the parliament, that, before th were taxed at all, their jealousies might be removed 1 an act drawn up in such a manner as to set bounds their taxes, in proportion to the bounds which are set their commercial privileges? And would not our lav givers have granted them so reasonable a request? Bu to rise absolutely against all taxation by act of parlia ment, merely because it is taxation by the legislativ power of Great Britain; to destroy the property of ou fellow-subjects, by raising riotous mobs against them and to take up arms against the Sovereign to defenc such proceedings, argues, in my judgment, a temper which you may call patriotism, but looks too much like the sin forbidden in Rom. xiii. 2.-Lastly, If pleading that our superiors may abuse their power over us, were a sufficient reason to shake off the yoke of lawful authority; all apprentices (though ever so well used) might directly emancipate themselves; for they might adopt your argument, and say, My master, indeed, uses me well; but "he is under every possible temptation to starve me;" since every meal which he will save, in denying me proper food, will be a meal saved for himseif or his own children; and therefore I will cut and carve for myself, or I will acknowledge him as a master no

more.

I shall be less prolix in my answer to the rest of your arguments. You appeal to the Irish, who are taxed by their own Parliament:* But their case is very different from that of the Colonists; for Ireland was annexed to the dominions of the King of England, not as a colony or a kingdom naturally and originally subjected to England, but as a sister-kingdom; and, as such, she has enjoyed the supreme power of making her own laws, and (in part) of coining her own money. This was the case with Scotland also; and therefore the Scots were allowed to send a number of representatives to both houses of parliament, when the two kingdoms were

N. B.-This was written in the latter end of the year 1775, or in the beginning of the year 1776.

united into one. Not so the Colonies. They never were on a level with England; they never had supreme dominion; they were always the subjects of the King and parliament of England, who granted them the territories they enjoy; and therefore, for them to demand, in opposition to their charters, rights superior to those of the Britons, who settle abroad under the protection of Great Britain; and for them to claim the prerogatives of sister-kingdoms, is as great a stretch of lawless liberty, as for chartered corporations in England, or for the English settled in Minorca, Jamaica, Gibraltar, Bengal, &c. to claim the prerogatives of supreme governments, and the privileges of the kingdoms which were joined by mutual agreement to the crown of England.

You likewise appeal to the Palatinate of Chester, whose inhabitants pleaded, " that the English Parliament had no right to tax them; that they had a Parliament of their own," &c. But, granting that the parliament of that Palatinate was once as independent on the English parliament as the Palatinate in Germany, can you, without absurdity, infer from thence, that the Colonists are so ? Permit me to make you sensible of the inconclusiveness of your argument, by bringing it to light, thus: "The Palatinate of Chester was formerly independent on the parliament of England: They could produce grants or charters to demonstrate, that they had a parliament of their own, and the prerogative of making their own laws; and therefore the Colonies, which have no such grants and charters ;—the Colonies which have always been subject to the English parliament;the Colonies, whose grants directly or indirectly mention subjection to the English parliament, shall not be subject to the English parliament." If Mr. W. had advanced such an argument as this, you might have as reasonably complained that he deals in childish quirks," as you now do without reason; for common sense dictates, that it is as absurd to conclude, that the peculiar privileges enjoyed by the Palatinate of Chester,

that the peculiar privileges of the House of Comm belong to every corporation in the kingdom.

2

To this refutation of your arguments, permit me add a remark upon your answer to Mr. W.'s most str. ing plea. You are sensible of the advantage which has over you, where he appeals to the express terms the charters granted to the Colonists. You know, th honest men dare not go from their bargain; and that charter is nothing but a solemn bargain committed writing, whereby the Sovereign makes such and suc grants to such subjects, upon such and such terms And you know, that if the subjects accept the grants they agree to the terms on which these grants are made Mr. W. says, "Remember your last charter, that o Pennsylvania, says, in express terms, you are liable t taxation."-Here, Sir, you seem embarrassed; and, tr get off as well as you can, you tell us that the clause of the charter which Mr. W. appeals to," was never under. stood to mean a power of internal taxation for the purpose of raising a revenue; but merely the laying on of such duties, as might be necessary solely for the regulation of trade." But your mistake was lately demonstrated before the House of Lords, by the testimony of Governor Penn. Lord Denbigh asked him at the bar of the house, If he was well acquainted with the charter of Pennsylvania? He replied, "that he had read the charter, and was well acquainted with the contents." Lord Denbigh asked, "If he did not know there was a clause which specifically subjected the Colony to taxation by the British legislature ?" and he answered, “He was well apprised there was such a clause." Now, Sir, as you are so evidently mistaken in your account of the charter of Pennsylvania; you will permit me to think, that you give us as fabulous an account of the charter of Massachusett's Bay, when you say, you are credibly informed, that the exemption from taxes for seven years, which was granted to the Colonists of that province, "had no reference to what we commonly mean by taxes, but to" something, which you call quit-rents."-An

66