William Parks Club Publications 
 
 No. 1 
 
 Edited by 
 
 EARL GREGG SWEM 
 
 Librarian ff- illiam and Mary College 
 
This is copy No. 
 of an edition of 190 copies 
 
AN 
 
 INQUIRY 
 
 INTO THE 
 
 RIGHTS of the BRITISH Colonies, 
 
 By RICHARD BLAND, of VIRGINIA 
 
 Edited by 
 
 EARL GREGG SWEM 
 
 Librarian, William and Mary College 
 
 WI LLI AMSBU RG, 1766 
 Reprinted by the APPEALS PRESS, Inc. 
 
 FOR THE WILLIAM PARKS CLUB 
 RICHMOND, 1922 
 
COPYRIGHT 1922 
 
 by 
 WILLIAM PARKS CLUB 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 Richard Bland was born May 6. 1719, the son of Richard Bland (1665- 
 1720), of Berkeley and Jordan s Point, and his second wife, Elizabeth, 
 daughter of Hon. William Randolph I, of Turkey Island. The first 
 Richard Bland was the son of Hon. Theodorick Bland (1629-1669) of 
 Westover, immigrant ancestor of the family in Virginia, and his wife 
 Anne, daughter of Governor Richard Bennett of Virginia. Richard 
 Bland, the author of the "Inquiry," married first Anne, daughter of 
 Col, Peter Poythress, by whom he had twelve children. His second 
 wife was Elizabeth Harrison. By this marriage there was no issue. (1) 
 According to some accounts his second wife is said to have been Eliza 
 beth Boiling, daughter of Major John Boiling and Elizabeth Blair, the 
 daughter of Dr. Archibald Blair. (2) He was educated at William 
 and Mary College, and at the University of Edinburgh, but of his life 
 at either institution we have little information. He first took his 
 seat from Prince George in the House of Burgesses, in 1742, and 
 from that time until 1775, he served continuously. He was a mem 
 ber of the conventions of March 1775, July 1775, Dec. 1775, and 
 May 1776, the bodies that performed legislative functions until the 
 establishment of the State constitution. He was also a member of 
 the first House of Delegates, serving until his death, which occurred 
 in Williamsburg Oct. 26, 1776. He was buried at Jordan s Point, 
 Nov. 7, 1776. He was succeeded in the House by Edmund Ruffin. 
 
 In the February session of the Assembly of 1759 an act was 
 passed (4) appointing Edward Montague agent for Virginia in Eng 
 land, and a committee, of which Bland was one, was selected for 
 carrying on a correspondence with Montague. (5) In the October 
 session of 1764, a committee was appointed by the House of Burgesses 
 to draw up an address to the King, a memorial to the Lords, and a 
 Remonstrance to the House of Commons, respecting taxation imposed 
 upon them by any other power than that derived from their own con 
 sent. The committee as originally appointed did not contain Eland s 
 name. He was added to the committee on Nov. 20. The usual belief 
 among historians is that Bland wrote the Address, Memorial and 
 Remonstrance. (6) It is probable that he was the author of the three, 
 but I have found no authority for this. In the proceedings of the 
 House, he always occupied a commanding position. For most of the 
 period of his service he was a member of the leading committees, 
 and his services were always in demand for drawing up memorials. 
 In the session of 1765, he opposed the resolutions of Henry on the 
 ground that they were premature. In 1765 he was appointed one of 
 
 (1) Grigsby Virginia Convention of 1776, p. 57-67. Richmond Critic, 
 July 9, 1888). 
 
 (2) (Pocahontas and her descendants, p. 12. Also William and Mary 
 College Quarterly, v. 5. p. 157). 
 
 (4) (Hening, v. 7, p. 276). 
 
 (5) (See Proceedings of this committee in the Virginia Magazine of 
 History, v. 9, 10, 11 and 12). 
 
 (6) (For the text of the threo see Journal of House of Burgesses, 
 Dec. 18, 1764). 
 
