Some Observations on Liberty 1. It was with great expectation that I read Dr. Price's "Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Government, and the Justice and Policy of the War with America; " and I was not disappointed. As the author is a person of uncommon abilities, so he has exerted them to the uttermost in the tract before us, which is certainly a master-piece of its kind. He has said all that can be said upon the subject, and has digested it in the most accurate manner; and candour requires us to believe that he has wrote with an upright intention, with a real design to subserve the interest of mankind in general, as well as the subjects of the British empire. But as the Doctor is a friend to liberty, so he can "think and let think." He does not desire that we should implicitly submit to the judgment, either of him or any other fallible man; and will not therefore be displeased at a few further observations on the same subject. That subject is, 2. The liberty which is now claimed by the confederate colonies in America. In order to understand this much controverted question, I would set aside everything not essential to it. I do not therefore now inquire, whether this or that measure be consistent with good policy; or, whether it is likely to be attended with good or ill success: I only want to know, is their claim right or wrong? Is it just or unjust? 3. What is it they claim? You answer, "Liberty." Nay, is it not independency? You reply: "That is all one; they do claim it, and they have a right to it." To independency? That is the very question. To liberty they have an undoubted right; and they enjoy that right. (I mean, they did, till the late unhappy commotions.) They enjoyed their liberty in as full a manner as I do, or any reasonable man can desire. "What kind of liberty do they enjoy?" Here you puzzle the cause, by talking of physical and moral liberty.

"What kind of liberty do they enjoy?" Here you puzzle the cause, by talking of physical and moral liberty. What you speak of both is exactly true, and beautifully expressed: But both physical and moral liberty are beside the present question; and the introducing them can answer no other end than to bewilder and confuse the reader. Therefore, to beg the reader "to keep these in his view," is only begging him to look off the point in hand. You desire him, in order to understand this, to attend to something else! "Nay, I beg him to look straight forward; to mind this one thing; to fix his eye on that liberty, and that only, which is concerned in the present question: And all the liberty to which this question relates, is either religious or civil liberty." 4. "Religious liberty is, a liberty to choose our own religion; to worship God according to our own conscience. Every man living, as a man, has a right to this, as he is a rational creature. The Creator gave him this right when he endowed him with understanding; and every man must judge for himself, because every man must give an account of himself to God. Consequently, this is an unalienable right; it is inseparable from humanity; and God did never give authority to any man, or number of men, to deprive any child of man thereof, under any colour or pretence whatever." Now, who can deny that the colonies enjoy this liberty to the fulness of their wishes 2 5. Civil liberty is a liberty to dispose of our lives, persons, and fortunes, according to our own choice, and the laws of our country. I add, according to the laws of our country: For, although, if we violate these, we are liable to fines, imprisonment, or death; yet if, in other cases, we enjoy our life, liberty, and goods, undisturbed, we are free, to all reasonable intents and purposes. Now, all this liberty the confederate colonies did enjoy, till part of them enslaved the rest of their countrymen; and all the loyal colonies do enjoy it at the present hour. None takes away their lives, or freedom, or goods; they enjoy them all quiet and undisturbed. "But the King and Parliament can take them all away." But they do not; and, till it is done, they are freemen.

"But the King and Parliament can take them all away." But they do not; and, till it is done, they are freemen. The supreme power of my country can take away either my religious or civil liberty; but, till they do, I am free in both respects: I am free now, whatever I may be by and by. Will any man face me down, I have no money now, because it may be taken from me to-morrow? 6. But the truth is, what they claim is not liberty; it is independency. They claim to be independent of England; no longer to own the English supremacy. A while ago, they vehemently denied this; for matters were not then ripe: And I was severely censured for supposing they intended any such thing. But now the mask is thrown off: They frankly avow it; and Englishmen applaud them for so doing ! Nay, you will prove, that not only the colonies, but all See a tract, entitled, "Thoughts upon Liberty." mankind, have a right to it; yea, that independency is of the very essence of liberty; and that all who are not independent are slaves. Nay, if all who are not independent are slaves, then there is no free nation in Europe; then all in every nation are slaves, except the supreme powers. All in France, for instance, except the King; all in Holland, except the Senate; yea, and these too; King and Senate both are slaves, if (as you say) they are dependent upon the people. So, if the people depend on their governors, and their governors on them, they are all slaves together. Mere play with words. This is not what all the world means by liberty and slavery; therefore, to say, "If the Parliament taxes you without your consent, you are a slave," is mere quibbling. Whoever talks thus, should say honestly, "Reader, I give you warning, I affix a new sense, not the common one, to these words, liberty and slavery." Take the words in this sense, and you may prove there are slaves enough in England, as well as America; but if we take them in the old, common sense, both the Americans and we are free men. 7.

7. But you say, "The Parliament has already deprived them of one great branch of liberty, by enacting, that, in the cases there specified, they shall be tried in England." I answer, How grievously did they abuse that liberty before it was taken away ! Let any fair man consider the case: How often have we heard of their quiet and peaceable submission to pay the duties by law established ! And what a merit has been made of this by all their advocates! But it was a merit that never belonged to them; for the duties were not paid. All this time they did not, in fact, pay one half, no, not a quarter, of those duties. They continually defrauded the King of the far greater part of them, without shame or fear. Indeed, what should they fear? They did not deign to do it privately, like their fellows in England; no, they acted openly in the face of the sun. Ship-loads of tea, for instance, were brought into Boston harbour, and landed at noon-day, without paying any duty at all. Who should hinder it? If a custom-house officer hindered, was it not at the peril of his life? And if, at any time, a seizure was made, and the cause came to be tried by a Boston jury, what would follow It was no more than, "Ask your fellow, whether you are a thief." 8. Permit me to mention one eminent instance: The famous Mr. John Hancock, some time since, brought into Boston a ship-load of smuggled tea, at noon-day. Just then came in the ships from London, laden with the same com modity, which, by the removal of the former tax, they were now enabled to sell cheaper than him. What could he now do pro patria 2 as Mr. Evans says; in plain English, not to lose by his cargo? All Europe knows what was done: "Some persons in disguise," Dr. Price tells us, "buried the English tea in the sea." It was not so commonly known who employed them, or paid them for their labour: To be sure, good Mr. Hancock knew no more of it than the child unborn 9. Now, I desire to know of any reasonable man, what could the English Government do? No officer could seize the smuggled goods; or, if he did, no jury would condemn the smuggler.

