unhired to appear in fuch a quarrel. We muft, therefore, look for their employers among thofe who, having power in their hands, used it not for the protection of the lives of the ftamp-masters and to them we must afcribe those tumults, whofe declared aim was to difgrace, as much as was in their power, the British legislature.

It is true, that I fet forth before my countrymen, the notorious vices of the Americans, chiefly that they might not be deemed worthy of a place in our auguft fenate. And Mr. N. N. would deprive me of the effect of this juftification, by alledging that the Americans defire no fuch feats. But it is well known, that their defenders hinged their defence upon an affirmation, that the Americans defire a reprefentation among us; and if fo reprefented, would not decline bearing a fhare of the taxes laid on by a legiflature in which they were reprefented. Against this defence I wrote, and, as a difputant in that caufe, had a right to oppofe falfhood with truth, expofe the futility of the demand, and warn my countrymen of the danger of complying with fo ignominious a request. The patrons of America alfo prefumed to paint the American morals in a light fuperior to ours. And Mr. N. N.'s zeal for America has led him into the fame blunder. Muft we filent and calmly hear America extolled in this unreasonable manner? Do we not know, that Glafgow may be confidered as the capital of Virginia? That New England is indebted to the Scotch kirk for her confeffion of faith; and that Pennfilvania, New York, and the Jerseys are fo full of foreigners, that in many places an English tongue cannot be understood? Why fhould I be filent on those matters, and why fhould I hide from the eye of the public any truth which the public is interested in? Have the Americans alone a patent for praifing themselves, and defpifing other British fubjects? Or VOL. II. K

if

if the patrons of America attempt to raise the Americans above the level of their fellow fubjects, why may not I, in compliance with truth, reftore them to that inferior rank which they are only entitled to? Will Mr. N. N. contradict any fact I have set forth. He is fenfible that he cannot.

In fine, Sir, truth and justice require that the North Americans fhould be fpoke of as they deserve, while their defenders applaud them as if they were faints, and thofe that fet themfelves up above parliamentary authority, must be made fenfible of the extenfive power of that auguft affembly, which is limited only by the neceffities of the ftate, and the abilities of the fubjects. VINDEX PATRIÆ.

WHAT a noise have we had of late about American legislation, American freeholders, and the privileges of those freeholders? But is there any legiflation in America? Are there any freeholders there? No man, who knows any thing of the law of England, will affert, that there is any legislation in America, or one freeholder in that part of the world. The King has no power of legislation, and he cannot, by his charters, convey to any class of his fubjects a power not refident in the crown. The parliament, including his Majefty, as the head thereof, has a power of legiflation, but they poffels that power unalienably.

The power of legiflation is not a chattel to be difpofed of by grant or other fort of conveyance. It is a truft granted by the common law for the good of the community, and for their good must remain with the auguft body in which it refides. The power of making bye-laws, for the utility of fubordinate bodies politic, is a quite different affair. That power is often created by the parliament, which has effentially, in itself, all the powers of government. But charters from the crown, not confirmed

in parliament, can convey no jurifdiction whatever, because the King is not the fountain of law, as he is of honour.

All our Courts from thofe in Westminster-hall to thofe in manors, are founded on the custom of England time out of mind, or upon the law of the land; that is, ftatutes made in parliament. The parliament only can create new courts and new jurifdictions. But as the King muft govern by the law, he cannot make that law upon which his authority refts, nor by his charters convey to others a power which he enjoys not.

Every foot of ground in England lies in fome manor, which is itfelf the creature of custom time out of mind. Thefe manners antiently poffeffed all jurifdiction, civil and criminal, and this jurifdiction was exerted in the Court of Freeholders, in which the Lord, or his Steward, was the Judge, the freeholders ferving as Jurors by virtue of their freeholds. Thus, Sir, you fee that our freeholders are, by virtue of their freeholds, poffeffed of a radical judicative authority in manors, which they are entitled to by the common law, and poffefs their eftates by the fame tenure, by which his Majefty holds his crown. They are indebted to no Prince for this eftate and judicative authority thereto appendant. Their title to their lands is a title of independence, and in every refpect equal to the royal title by which the crown is held.

And as thefe freehold eftates, are of a very particular nature with refpect to their origin, fo they are conveyed in a very particular manner. They cannot be taken by a writ of fieri facias. And if they are feized by a writ of elegit, one moiety only of the estate can be applied for payment of the debt and costs on which the judgment is founded, the other moiety muft remain with the freeholder for his fupport and maintenance. The freehold defcends

K 2

1

fcends to the heir discharged of all debts, not ipecialities.

Now we have feen what an English freehold is. Are there any fuch eftates in America? I am certain there are not. There can be no manors in that part of the world, for we can fhew the origin of their tenures. Their properties, pretended legislative authority, and the exiftence of what they call freeholds, can be traced from prerogative. Are our freeholds owing to human beneficence? No: We can name feveral Princes who have oppreffed us; but the Americans can point out none who ever conferred upon us our estates, or any privileges whatever. Is there an eftate in America which may not be taken by the fame writ that takes in execution a Negro or a Horfe? The whole courfe of Chancery proves that their eftates are only commercial chattles, fubject to the difpofition of the laft will of the owner, and chargeable with all the debts of the deceafed proprietor. And left any doubt should arise about the propriety of these decrees in equity, equalizing a foreign plantation to a perfonal eftate, there was a ftatute made in the fifth year of the preceding reign declarative of the common law in this refpect, and ftatuting that foreign plantations fhould only be regarded in the light of perfonal eftates. After that law, what man in his right fenfes can dignify thofe eftates with the name of freeholds?

The American's eftates, Sir, are deftitute of the principle characteristic of a freehold. They are derived from royal grants for the improvement of commerce. The pretended American freeholders are not original members of any Court, by virtue of their freeholds. They have no manors, nor manor courts in America, and confequently no courts to which the pretended American freeholders repair, by virtue of their free holds, and

in confequence of a title paramount to all human laws. Why then fhould they pretend to equalize their fuppofed freeholders with ours. An abfolute ignorance of law and common-fenfe could only give birth to fuch injudicious conduct. Our freeholders have a fhare in the legiflation; because by customs as antient as thofe that establish government, they are entitled to rule in a certain diftrict of the kingdom. Can the Americans boaft of the existence of any fuch customs among them, or of eftates and judicative authority derived out of these customs? Why then fhould they pretend to be freeholders, and as fuch only fubject to a legislation of their own election.

The Americans will, perhaps, reply, that they serve on Juries when called by the King's writ into the fupreme Courts of their refpective provinces. But this happens not as with us by the excellency of tenures, whofe origin is unknown, but is owing to the grace of those Princes who, without the authority of law granted them that conftitution. Are tenures flowing from a Prince equal to tenures held independent of the crown?-furely not. The Americans have no rights but from royal grants; and of confequence thofe rights must not be extended beyond their natural meaning, or interpreted to the prejudice of those who, by an inherent right, independent of the crown, govern the whole kingdom. The privileges of perfons claiming under fo high a tenure, cannot be impaired by deeds from the crown, and confequently the government of our parliament must reach over all the English dominions, as if no fuch grants had been made, and no eftates derived out of them. VINDEX PATRIÆ,

MANY ingenious pens have been employed

in behalf of the colonies, and their caufe has thereby received all the advantages which the

K 3

force