[ VI ] 
 
 the trustees for the batter management and carrying on of the 
 Indian trade. In 1769, he was one of the first to sign the non-importa 
 tion agreement. On March 12, 1773, he was appointed by the House 
 a member of the committee of correspondence with the sister col 
 onies. (7) 
 
 In the convention of March, 1775, he opposed Henry s resolution 
 to arm the colony, believing still in a policy of conciliation. (8) By 
 the convention of July 1775, he was chosen a member of the com 
 mittee of safety, the executive body in control during the interreg 
 num preceding the establishment of the State government. (9) 
 
 In the convention of Aug. 1774, he was elected a delegate to the 
 first Continental Congress. He was present in Philadelphia through 
 out the session of the congress. By the convention of March, 1775, 
 he was elected to the second Continental Congress; he was present 
 on May 10, 1775, but seems to have left on account of ill health. He 
 was selected to the Continental Congress on Aug. 11, 1775, by the 
 convention. The next day he declined to accept the honor, giving as 
 his reason that he was advanced in age, and almost sightless. 
 
 In June, 1775, a wholly unwarranted charge was brought against 
 Bland, by the Rev. Samuel Sheild, who had just returned from Eng 
 land in holy orders. In the issue of July 8, 1775, of Dixon & Hunter s 
 Virginia Gazette, a letter from Richard Bland addressed to Samuel 
 Sheild is published, in which the writer demands proof for the charge 
 made by Sheild that Bland had solicited a pecuniary appointment 
 from the British government, in return for a promise to support the 
 ministerial measures in America. In the Virginia Gazette of July 
 22, 1775 ; Sheild states his charges, substantially as follows: Before 
 he left England, a friend had reported to him that he had seen a letter 
 from one of the delegates of Virginia asking for a position as the 
 gatherer of duties on tea, who promised in return that he would sup 
 port the policies of the administration. When several names were 
 mentioned by Sheild, they were declared by his friend to be innocent. 
 When Eland s name was mentioned, the friend evaded an answer. 
 This was all that there was of Sheild s charge. On July 22, Bland 
 asked the convention then in session to investigate the charges. The 
 investigation was made on the 28th, and after the examination of 
 the Rev.. Samuel Sheild, the Rev. John Hurt, and many other witnesses, 
 the house found that the reports were "utterly false and groundless." 
 The result of this examination was published in the Virginia Gazette 
 of Aug. 5, 1775. 
 
 Upon the death of John Robinson, who had been both Speaker and 
 Treasurer, Richard Bland was one of the candidates for the vacant 
 position. Bland was in favor of the separation of the offices. In a 
 letter to R. H. Lee, May 22, 1766, he notifies the other of his inten 
 tion to run for the office, tho it had been reported to him that Lee 
 
 (7) (The letters and proceeding s of this committee from March 12, 
 1773, to April 7, 1775, are printed in the Virginia Calendar of State Papers, 
 v. 8, p. 1-74;. 
 
 (8) (1 Henry s Henry, 258, quotiner Judge Tucker). 
 
 (9) (Hening, v. 9, p. 4C.) The Journal of the Committee of Safety, Feb. 
 7, 1776 July 4. 1776, is printed in thp Virginia Calendar of State Papers, 
 v. 8, p. 75-239. 
 
 (10) (Sou. Lit. Messeng-er, v. 27, p. 116). 
 
[ VII ] 
 
 would be a candidate. In the same letter Bland says he is considering 
 the establishment of the scheme of a loan office or public bank, with 
 the intention to propose this in the assembly. (10) 
 
 Few of Eland s letters remain. In the Virginia Magazine of His 
 tory, v. 6, p. 127-134, a long letter, dated Aug. 1, 1771, to Thomas 
 Adams, at that time in England, is printed. In this Bland expresses 
 !his views on the movement for a bishopric in America, and on the 
 emissions of paper money, and gives his opinion of the Rev. Mr. 
 Horrocks, and of Edward Montague, the late agent in England. This 
 letter was reprinted with corrections in the William and Mary Quar 
 terly, v. 5, p. 150-156. In the Bland Papers, edited by Charles Camp 
 bell, and published in 1840, there are only two letters from Richard 
 Bland. One, Feb. 20, 1775, relative to his election, and the other, July 
 25, 1775, asking some friend to attend the examination of the charges 
 against him. 
 