No officer could seize the smuggled goods; or, if he did, no jury would condemn the smuggler. There was therefore no possibility that the King should have his right, without taking some such step as was taken. There was not any alternative, but either to give up the customs altogether, (as the evil was increasing more and more,) or to try the offenders here; so that still they had as much liberty as their notorious offences allowed. With what justice, then, can this be urged as a violation of their liberty "O!" cries the man in yon stone doublet, "Bondage 1 slavery ! Help, Englishmen? I am deprived of my liberty!" Certainly you are; but first you deprived the man of his purse. "What I Do you compare Mr. H. to a felon?" I do, in this respect: I compare every smuggler to a felon; a private smuggler to a sneaking felon, a pick-pocket; a noon-day smuggler, to a bold felon, a robber on the highway. And if a person of this undeniable character is made President of a Congress, I leave every man of sense to determine what is to be expected from them. 10. To return: As the colonies are free, with regard to their persons, so they are with regard to their goods. It is no objection that they pay out of them a tax, to which they did not previously consent. I am free; I use my money as I please, although I pay taxes out of it, which were fixed by law before I was born, and, consequently, without my consent; and indeed those taxes are so moderate, that neither they nor I have reason to complain. "But if the Parliament tax you moderately now, it is Possible they may, hereafter, tax you immoderately." It is possible, but not probable; they never have done it yet: When they do, then complain. We are not talking of what may be, but what is; and it cannot be denied, they are free (which is the present question) in all the three particulars which Judge Blackstone includes in civil liberty. 11. But liberty will not content either them or you. You now openly plead for independency, and aver that the colonies ought to be independent on England, to assert their own supremacy, (1.) Because they are half as many as the Fnglish.

You now openly plead for independency, and aver that the colonies ought to be independent on England, to assert their own supremacy, (1.) Because they are half as many as the Fnglish. (2.) Because in a century they will be twice as many. The argument runs thus: If the Americans are half as many as the English, then they have a right to be independ ent. But they are half as many; therefore, they have a right to be independent. I deny the consequence in the first proposition: Number does not prove a right to independency. I deny the second proposition too: They are not half as many; even though you swell the number of the Americans as much as you diminish the number of the English. I have been surprised lately, to observe many taking so much pains to extenuate the numbers of the inhabitants of England. For what end is this done? Is it to make us more respectable to our neighbours? or merely to weaken the hands of the King and ministry? I say the King and the ministry; for I lay no stress on their pompous professions of love and loyalty to the King: Just such professions did their predecessors make to King Charles, till they brought him to the block. 12. "But are they not half as many? Do not the confederated provinces contain three millions of souls?" I believe not. I believe they contain about two millions. But, allowing they did, I make no doubt but the English (beside three millions of Scots and Irish) are ten millions at this day. "How can that be, when there are only six hundred thousand in London?" Believe it who can, I cannot believe there are so few as fifteen hundred thousand in London and its environs, allowing only two miles every way from the walls of the city. "But we know there were no more than six hundred thousand, when the computation was made in the late reign; allowing that there were, at an average, five in each house." They who make this allowance, probably fix their computa tion at their own fire-side. They do not walk through every tart of the town, up to the garrets, and down to the cellars.

They do not walk through every tart of the town, up to the garrets, and down to the cellars. I do; and by what I have seen with my own eyes, frequently fifteen, eighteen, or twenty in one house, I cannot believe there are fewer, at an average, than ten under one roof; and the same I believe of Bristol, Birmingham, Sheffield, and most other trading towns. Besides, how many thousand houses have been added to London within these thirty or forty years? 13. "But the people of England are continually decreas ing." So it has been confidently affirmed; but it is a total mistake. I know the contrary, having an opportunity of seeing ten times more of England, every year, than most men in the nation. All our manufacturing towns, as Birmingham, Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool, increase daily. So do very many villages all over the kingdom, even in the mountains of Derbyshire. And, in the mean time, exceeding few, either towns or villages, decrease. And it is no wonder the people should increase, considering the amazing increase of trade which has been lately, not in London only, but much more in Bristol, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester, and indeed all parts of the kingdom, which I have had the opportunity of observing. There was a considerable decay of trade before; but the tide is turned, and it now pours in abundantly. So greatly were our American friends mistaken, who hoped, by shutting up their ports, to ruin most of the manufacturers in England, and so starve us into compliance with their demands. "However, in a century, the Americans will be twice as many as the English." That admits of a doubt; but when they are, then let them avail themselves of it. 14. "Nay, not only the Americans, but all men, have a right to be self-governed and independent." You mean, they had a right thereto, before any civil societies were formed. But when was that time, when no civil societies were formed? I doubt hardly since the flood; and, wherever such societies exist, no man is independent. Whoever is born in any civilized country, is, so long as he continues therein, whether he chooses it or no, subject to the laws and to the supreme governors of that country.

Whoever is born in any civilized country, is, so long as he continues therein, whether he chooses it or no, subject to the laws and to the supreme governors of that country. Whoever is born in England, France, or Holland, is subject to their respective Governors; and "must needs be subject to the power, as to the ordinance of God, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake." He has no right at all to be independent, or governed only by himself; but is in duty bound to be governed by the powers that be, according to the laws of the country. And he that is thus governed, not by himself, but the laws, is, in the general sense of mankind, a free man; not that there ever existed any original compact between them and those Governors. But the want of this does not make him a slave, nor is any impeachment to his liberty; and yet this free man is, by virtue of those laws, liable to be deprived, in some cases of his goods; in others, of his personal freedom, or even of his life. And all this time he enjoys such a measure of liberty, as the condition of civilized nations allows; but no independency: That chimera is not found; no, not in the wilds of Africa or America. Although, therefore, these subtle metaphysical pleas for universal independency appear beautiful in speculation, yet it never was, neither can be, reduced to practice. It is in vain to attempt it: Sensus moresque repugnant, Atque ipsa utilitas, justi prope mater et aqui. 15. Let us, however, give a fair hearing to these pleas, as they are urged by this masterly writer; and it may be worth while to trace the matter to the foundation, surveying it part by part: "Any will, distinct from that of the majority of a community, which claims a power of making laws for it, produces servitude. This lays the line between liberty and slavery." I must beg leave to stop you on the threshold. All this I totally deny; and require solid, rational proof of these assertions; for they are by no means self-evident. "From what has been said, it is obvious, that all civil government, as far as it is free, is the creature of the people. It originates with them; it is conducted by their direction.