 Edmund Randolph calls him the Virginia Antiquarian. Roger 
 Atkinson in a letter to Samuel Pleasants, Oct. 1, 1774, refers to him 
 as "Lieutenant Colonel Bland, a very well experienced veteran at the 
 senate or the bar staunch and tough as whitleather has something 
 of the look of musty old parchments which he handleth and studieth 
 much. He is also a great chronologer and is a conjurer. He formerly 
 wrote a treatise on water baptism amongst the Quakers, which he 
 miscalled the Quaker doctrine of water baptism for you know they 
 deny all water baptism him you know." (11) Jefferson s character 
 ization in his letter to Wirt (12) is well known: "Your characters 
 are inimitably and justly drawn. I am not certain if more might not 
 be said of Colonel Richard Bland. He was the most learned and 
 logical man of those who took prominent lead in public affairs, pro 
 found in constitutional lore, a most ungraceful speaker, (as were Pey 
 ton Randolph and Robinson, in a remarkable degree.) He wrote the 
 first pamphlet on the nature of the connection with Great Britain 
 which had any pretension to accuracy of view on that subject, but it 
 was a singular one. He would set out on sound principles, pursue 
 them logically till he found them leading to the precipice which he 
 had to leap, start back alarmed, then resume his ground, go over it 
 in another direction, be led again by the correctness of his reasoning 
 to the same place, and again back about, and try other processes to 
 reconcile right and wrong, but finally left his reader and himself 
 bewildered between the steady index of the compass in their hand, 
 and the phantasm to which it seemed to point. Still, there was more 
 sound matter in his pamphlet than in the celebrated Farmer s letters, 
 which were really but an ignis fatuus, leading us from true principles." 
 
 In a letter to Edward Coles (13) on the subject of slaves, Jefferson 
 thus alludes to Eland s interest in alleviating their condition: "In the 
 first or second session of the Legislature after I became a member, I 
 drew to this subject the attention of Col, Bland, one of the oldest, ablest, 
 and most respected members, and he undertook to move for certain 
 moderate extensions of the protection of the laws to these people. 
 I seconded his motion, and, as a younger member, was more spared 
 in the debate; but he was denounced as an enemy of his country, and 
 was treated with the grossest indecorum." 
 
 (11) (Va. Magazine of History, v. 15, p. 356). 
 
 (12) (Ford s Jefferson, v. 9, p. 474). 
 
 (13) (Ford s Jefferson, v. 9, p. 477). 
 
L viii ] 
 
 Bland was known to have collected old papers and documents re 
 lating to the history of Virginia. In a letter dated Nov. 3, 1776, to 
 Thomas Jefferson, then in Williamsburg, Richard Henry Lee says in 
 a postscript, "Let every method be essayed to get the valuable old 
 papers that Col. Richard Bland was possessed of." (14) Some of the 
 Bland papers passed to Jefferson, and from him to the Library 
 of Congress. (15) 
 
 In 1840, Charles Campbell, the historian, published in two small 
 volumes "The Bland Papers; being a selection from the manuscripts 
 of Colonel Theodorick Bland, Jr., of Prince George County, Virginia. 
 To which are prefixed an introduction, and a memorial of Colonel 
 
 Bland Petersburg, Printed by Edmund and Julian C. Ruffin." On 
 
 pages v-x, Mr. Campbell gives a description of the papers as he found 
 them. It is to be regretted that only two letters of Col. Richard 
 Bland are in the lot. 
 
 For a discussion of Eland s part in the Stamp Act incident, see 
 L. G. Tyler in the William and Mary Quarterly, v. 18, p. 163, 164; 
 v. 19, p. 31-41, p. 220. Bancroft s appreciation of Bland may be found 
 in his History of the United States, v. 5, p. 442. 
 
 Other references that may be useful to the student are the follow 
 ing: Letter of Jerman Bker in the William and Mary Quarterly, 
 v. 12, p. 239; Letter of William Robinson to the Bishop of London, 
 in Perry s Papers relating to the history of the Church of Virginia, 
 1650-1776, p. 463-470; Familiae Minorum Gentium, v. 2, p. 421-428, 
 genealogical notes about the Bland family, an abstract of which is 
 printed in the William and Mary Quarterly, v. 15, p. 47. 
 
 In addition to his present Inquiry, the following three titles are 
 known to be by Eland s pen : there are two other productions of which 
 we know by title only, the Treatise against the Quakers on water 
 baptism, mentioned by Roger Atkinson in one of his letters, and an 
 article against the idea of an American episcopate, mentioned by 
 Governor Tazewell; it is likely that these were printed as letters in 
 issues of the Virginia Gazette, of which no copies are extant: 
 
 A fragment on the pistole fee, claimed by the Governor of Virginia, 
 1753. Edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Brooklyn, 1891. 43 p. 
 (Winnowings in American history. Virginia Tracts, No. 1). 
 