It originates with them; it is conducted by their direction. In every free state, every man is his own legislator; all taxes are free gifts; all laws are established by common consent. If laws are not made by common consent, a Government by them is slavery." This quotation from Horace is thus translated by Boscawen : "Sense, morals, 'gainst such laws unite, And public good, true source of right."-ED1T. Here is a group of strong assertions. But how are they supported? "O ! they are inferred from what has been said." But what has been said, has as yet nothing to support it. If, then, these assertions stand at all, they stand by themselves. Let us try if they cau. "All civil govern ment, as far as it is free, is a creature of the people." It is, if we allow your definition of freedom; that is, if we allow you to beg the question. 16. But before we can move a step further, I must beg you to define another of your terms. This is the more necessary, as it occurs again and again; and indeed the whole question turns upon it. What do you mean by the people? "All the members of a state?" So you express it, page 8. "All the individuals that compose it?" So you speak in the next page. Will you rather say with Judge Blackstone, "Every free agent?" or with Montesquieu, "Every one that has a will of his own 7" Fix upon which of these definitions you please, and then we may proceed. If my argument has an odd appearance, yet let mone think I am in jest. I am in great earnest. So I have need to be; for I am pleading the cause of my King and country; yea, of every country under heaven, where there is any regular Government. I am pleading against those principles that naturally tend to anarchy and confusion; that directly tend to unhinge all government, and overturn it from the found ation. But they are principles which are incumbered with such difficulties as the wisest man living cannot remove. 17. This premised, I ask, Who are the people that have a right to make and unmake their Governors? Are they "all the members of a state?" So you affirmed but now.

Are they "all the members of a state?" So you affirmed but now. Are they "all the individuals that compose it?" So you said quickly after. Will you rather say, "The people are every free agent?" or, "Every one that has a will of his own?" Take which you will of these four definitions, and it necessa rily includes all men, women, and children. Now, stand to your word. Have all men, women, and children, in a state, a right to make and unmake their Governors? They are all free agents, except infants; and even these have a will of their own. They all are "members of the state;" they are, all and every one, "the individuals that compose it." And had ever the people, as above defined by yourself, a right to make and unmake their Governors? 18. Setting Mr. Evans's witticisms aside, I seriously desire him, or Doctor Price, or any zealous assertor of the king making right of our sovereign lords the people, to point out a single instance of their exerting this right in any age or nation. I except only the case of Thomas Aniello, (vulgarly called Massanello,) in the last century. Do not tell me, "There are many;" but point them out. I aver, I know of none. And I believe it will puzzle any one living to name a second instance, either in ancient or modern history. 19. And by what right, (setting the Scriptures aside, on which you do not choose to rest the point,) by what right do you exclude women, any more than men, from choosing their own Governors? Are they not free agents, as well as men? I ask a serious question, and demand a serious answer. Have they not "a will of their own?" Are they not "members of the state?" Are they not part of "the individuals that compose it?" With what consistency, them, can any who assert the people, in the above sense, to be the origin of power, deny them the right of choosing their Governors, and "giving their suffrages by their representatives?" "But do you desire or advise that they should do this?" Nay, I am out of the question. I do not ascribe these rights to the people; therefore, the difficulty affects not me; but, do you get over it how you can, without giving up your principle. 20.

20. I ask a second question: By what right do you exclude men who have not lived one-and-twenty years from that "unalienable privilege of human nature," choosing their own Governors? Is not a man a free agent, though he has lived only twenty years, and ten or eleven months? Can you deny, that men from eighteen to twenty-one are "members of the state?" Can any one doubt, whether they are a part of "the individuals that compose it?" Why then are not these permitted to "choose their Governors, and to give their suffrages by their representatives?" Let any who say these rights are inseparable from the people, get over this difficulty, if they can; not by breaking an insipid jest on the occasion, but by giving a plain, sober, rational answer. If it be said, "O, women and striplings have not wisdom enough to choose their own Governors;" I answer, Whether they have or no, both the one and the other have all the rights which are "inseparable from human nature." Either, therefore, this right is not inseparable from human nature, or both women and striplings are partakers of it. 21. I ask a third question: By what authority do you exclude a vast majority of adults from choosing their own Governors, and giving their votes by their representatives, merely because they have not such an income; because they have not forty shillings a year? What, if they have not? Have they not the rights which, you say, belong to man as man? And are they not included in the people? Have they not a will of their own 7 Are they not free agents? Who then can, with either justice or equity, debar them from the exercise of their natural rights? "O, but the laws of the land debar them from it." Did they make those laws themselves? Did they consent to them, either in person or by their representatives, before they were enacted? "No; they were enacted by their forefathers long before they were born." Then, what are they to them? You have assured us, that if men may give away their own liberty, they cannot give away the liberty of others, of their children or descendants. Nay, you have told us, that no man has a right to give away his own liberty; that it is unalienable from the nature of every child of man.

Nay, you have told us, that no man has a right to give away his own liberty; that it is unalienable from the nature of every child of man. Never, therefore, patronize those iniquitous laws. No; if you are a lover of liberty, an enemy to slavery and oppression, exhort them to shake off this servile yoke. 22. To set this whole matter in another light, I beg leave to repeat the sum of a small tract lately published. Have not the people, in every age and nation, the right to dispose of the supreme power; of investing therewith whom they please, and upon what conditions they see good? Conse quently, if those conditions are not observed, they have a right to take it away. To prove this, it is argued, "All men living are naturally equal; none is above another; and all are naturally free masters of their own actions; therefore, no man can have any power over another, but by his own consent; therefore, the power which any Governors enjoy, must be originally derived from the people, and presupposes an original compact between them and their first Governors." 23. But, who are the people? Are they every man, woman, and child? Why not? Is it not one fundamental Thoughts on the Origin of Power. principle, that "all persons living are naturally equal; that all human creatures are naturally free; masters of their own actions; that none can have any power over them, but by their own consent?" Why, then, should not every man, woman, and child, have a voice in placing their Governors, in fixing the measure of their power, and the conditions on which it is intrusted? And why should not every one have a voice in displacing them too? Surely they that gave the power have a right to take it away. By what argument do you prove, that women are not naturally as free as men? And if they are, why have they not as good a right to choose their Governors? Who can have any power over free, rational creatures, but by their own consent? And are they not free by nature as well as we? Are they not rational creatures? 24. But suppose we exclude women from using their natural right, by might overcoming right, what pretence have we for excluding men like ourselves, barely because they have not lived one-and-twenty years?

But suppose we exclude women from using their natural right, by might overcoming right, what pretence have we for excluding men like ourselves, barely because they have not lived one-and-twenty years? "Why, they have not wisdom or experience to judge of the qualifications neces sary for Governors." I answer, (1.) Who has? how many of the voters in Great Britain? one in twenty? one in an hundred? If you exclude all who have not this wisdom, you will leave few behind. But, (2.) Wisdom and experience are nothing to the purpose. You have put the matter upon another issue. Are they men? That is enough. Are they human creatures? Then they have a right to choose their own Governors; an indefeasible right; a right inherent, inseparable from human nature. "But in England they are excluded by law." Did they consent to the making of that law? If not, by your original supposition, it can have no power over them. I therefore utterly deny that we can, consistently with that supposition, exclude either women or minors from choosing their own Governors. 25. But, suppose we exclude these by main force; are all that remain, all men of full age, the people? Are all males, then, that have lived one-and-twenty years, allowed to choose their own Governors? Not in England, unless they are freeholders, and have forty shillings a year. Worse and worse! After depriving half the human species of their natural right for want of a beard; after having deprived myriads more for want of a stiff beard, for not having lived one-and-twenty years; you rob others, many hundred thou sands, of their birthright for want of money ! Yet not alto gether on this account neither; if so, it might be more tolerable. But here is an Englishman who has money enough to buy the estates of fifty freeholders, and yet he must not be numbered among the people, because he has not two or three acres of land How is this? By what right do you exclude a man from being one of the people, because he has not forty shillings a year; yea, or not a groat? Is he not a man, whether he be rich or poor? Has he not a soul and a body?

Has he not a soul and a body? Has he not the nature of a man; consequently, all the rights of a man, all that flow from human nature; and, among the rest, that of not being controlled by any but by his own consent? "But he that has not a freehold is excluded by law." By a law of his own making? Did he consent to the making of it? If he did not, what is that law to him ? No man, you aver, has any power over another, but by his own consent: Of consequence, a law made without his consent is, with regard to him, null and void. You cannot say other wise, without destroying the supposition, that "none can be governed but by his own consent." 26. See now to what your argument comes. You affirm, all power is derived from the people; and presently exclude one half of the people from having any part or lot in the matter. At another stroke, suppose England to contain eight millions of people, you exclude one or two millions more. At a third, suppose two millions left, you exclude three-fourths of these; and the poor pittance that remains, by I know not what figure of speech, you call the people of England ! 27. Hitherto we have endeavoured to view this point in the mere light of reason; and, even by this, it appears, that this supposition, which has been palmed upon us as undeniable, is not only false, not only contrary to reason, but contradictory to itself; the very men who are most positive that the people are the source of power, being brought into an inextricable difficulty, by that single question, "Who are the people?" reduced to a necessity of either giving up the point, or owning that by the people, they mean scarce a tenth part of them. 28. But we need not rest the matter entirely on reasoning. Let us appeal to matter of fact; and, because we cannot have so clear a prospect of what is at a distance, let us only take a view of what has been in our own country. I ask, then, When did the people of England (suppose you mean by that word only half a million of them) choose their own Governors? Did they choose (to go no further) William the Conqueror?

Did they choose (to go no further) William the Conqueror? Did they choose King Stephen or King John? As to those who regularly succeeded their fathers, the people are out of the question. Did they choose Henry the Fourth, Edward the Fourth, or Henry the Seventh? Who will be so hardy as to affirm it? Did the people of England, or but fifty thousand of them, choose Queen Mary, or Queen Elizabeth, or King James the First? Perhaps you will say, "If the people did not give King Charles the supreme power, at least they took it away." No; the people of England no more took away his power, than they cut off his head. "Yes; the Parliament did, and they are the people." No; the Parlia ment did not : The House of Commons is not the Parliament, any more than it is the nation. Neither were those who then sat the House of Commons; no, nor one quarter of them. But, suppose they had been the whole House of Commons, yea, or the whole Parliament, by what rule of logic will you prove that seven or eight hundred persons are the people of England? "Why, they are the delegates of the people; they are chosen by them." No, not by one half, not by a quarter, not by a tenth part of them: So that the people, in the only proper sense of the word, were innocent of the whole affair. 29. "But you will allow, the people gave the supreme power to King Charles the Second at the Restoration." I will allow no such thing, unless, by the people, you mean General Monk and ten thousand soldiers. "However, you will not deny that the people gave the power to King William at the Revolution." I will; the Convention were not the people, neither elected by them: So that still we have not a single instance, in above seven hundred years, of the people of England's conveying the supreme power either to one or more persons. 30. So much both for reason and matter of fact. But one single consideration will bring the question to a short issue.

But one single consideration will bring the question to a short issue. It is allowed, no man can dispose of another's life, but by his own consent: I add, No, nor with his consent; for no man has a right to dispose of his own life: The Creator of man has the sole right to take the life which he gave. Now, it is an indisputable truth, Nihil dat quod non habet,-"None gives what he has not." It follows, that no man can give to another a right which he never had himself; a right which only the Governor of the world has, even the wiser Heathens being judges; but which no man upon the face of the earth either has or can have. No man, therefore, can give the power of the sword, any such power as gives a right to take away life: Wherever it is, it must descend from God alone, the sole disposer of life and death. 31. The supposition, then, that the people are the origin of power, or that "all government is the creature of the people," though Mr. Locke himself should attempt to defend it, is utterly indefensible. It is absolutely overturned by the very principle on which it is supposed to stand, namely, that "a right of choosing his Governors belongs to every partaker of human nature." If this be so, then it belongs to every individual of the human species; consequently, not to freeholders alone, but to all men; not to men only, but to women also; not only to adult men and women, to those who have lived one-and-twenty years, but to those that have lived eighteen or twenty, as well as those who have lived threescore. But none did ever maintain this, nor probably ever will; therefore, this boasted principle falls to the ground, and the whole superstructure with it. So common sense brings us back to the grand truth, "There is no power but of God." 32. I may now venture to "pronounce, that the principles on which you have argued, are incompatible with practice," even the universal practice of mankind, as well as with sound reason; and it is no wonder "that they are not approved by our Governors," considering their natural tendency, which is, to unhinge all Government, and to plunge every nation into total anarchy.

I may now venture to "pronounce, that the principles on which you have argued, are incompatible with practice," even the universal practice of mankind, as well as with sound reason; and it is no wonder "that they are not approved by our Governors," considering their natural tendency, which is, to unhinge all Government, and to plunge every nation into total anarchy. This, in truth, is the tendency of the whole book; a few passages of which I shall now recite, begging leave to make a few remarks upon them. But I must ask the reader's pardon, if I frequently say the same thing more than once; for, otherwise, I could not follow the author. 33. "All the members of a state" (which necessarily include all the men, women, and children) "may intrust the powers of legislation with any number of delegates, subject to such restrictions as they think necessary." This is "incompatible with practice:" It never was done from the beginning of the world; it never can; it is flatly impossible in the nature of the thing. "And thus, all the individuals that compose a great state partake of the powers of legislation and government." All the individuals Mere Quixotism ! Where does that state exist? Not under the canopy of heaven. "In this case, a state is still free," (but this case has no being,) "if the representatives are chosen by the umbiassed voices of the majority." Hold ! this is quite another case; you now shuffle in a new term: The majority we were not talking of, but all the members of a state. The majority are not all the individuals that compose it; and pray, how came the minority to be deprived of those rights, which you say are "unalienable from human nature?" "But we disguise slavery, keeping up the form of liberty, when the reality is lost." It is not lost; I now enjoy all the real liberty I can desire, civil as well as religious. The liberty you talk of was never found; it never existed yet. But what does all this lead to, but to stir up all the inhabit ants of Great Britain against the Government? 34.