 A letter to the clergy of Virginia, in which the conduct of the 
 General Assembly is vindicated against the reflexions contained in a 
 letter to the lords of trade and plantations from the Lord Bishop of 
 London. By Richard Bland, Esq.; one of the representatives in assem 
 bly for the county of Prince George. Ne quid falsi dicere audeat, ne 
 quid veri non audeat. Cicero. Williamsburg: Printed by William 
 Hunter. 1760. v, 3-20 p. Copy in the Library of Congress, Boston 
 Athenaeum, Library Company of Philadelphia. 
 
 (14) (Letters of R. H. Lee, od. by J. C. Ballagh, v. 1, p. 225). 
 
 (15) (Preface to Hening s Statutes. Johnston s History of the Library 
 of Congress. Miss Kingsbury s edition of the Records of the London 
 Company, published by the Library of Congress). 
 
The colonel dismounted: or the rector vindicated. In a letter ad 
 dressed to his reverence; containing a dissertation upon the constitu 
 tion of the colony. Williamsburg; Printed by Joseph Royle. 1764. 
 30, xvii p. Only copy is in Library of Congress. 
 
 The copy from which the present text of the Inquiry is taken is in 
 the Library of Congress, and has on the title page the autograph of 
 Jona. Smith. The full title is "An Inquiry into the Rights of the 
 British Colonies. Intended as an answer to the Regulations lately 
 made concerning the Colonies, and the Taxes imposed upon them 
 considered. In a letter addressed to the author of that pamphlet. 
 By Richard Bland of Virginia. Williamsburg, Printed by Alexander 
 Purdie & Co., 1766." This was reprinted in London, in the Political 
 Register, for 1769, p. 9-27. The text in the Political Register has been 
 carefully compared with the original pamphlet, and many considerable 
 changes are found to have been made in the punctuation. A separate 
 edition of the Inquiry was also printed in London bearing the imprint: 
 Wiliamsburg: Printed by Alexander Purdie and Co., London. Re 
 printed by J. Almon, opposite Burlington House, Picadilly, 1769. Copies 
 are in the John Carter Brown Library, and the library of the His 
 torical Society of Pennsylvania. This is probably the text as printed 
 in the Political Register, repaged, as the title is a caption title. 
 
 At the time Charles Campbell prepared "The Bland Papers" there 
 was a portrait of Bland at Jordan s Point. The portrait was then in 
 the mutilated condition in which it had been left by the British soldiers 
 at the time of the revolution. 
 
 It has seemed to the editor that it would be helpful to the student 
 to have full titles of the books to which Bland refers in his notes. 
 Some of these books were in his own library, others were in the 
 library of the council of Virginia. Titles of the first editions of 
 all such books are accordingly printed in the Appendix, but it is 
 not presumed that these were the editions Bland used. In pro 
 viding this information, Mr. Charles H. Hastings, of the Card Di 
 vision of the Library of Congress, has been most attentive, and 
 acknowledgment is hereby gratefully made to him. For permis 
 sion to photograph the original pamphlet in the Library of Con 
 gress, I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Herbert Putnam, 
 Librarian of Congress. For helpful suggestions I am indebted to 
 Hon. Robert M. Hughes of Norfolk, Prof. Oscar L. Shewmake of the 
 College of William and Mary, and Frederick C. Hicks, Law Librarian 
 of Columbia University, and I wish to acknowledge, most gratefully, 
 their assistance 
 
 E. G. SWEM, 
 
 William and Mary College. 
 
AN 
 
 INQUIRY 
 
 INTO THE 
 
 RIGHTS of the BRITISH Colonies, 
 
 Intended as an Anfwer to 
 
 The Regulations lately made concerning the Colonies, 
 and the Taxes impofed upon them confidered. 
 
 In a Letter addreffed to the Author of that Pamphlet. 
 
 By RICHARD BLAND, of VIRGINIA. 
 
 Dedit omnibus Deus pro virili portione fapientiam, ut 
 et inaudita invejligare pojjent et audita perpendere. 
 
 LACTANTIUS. 
 
 WILLI AMSBURG : 
 
 Printed by ALEXANDER PURDIE, & Co 
 MDCCLXVI. 
 
[ 3 
 
 AN 
 
 INQUIRY 
 
 INTO THE 
 
 RIGHTS of the BRITISH Colonies 
 
 S I R, 
 
 I TAKE the Liberty to addrefs you, as the Author 
 of " The Regulations lately made concerning 
 " the Colonies, and the Taxes impofed upon 
 " them confidered." It is not to the Man, 
 whoever you are, that I addrefs myfelf; but it is to 
 the Author of a Pamphlet which, according to the 
 Light I view it in, endeavours to fix Shackles upon 
 the American Colonies: Shackles which, however 
 nicely polifhed, can by no Means sit eafy upon Men 
 who have juft Sentiments of their own Rights and 
 Liberties. 
 
 You have indeed brought this Trouble upon yourfelf, 
 for you fay that " many Steps have been lately taken 
 
 by the Miniftry to cement and perfect the neceffary 
 :c Connexion between the Colonies and the Mother 
 
 Kingdom, which every Man who is fincerely in- 
 " tere&ed in what is interesting to his Country will 
 
[ 4 ] 
 
 " anxioufly confider the Propriety of, will inquire into 
 " the Information, and canvas the Principles upon 
 " which they have been adopted; and will be ready 
 " to applaud what has been well done, condemn what 
 has been done amifs, and fuggeft any Emendations, 
 " Improvements, or Additions, which may be within 
 " his Knowledge, and occur to his Reflexion." 
 
 Encouraged therefore by fo candid an Invitation, I 
 have undertaken to examine, with an honeft Plainnefs 
 and Freedom, whether the Miniftry, by impofing Taxes 
 upon the Colonies by Authority of Parliament, have 
 purfued a wife and falutary Plan of Government, or 
 whether they have exerted pernicious and definitive 
 Acls of Power. 
 
 I pretend not to concern myfelf with the Regulations 
 lately made to encourage Population in the new Ac- 
 quifitions: Time can only determine whether the 
 Reafons upon which they have been founded are agree 
 able to the Maxims of Trade and found Policy, or not. 
 However, I will venture to obferve that if the moft 
 powerful inducement towards peopling thofe Acquifi- 
 tions is to arife from the Expectation of a Conftitution 
 to be eftablifhed in them fimiliar to the other Royal 
 Governments in America, it muft be a ftrong Circum- 
 ftance, in my Opinion, againft their being fettled by 
 Englijhmen, or even by Foreigners, who do not live 
 under the moft defpotick Government; fince, upon 
 your Principles of Colony Government, fuch a Con 
 ftitution will not be worth their Acceptance. 
 
 The Queftion is whether the Colonies are reprefented 
 in the Britijh Parliament or not? You affirm it to be 
 an indubitable FacT: that they are reprefented, and from 
 thence you infer a Right in the Parliament to impofe 
 Taxes of every Kind upon them. You do not infift 
 
upon the Power, but upon the Right of Parliament to 
 impofe Taxes upon the Colonies. This is certainly a 
 very proper Diftinclion, as Right and Power have very 
 different Meanings, and convey very different Ideas: 
 For had you told us that the Parliament of Great 
 Britain have Power, by the Fleets and Armies of the 
 Kingdom, to impofe Taxes and to raife Contributions 
 upon the Colonies, I fhould not have prefumed to 
 difpute the Point with you; but as you infift upon the 
 Right only, I muft beg Leave to differ from you in 
 Opinion, and fhall give my Reafons for it. 
 
 But I muft firft recapitulate your Arguments in Sup 
 port of this Right in the Parliament. You fay " the 
 " Inhabitants of the Colonies do not indeed choofe 
 :f Members of Parliament, neither are nine Tenths of 
 the People of Britain Electors; for the Right of 
 >c Election is annexed to certain Species of Property, 
 pi to peculiar Franchifes, and to Inhabitancy in fome 
 " particular Places. But thefe Defcriptions comprehend 
 :c only a very fmall Part of the Lands, the Property 
 ; and People of Britain , all Copy-Hold, all Leafe- 
 >c Hold Eftates under the Crown, under the Church, 
 or under private Perfons, though for Terms ever 
 " fo long; all landed Property in fhort that is not 
 Freehold, and all monied Property whatfoever, are 
 :c excluded. The Poffeffors of thefe have no Votes 
 <( in the Election of Members of Parliament; Women 
 c and Perfons under Age, be their Property ever fo 
 " large, and all of it Freehold, have nonef The 
 >c Merchants of London, a numerous and refpectable 
 :c Body of Men, whofe Opulence exceeds all that 
 : America can collect; the Proprietors of that vaft 
 c Accumulation of Wealth, the Publick Funds; the 
 " Inhabitants of Leeds, of Halifax, of Birmingham. 
 