34. To inflame them still more, you go on: "Liberty is more or less complete, according as the people have more or less share in the Government." This is altogether contrary to matter of fact: The greater share the people have in the Government, the less liberty, either civil or religious, does the nation in general enjoy. Accordingly, there is most liberty of all, civil and religious, under a limited monarchy; there is usually less under an aristocracy, and least of all under a democracy. What sentences then are these: "To be guided by one's own will, is freedom; to be guided by the will of another, is slavery?" This is the very quintessence of republicanism; but it is a little too barefaced; for, if this is true, how free are all the devils in hell, seeing they are all guided by their own will ! And what slaves are all the angels in heaven, since they are all guided by the will of another ! See another stroke: "The people have power to model Government as they please." What an admirable lesson, to confirm the people in their loyalty to the Government ! Yet again: "Government is a trust, and all its powers a delega tion." It is a trust, but not from the people: "There is no power but of God." It is a delegation, namely, from God; for "rulers are God's ministers," or delegates. 35. How irreconcilable with this are your principles ! Concerning our Governors in England, you teach, "A Parlia ment forfeits its authority by accepting bribes." If it does, I doubt all the Parliaments in this century, having accepted them more or less, have thereby forfeited their authority, and, consequently, were no Parliaments at all : It follows, that the Acts which they enacted were no laws; and what a floodgate would this open You teach further: "If Parlia ments contradict their trust," (of which the people are to judge,) "they dissolve themselves." And certainly, a Parlia ment dissolved is no Parliament at all. And seeing "a state that submits to such a breach is enslaved," what should the people do? Knock them on the head, to be sure.

Knock them on the head, to be sure. And who can doubt, but they have an unalienable power so to do, seeing "Government was instituted for the people's sake, and theirs is the only real omnipotence." 36. And, lest your meaning should not yet be plain enough, you conclude this article thus: "These reflections should be constantly present to every mind in this country. There is nothing that requires to be more watched than power; there is nothing that ought to be opposed with a more determined resolution than its encroachments. The people of this king dom were once warmed with such sentiments as these." Exactly such, in the glorious days of Watt the Tyler, and of Oliver Cromwell. "Often have they fought and bled in the cause of liberty; but that time seems to be going." Glory be to God, it is not going, but gone. O may it never return ? "The fair inheritance of liberty, left us by our ancestors, we are not unwilling to resign." We are totally unwilling to resign either our civil or religious liberty; and both of these we enjoy in a far greater measure than ever our ancestors did. Nay, they did not enjoy either one or the other, from the time of William the Conqueror till the Revolution. "Should any events arise," (and you give very broad intimations that they have arisen already,) "which should render the same opposition necessary that took place in the time of King Charles the First," the same opposition which made the land a field of blood, set every man's sword against his brother, overturned the whole constitution, and cut off, first, the flower of the nation, and then the King himself,-"I am afraid all that is valuable to us would be lost : The terror of the standing army would deaden all zeal," for these noble exploits, "and produce a general servitude." 37. What a natural tendency has all this, to instil into the good people of England the most determined rancour and bitterness against their Governors, against the King and Parliament! And what a natural tendency has all that follows to instil the same both into the English and the Americans !

And what a natural tendency has all that follows to instil the same both into the English and the Americans ! On these passages also, I shall beg leave to subjoin a few short observations: "A country that is subject to the legislature of another country, in which it has no voice, and over which it has no control, is in slavery." This is palpably false. Take one instance out of many: Pennsylvania was subject (till now) to the legislature of England, in which it had no voice, and over which it had no control; yet it never was in slavery; it never wanted either civil or religious liberty; nay, perhaps it was more free in both respects than any other country in the universe. "In a country thus subjugated to another," (a very improper, as well as invidious word,) "there is little or nothing to check rapacity." If you mean the rapacity of the English Government, the insinuation is cruelly false; it never existed; no such rapacity was ever exercised. "And the most flagrant injustice and cruelty may be practised without remorse or pity." This is purely calculated to inflame; for no such injustice or cruelty was ever practised, nor was ever likely to be, either in this or any other province of America. That which follows is a curious sentiment indeed; I know not that ever I met with it before: "The government of one country over another" (suppose of England over North-America, or over the West Indian islands) "cannot be supported but by a military force. This is a state of oppression no country could submit to, an hour, without an armed force to compel them." Was ever anything more palpably false ! The English Govern ment, both in the islands and North-America, is the government of one country over another; but it has needed no armed force to support it for above these hundred years: And this Government which you would persuade them is oppressive, all the colonies did not only submit to, but rejoice in, without any armed force to compel them. They knew, and felt, they were not oppressed; but enjoyed all the liberty, civil and religious, which they could desire. 38.

38. We come now to more matter entirely new : "No country can lawfully surrender their liberty, by giving up the power of legislating for themselves, to any extraneous jurisdiction; such a cession, being inconsistent with the unalienable rights of human nature, would either not bind at all, or bind only the individuals that made it." This is a home thrust. If this be so, all the English claim either to Ireland, Scotland, or America, falls at once. But can we admit this without any proof? Ought assertions to pass for arguments? If they will, here are more of the same kind: "No one generation can give up this for another." That is, the English settlers in America could not "give up their power of legislating for themselves." True, they could not give up what they never had. But they never had, either before or after they left England, any such power of making laws for themselves as exempted them from the King and Parliament; they never pretended to any such power till now; they never advanced any such claim; nay, when this was laid to their charge, they vehemently denied it, as an absolute slander. But you go further still: "When this power" (of independency) "is lost, the people have always a right to resume it." Comfortable doctrine indeed! perfectly well calculated for the support of civil government! 39. To the same good end, you observe: "Without an equal representation of all that are governed, government becomes complete tyranny." Now, you had told us before, "There is not such an equal representation in England:" It follows, "The English Government is complete tyranny!" We have, however, the comfort to know that it never was any better since the Parliament subsisted. For who can say that there ever was an equal representation since the conquest?