" and of Manchester , Towns that are each of them 
 " larger than the largeft in the Plantations; many of 
 " leffer Note, that are incorporated; and that great 
 " Corporation the Eaft India Company, whofe Rights 
 " over the Countries they poffefs fall very little fhort 
 " of Sovereignty, and whofe Trade and whofe Fleets 
 " are fufficient to conftitute them a maritime Power, 
 " are all in the fame Circumftances: And yet are they 
 " not reprefented in Parliament? Is their vaft Property 
 " fubject to Taxation without their Confent? Are they 
 " all arbitrarily bound by Laws to which they have 
 " not agreed? The Colonies are exactly in the fame 
 " Situation; all Britifb Subjects are really in the fame;. 
 " none are actually, all are virtually, reprefented in 
 " Parliament: For every Member of Parliament fits 
 " in the Houfe not as a Reprefentative of his own 
 " Conftituents, but as one of that auguft Affembly by 
 " which all the Commons of Great Britain are repre- 
 " fented." 
 
 This is the Sum of what you advance, in all the 
 Pomp of Parliamentary Declamation, to prove that 
 the Colonies are reprefented in Parliament, and there 
 fore fubjecl: to their Taxation; but notwithftanding 
 this Way of reafoning, I cannot comprehend how Men 
 who are excluded from voting at the Election of Mem 
 bers of Parliament can be reprefented in that Affembly, 
 or how thofe who are elected do not fit in the Houfe 
 as Reprefentatives of their Conftituents. Thefe Affer- 
 tions appear to me not only paradoxical, but contrary 
 to the fundamental Principles of the Englijh Conftitu- 
 tion. 
 
 To illuftrate this important Difquifition, I conceive 
 we muft recur to the civil Constitution of England, and 
 from thence deduce and afcertain the Rights and Pri- 
 
vileges of the People at the firft Eftablifhment of the 
 Government, and difcover the Alterations that have 
 been made in them from Time to Time; and it is from 
 the Laws of the Kingdom, founded upon the Principles 
 of the Law of Nature, that we are to mow the Obli 
 gation every Member of the State is under to pay 
 Obedience to its Institutions. From thefe Principles I 
 {hall endeavour to prove that the Inhabitants of Britain, 
 who have no Vote in the Election of Members of Par 
 liament, are not reprefented in that Affembly, and yet 
 that they owe Obedience to the Laws of Parliament; 
 which, as to them, are constitutional, and not arbitrary. 
 As to the Colonies, I mall confider them afterwards. 
 
 Now it is a Fact, as certain as Hiftory can make it, 
 that the prefent civil Conftitution of England derives 
 its Original from thofe Saxons who, coming over to 
 the Affiftance of the Britons in the Time of their King 
 Fortigern, made themfelves Matters of the Kingdom, 
 and eftablifhed a Form of Government in it fimilar to 
 that they had been accuftomed to live under in their 
 native Country*; as fimilar, at leaft, as the Difference 
 of their Situation and Circumftances would permit. 
 This Government, like that from whence they came, 
 was founded upon Principles of the moft perfect Li 
 berty: The conquered Lands were divided among the 
 Individuals in Proportion to the Rank they held in the 
 Nation|; and every Freeman, that is, every Free 
 holder, was a Member of their Wittinagemot, or 
 Parliament^. The other Part of the Nation, or the 
 Non-Proprietors of Land, were of little Eftimation. 
 
 * Petyt s Rights of the Com. Brady s Comp. Hifl. Rapin. 
 Squire s Inquiry. 
 
 t Caefar de Bell. Gall. Tacitus de Germ. C. 28. Temple s 
 Mifc. 
 
 f Tacitus de Germ, C. 11. 
 
 Ibid. C. 25. 
 