For who can say that there ever was an equal representation since the conquest? We know further, that we have only neighbour's fare; for we cannot find there is any nation in Europe, no, nor in the habitable world, where the Govern ment is not as complete tyranny as our own; we find none wherein there is "an equal representation of all that are governed." But will any man affirm, in cool blood, that the English Government is "complete tyranny?" We have certainly enjoyed more complete liberty since the Revolution, than England ever enjoyed before; and the English Govern ment, unequal as the representation is, has been admired by all impartial foreigners. 40. "But the sword is now to determine our rights: Detested be the measures which have brought us to this." I once thought those measures had been originally concerted in our own kingdom; but I am now persuaded they were not. I allow that the Americans were strongly exhorted by letters from England, "never to yield or lay down their arms till they had their own terms, which the Government would be constrained to give them in a short time:" But those mea sures were concerted long before this; long before either the Tea Act or the Stamp Act existed; only they were not digested into form,-that was reserved for the good Congress. Forty years ago, when my brother was in Boston, it was the general language there, "We must shake off the yoke; we never shall be a free people till we shake off the English yoke." These, you see, were even then for "trying the question," just as you are now; "not by charters," but by what you call, "the general principles of liberty." And the late Acts of Parliament were not the cause of what they have since done, but barely the occasion they laid hold on. 41. But "a late Act declares that this kingdom has power to make statutes to bind the colonies in all cases whatever ! Dreadful power indeed! I defy any one to express slavery in stronger terms." In all cases whatever ! What is there peculiar in this? Certainly, in all cases, or in none. And has not every supreme Governor this power? This the English Parliament always had, and always exercised, from the first settlement of the American colonies.

This the English Parliament always had, and always exercised, from the first settlement of the American colonies. But it was not explicitly declared, because it was never controverted. The dreadfulness of it was never thought of for above an hundred years; nor is it easy to discern where that dreadfulness lies. Wherein does it consist? The Parliament has power to make statutes, which bind Englishmen likewise, in all cases what ever. And what then? Why, you say, "I defy any one to express slavery in stronger terms." I think I can "express slavery in stronger terms." Let the world judge between us. Slavery is a state wherein neither a man's goods, nor liberty, nor life, are at his own disposal. Such is the state of a thou sand, of ten thousand, Negroes in the American colonies. And are their masters in the same state with them? in just the same slavery with the Negroes? Have they no more disposal of their own goods, or liberty, or lives? Does any one beat or imprison them at pleasure; or take away their wives, or children, or lives; or sell them like cows or horses? This is slavery; and will you face us down that the Americans are in such slavery as this? You answer, Yes, with regard to their goods; for the English Parliament "leaves them. 110 opSERVATIONS ON LIBERTY. nothing that they can call their own." Amazing ! Have they not houses, and lands, and money, and goods of every kind, which they call their own? And did they not enjoy, a few years since, complete liberty, both civil and religious, instead of being bound to hard labour, smarting under the lash, groaning in a dungeon, perhaps murdered, or stabbed, or roasted alive, at their masters' pleasure? 42. But, "did not their charters promise them all the enjoyment of all the rights of Englishmen?" They did; and they have accordingly enjoyed all the rights of Englishmen from the beginning. "And allow them to tax themselves?" Never so as to exempt them from being taxed by Parliament. It is evident from the Acts of Parlia ment now in being, that this was never granted, and never claimed till now : On the contrary, the English Government has ever claimed the right of taxing them, even in virtue of those very charters.

It is evident from the Acts of Parlia ment now in being, that this was never granted, and never claimed till now : On the contrary, the English Government has ever claimed the right of taxing them, even in virtue of those very charters. But you ask, "Can there be an English man who would not sooner lose his heart's blood, than yield to such claims?" A decent question for a subject of England to ask Just of a piece with your assertions, that "our constitution is almost lost;" that the claims of the Crown have "stabbed our liberty;" and that "a free Government loses its nature, the moment it becomes liable to be commanded by any superior power." From the moment it Becomes liable / This is not the case with the colonies; they do not become liable to be commanded by the King and Parliament; they always were so, from their first institution. 43. "The fundamental principle of our Government is, the right of the people to grant their own money." No.; if you understand the word people, according to your own definition, for all the individuals that compose the state, this is not the fundamental principle of our Government, nor any principle of it at all. It is not the principle even of the Government of Holland, nor of any Government in Europe. "It was an attempt to encroach upon this right in a trifling instance, that produced the civil war in the reign of King Charles the First." Ono' it was the actual encroaching, not on this right only, but on the feligious as well as civil rights of the subject; and that, not in one trifling instance only, but in a thousand instances of the highest importance. "Therefore, this is a war undertaken, not only against our own constitution, but on purpose to destroy other similar constitutions in America, and to substitute in their room a military force." Is it possible that a man of sense should believe this? Did the King and Parliament undertake this war, on purpose to overturn a castle in the air, to destroy a constitution that never existed ?

Did the King and Parliament undertake this war, on purpose to overturn a castle in the air, to destroy a constitution that never existed ? Or is this said purely ad movendam invidiam, "to inflame the minds of the people?" I would rather impute it to the power of preju dice; as also the following wonderful sentence: "How horrid, to sheathe our swords in the bowels of our brethren, for no other end than to make them acknowledge our supremacy l'" Yes, for this end, to make them lay down their arms, which they have taken up against their lawful Sovereign; to make them restore what they have illegally and violently taken from their fellow-subjects; to make them repair the cruel wrongs they have done them, as far as the nature of the thing will aduit, and to make them allow to all that civil and religious liberty whereof they have at present deprived them. These are the ends for which our Government has very unwillingly undertaken this war, after having tried all the rmethods they could devise to secure them without violence. 44. Having considered the justice, you come now to consider the policy, of this war. "In the last reigns, the colonies, foregoing every advantage which they might derive from trading with foreign nations, consented to send only to us, whatever it was for our interest to receive from them; and to receive only from us, whatever it was for our interest to send them." They consented to do this / No ! they only pretended to do it; it was a mere copy of their countenance. They never did, in fact, abstain from trading with other nations, Holland and France in particular. They never did, at least for forty years past, conform to the Act of Navigation. They did not send only to us what we wanted, or receive only from us what they wanted. What I did they not "allow us to regulate their trade in any manner which we thought best?" No such thing. They only allowed us to make laws to regulate their trade. But they observed them as they thought best; sometimes a little, sometimes not at all.

But they observed them as they thought best; sometimes a little, sometimes not at all. "They fought our battles with us." Certainly we fought theirs: And we have sad reason to remember it; for had Canada remained in the hands of the French, they would have been quiet subjects still. 45. "But what calamities must follow" from this impolitic war ! See "the empire dismembered." If it be, that is not the consequence of the war, but rather the cause of it. "The blood of thousands shed" (it is not yet; perhaps it never may) "in an unrighteous quarrel." Doubtless unrigh teous on their part, who revolt from their lawful Sovereign; and therefore whatever blood is shed will lie at their door. "Our strength exhausted." No, not yet; as they that try may find to their cost. "Our merchants breaking." But far more before the war than since. "Our manufacturers starv ing." I pray, where? I cannot find them: Not in London, in Bristol, in Birmingham, in Manchester, in Liverpool, Leeds, or Sheffield; nor anywhere else, that I know; and I am well acquainted with most of the manufacturing towns in England. "The funds tottering." Then the stocks must sink very low: But that is not the case. "And the miseries of a public bankruptcy impending." Just as they have done these hundred years. Fifty years ago I used to be much alarmed at things of this kind. When I heard a doleful prophecy of ruin impending on the nation, I really imagined something would follow. Nay, nothing in the world: These predictions are mere brutum fulmen; thunder without lightning. 46. Now for a little more of this fine painting ! But, remember 1 it is not drawn from the life. "A nation once the protector of liberty in distant countries, endeavouring to reduce its own brethren to servitude." Say, to lay down the arms which they have taken up against their King and coun try. "Insisting upon such a supremacy over them as would leave them nothing they could call their own." Yes; the supremacy insisted on would leave them all the liberty, civil and religious, which they have had from their first settlement. You next compare them to the brave Corsicans, taking arms against the Genoese. But the Cor sicans were not colonies from Genoa: Therefore, there is nothing similar in the case.

But the Cor sicans were not colonies from Genoa: Therefore, there is nothing similar in the case. Neither in that you next quote, the case of Holland. You say, Yes: "The United Provinces of Holland were once subject to the Spaniards; but, being provoked by the violation of their charters, they were driven to that resistance which we and all the world have ever since admired." Provoked by the violation of their charters / yea, by the total subversion both of their religious and civil liberties; the taking away their goods, imprisoning their persons, and shedding their blood like water, without the least colour of right, yea, without the very form of law; inso much that the Spanish Governor, the Duke of Alva, made his open boast, that "in five years he had caused upwards of eighteen thousand persons to fall by the hands of the common hangman." I pray, what has this to do with America? Add to this that the Hollanders were not colonies from Spain, but an independent people, who had the same right to govern Spain, as the Spaniards to govern Holland. 47. As another parallel case, you bring the war of the Romans with the allied states of Italy. But neither is this case parallel at all; for those states were not colonies of Rome, (although some colonies were scattered up and down among them,) but original, independent states, before Rome itself had a being. Were it then true that "every Briton must approve the conduct of those allies," (page 91,) it would not follow, that they must approve the conduct of the Americans; or that "we ought to declare our applause, and say, We admire your spirit; it is the spirit that has more than once saved us." We cannot applaud the spirit of those who usurp an illegal authority over their countrymen; who rob them of their substance, who outrage their persons, who leave them neither civil nor religious liberty; and who, to crown all, take up arms against their King and mother-country, and prohibit all intercourse with them. 48.

48. See an argument of a different kind: "The laws and religion of France were established in Canada, on purpose to bring up thence an army of French Papists." What proof have you, what tittle or shadow of proof, for this strange assertion, that the laws and religion which they had before in Canada were established on purpose to bring an army thence? It is manifest to every impartial man, that this was done for a nobler purpose. Every nation, you allow, has a natural liberty to enjoy their own laws, and their own religions: So have the French in Canada; and we have no right to deprive them of this liberty. Our Parliament never desired, never intended, to deprive them of this; (so far were they from any intention of depriving their own countrymen of it!) and on purpose to deliver them from any apprehension of so grievous an evil, they generously and nobly gave them a legal security, that it should not be taken from them. And is this (one of the best things our Parliament ever did) improved into an accusation against them? "But our laws and religion are better than theirs." Unquestionably they are; but this gives us no right to impose the one or the other, even on a conquered nation. What if we had conquered France, ought we not still to have allowed them their own laws and religion? Yea, if the Russians had conquered Constantinople, or the whole Ottoman empire, ought they not to have allowed to all they conquered, both their own religion and their own laws; nay, and to have given them, not a precarious toleration, but a legal security for both? 49. "But the wild Indians, and their own slaves, have been instigated to attack them." I doubt the fact. What proof is there of this, either with regard to the Indians or the Negroes? "And attempts have been made to gain the assistance of a large body of Russians." Another hearty assertion, which many will swallow, without ever asking for proof: In truth, had any such attempts been made, they would not have proved ineffectual. Very small pay will induce a body of Russians to go wherever they hope for good plunder. It might just as well have been said, "Attempts were made to procure a large body of Tartars."

It might just as well have been said, "Attempts were made to procure a large body of Tartars." 50. Now for a little more encouragement to your good friends and allies in America: "The utmost force we can employ does not exceed thirty thousand men to conquer half a million of determined men, fighting for that sacred blessing of liberty, without which man is a beast, and government a curse." I am not sure that our utmost force is either thirty, or forty, or fifty, thousand men. But are you sure, that "half a million, at least, are determined to fight" against them? Yes: For "a quarter of the inhabitants of every country are fighting men; and the colonies consist of two millions." Here are several points which are not quite clear. I doubt, (1.) Whether those colonies contain two millions. I doubt, (2.) Whether a quarter of the inhabitants of any country are fighting men: We usually reckon a sixth part. I doubt, (3.) Whether a quarter of the American fighting men, are determined to fight in so bad a cause; to fight, not for liberty, which they have long enjoyed, but for independency. Will you affirm, that "without this, man is a beast, and government a curse?" Then, show me where man is not a beast, and where government is not a curse. 51. But you give them more encouragement still: "In the Netherlands, a few states thus circumstanced withstood the whole force of the Spanish monarchy; and, at last, emancipated themselves from its tyranny." (Ibid.) Thus circumstanced : No; they were in wholly different circumstances; they were cruelly and wantonly oppressed; they were robbed both of civil and religious liberty; they were slaughtered all the day long; and, during the contest, which was really for liberty, they were assisted by the German Princes, by England, and by France itself. But "what can thirty thousand men do, when they are to be fed from hence?" Do you think they will stand with their finger in their eye? If they cannot find food at land, (which would be strange,) the seas and rivers are open. "Their maritime towns they are resolved to burn themselves." They will think twice, before they execute that resolution. "As to their trade, the loss of it will do them unspeakable good." Will it indeed? Then let them acknowledge their benefactors.

Then let them acknowledge their benefactors. "They rejoice particularly in the last restraining Act: This will furnish them with a reason for confiscating the estates of all the friends of our Government among them." A reason / All the friends of our Government are infinitely obliged to you for suggesting this to them, who are full ready to improve any hint of the kind; and it will be no wonder if they soon use these enemies of their country as the Irish did the Protestants in 1641. 52. "One consideration more. From one end of America to the other, they are fasting and praying: But what are we doing? Ridiculing them as fanatics, and scoffing at religion." This certainly is the case with many; but God forbid it should be the case with all ! There are thousands in England (I believe full as many, if not many more than in America) who are daily wrestling with God in prayer for a blessing upon their King and country; and many join fasting therewith; which, if it were publicly enjoined, would be no scandal to our nation. Are they "animated by piety?" So are we; although "not unto us be the praise." "But can we declare, in the face of the sun, that we are not aggressors in this war?" We can. "And that we mean not, by it, to acquire dominion or empire, or to gratify resentment?" I humbly believe, both the King and his Ministers can declare this before God: "But solely to gain reparation for injury," from men who have already plundered very many of His Majesty's loyal subjects, and killed no small number of them. 53. You now proceed to answer objections; and mention, as the First, "Are they not our subjects?" You answer: "They are not your subjects; they are your fellow-subjects." Are they indeed? Do you affirm this? Then you give up the whole question; then their independency, which you have so vehemently maintained, falls to the ground at once. A Second objection, you say, is this: "But we are taxed; why should not they?" You answer: "You are taxed by yourselves; they insist on the same privilege." I reply, They are now taxed by themselves, in the very same sense that nine-tenths of us are.

A Second objection, you say, is this: "But we are taxed; why should not they?" You answer: "You are taxed by yourselves; they insist on the same privilege." I reply, They are now taxed by themselves, in the very same sense that nine-tenths of us are. We have not only no vote in the Parliament, but none in electing the members: Yet Mr. Evans says, "We are virtually represented:" And if we are, so are the Americans. You add: "They help you to pay your taxes, by giving you a monopoly of their trade." They consented, as you observed before, to do this; but they have not done it for many years: They have, in fact, traded to Holland, to France, to Spain, and everywhere they could. And how have they helped us, by purchasing our manufac tures? Take one instance out of a thousand: They have taken large quantities of our earthenware, for which they regularly required three years' credit. These they sold to the Spaniards, at a very advanced price, and for ready money only. And did they not hereby help themselves, at least, as much as they helped us? And what have we lost by losing their custom? We have gained forty, fifty, or sixty per cent. The Spaniards now come directly to Bristol; and pay down ready money, pieces of eight, for all the earthenware that can possibly be procured. 54. A Third objection, you say, is this: "They will not obey the Parliament and the laws." You answer: "Say, They will not obey your Parliament and your laws; because they have no voice in your Parliament, no share in making your laws." So, now the mask quite falls off again. A page or two ago, you said, "They are your fellow subjects." Now, you frankly declare, they owe no subjection to our Government, and attempt to prove it! To that proof I reply: Millions in England have no more voice in the Parliament than they ; yet that does not exempt them from subjection to the Government and the laws. But "they may have a voice in it if they will." No; they cannot, any more than the Americans. "Then they so far want liberty." I answer, (1.) Whether they do or no, they must needs be subject; and that not only for wrath, for fear of punishment, but for conscience sake.

"Then they so far want liberty." I answer, (1.) Whether they do or no, they must needs be subject; and that not only for wrath, for fear of punishment, but for conscience sake. (2.) They do not want liberty; they have all the liberty they can desire, civil as well as religious. "Nay, I have no other motion of slavery, but being bound by a law to which I do not consent." If you have not, look at that man chained to the oar: He is a slave; he cannot at all dispose of his own person. Look at that Negro sweating beneath his load: He is a slave; he has neither goods nor liberty left. Look at that wretch in the Inquisition: Then you will have a far other notion of slavery. 55. You next advance a wonderful argument to convince us that all the Americans are slaves: "All your freehold land is represented; but not a foot of theirs; "nay,' says an eminent man, "there is not a blade of grass in England but is represented.'" This much-admired and frequently-quoted assertion is altogether new ! I really thought, not the grass, or corn, or trees, but the men of England, were represented in Parliament. I cannot comprehend, that Parliament-men represent the grass, any more than the stones or clay of the kingdom. No blade of grass but is represented 1 Pretty words ! But what do they mean? Here is Mr. Burke; pray, what does he represent? "Why, the city of Bristol." What, the buildings so called; or the ground whereon they stand? Nay, the inhabitants of it: The ground, the houses, the stones, the grass, are not represented. Who till now ever entertained so wild a thought? But let them stand together, the independency of our colonies, and the repre sentation of every blade of grass 56. You conclude: "Peace may be obtained upon the easy, the constitutional, and therefore the indispensable, terms of an exemption from parliamentary taxation, and an admission of the sacredness of their charters." Are not you betraying your cause ? You have been all along pleading, in the most explicit manner, for their exemp tion, not only from parliamentary taxation, but legislation also.

You have been all along pleading, in the most explicit manner, for their exemp tion, not only from parliamentary taxation, but legislation also. And, if your arguments prove anything, they certainly prove this, that the colonies have an unalienable right, not only to tax, but to make laws for themselves; so that the allowing them the former is nothing, unless we allow the latter also; that is, in plain terms, unless we allow them to be independent on the English Government. As to your other term of peace, there is unquestionably such a thing as the forfeiting of a charter: Whether the colonies have forfeited theirs or not, I leave others to deter mine. Whether they have or have not, there can be no reason for making the least doubt but, upon their laying down their arms, the Government will still permit them to enjoy both their civil and religious liberty in as ample a manner as ever their ancestors did, and as the English do at this day. 57. I add a few words more: Two or three years ago, by means of incendiary papers, spread throughout the nation, the minds of the people were inflamed to an amazing degree; but the greater part of the flame is now gone out. The natural tendency, or rather the avowed design, of this pamphlet, is, to kindle it again; if it be possible, to blow up into a flame the sparks that yet remain; to make the minds of His Majesty's subjects, both at home and abroad, evil affected toward his Government; discontented in the midst of plenty, out of humour with God and man; to persuade them, in spite of all sense and reason, that they are absolute slaves, while they are actually possessed of the greatest civil and religious liberty that the condition of human life allows. Let all who are real lovers of their country use every lawful means to put out, or, at least, prevent the increase of, that flame which, otherwise, may consume our people and nation. Let us earnestly exhort all our countrymen to improve the innumerable blessings they enjoy; in particular, that invalu able blessing of liberty, civil as well as religious, which we now enjoy in a far more ample measure than any of our forefathers did.

Let us earnestly exhort all our countrymen to improve the innumerable blessings they enjoy; in particular, that invalu able blessing of liberty, civil as well as religious, which we now enjoy in a far more ample measure than any of our forefathers did. Let us labour to improve our religious liberty, by practising pure religion and undefiled; by worshipping God in spirit and in truth; and taking his "word for a lantern to our feet, and a light in all our paths." Let us improve our civil liberty, the full freedom we enjoy, both as to our lives, goods, and persons, by devoting all we have, and all we are, to his honourable service. Then may we hope that he will continue to us all these blessings, with the crown of all, a thankful heart. Then shall we say, in all the changing scenes of life, - "Father, how wide thy glories shine, Lord of the universe and mine ! Thy goodness watches o'er the whole, As all the world were but one soul ; Yet counts my every sacred hair, As I remain'd thy single care !"