They, as in Germany, were either Slaves, mere Hewers 
 of Wood and Drawers of Water, or Freedmen; who, 
 being of foreign Extraction, had been manumitted by 
 their Mafters, and were excluded from the high Pri 
 vilege of having a Share in the Adminiftration of the 
 Commonwealth, unlefs they became Proprietors of 
 Land (which they might obtain by Purchafe or Dona 
 tion) and in that Cafe they had a Right to fit with the 
 Freemen, in the Parliament or fovereign Legiflature 
 of the State. 
 
 How long this Right of being perfonally prefent in 
 the Parliament continued, or when the Cuftom of 
 fending Reprefentatives to this great Council of the 
 Nation, was firft introduced, cannot be determined 
 with Precifion; but let the Cuftom of Reprefentation 
 be introduced when it will, it is certain that every 
 Freeman, or, which was the fame Thing in the Eye 
 of the Conftitution, every Freeholder*, had a Right 
 to vote at the Election of Members of Parliament, and 
 therefore might be faid, with great Propriety, to be 
 prefent in that Affembly, either in his own Perfon or 
 by Reprefentation. This Right of Election in the 
 Freeholders is evident from the Statute ift Hen. 5. 
 Ch. ift, which limits the Right of Election to thofe 
 Freeholders only who are refident in the Counties the 
 Day of the Date of the Writ of Election; but yet every 
 refident Freeholder indifcriminately, let his Freehold 
 be ever fo fmall, had a Right to vote at the Election 
 of Knights for his County, fo that they were actually 
 reprefented: And this Right of Election continued 
 until it was taken away by the Statute 8th Hen. 6. 
 Ch. 7. from thofe Freeholders who had not a clear 
 Freehold Eftate of forty Shillings by the Year at the 
 leaft. 
 
 * 2 Inft. 27. 4 Inft. 2. 
 
t 9 1 
 
 Now this Statute was deprivative of the Right of 
 thofe Freeholders who came within the Defcription of 
 it; but of what did it deprive them, if they were repre- 
 fented notwithftanding their Right of Election was 
 taken from them? The mere Act of voting was 
 nothing, of no Value, if they were reprefented as con- 
 ftitutionally without it as with it: But when by the 
 fundamental Principles of the Conftitution they were 
 to be confidered as Members of the Legiflature, and 
 as fuch had a Right to be prefent in Perfon, or to fend 
 their Procurators or Attornies, and by them to give 
 their Suffrage in the fupreme Council of the Nation, 
 this Statute deprived them of an effential Right; a 
 Right without which, by the ancient Conftitution of 
 the State, all other Liberties were but a Species of 
 Bondage. 
 
 As thefe Freeholders then were deprived of their 
 Rights to fubftitute Delegates to Parliament, they 
 could not be reprefented, but were placed in the fame 
 Condition with the Non-Proprietors of Land, who 
 were excluded by the original Conftitution from having 
 any Share in the Legiflature, but who, notwithftanding 
 fuch Exclufion, are bound to pay Obedience to the 
 Laws of Parliament, even if they mould confift of 
 nine Tenths of the People of Britain; but then the 
 Obligation of thefe Laws does not arife from their 
 being virtually reprefented in Parliament, but from a 
 quite different Reafon. 
 
 Men in a State of Nature are abfolutely free and in 
 dependent of one another as to fovereign Jurifdiction*, 
 but when they enter into a Society, and by their own 
 
 * Fattel s Law of Nature. Locke on Civil Govern. Wolla- 
 fton s Rel. of Nat. 
 
 B 
 
Confent become Members of it, they muft fubmit to 
 the Laws of the Society according to which they agree 
 to be governed; for it is evident, by the very Act of 
 Affociation, that each Member fubjects himfelf to the 
 Authority of that Body in whom, by common Confent, 
 the legiflative Power of the State is placed: But though 
 they muft fubmit to the Laws, fo long as they remain 
 Members of the Society, yet they retain fo much of 
 their natural Freedom as to have a Right to retire from 
 the Society, to renounce the Benefits of it, to enter 
 into another Society, and to fettle in another Country; 
 for their Engagements to the Society, and their Sub- 
 miffion to the publick Authority of the State, do not 
 oblige them to continue in it longer than they find it 
 will conduce to their Happinefs, which they have a 
 natural Right to promote. This natural Right re 
 mains with every Man, and he cannot juftly be de 
 prived of it by any civil Authority. Every Perfon 
 therefore who is denied his Share in the Legislature of 
 the State to which he had an orginal Right, and every 
 Perfon who from his particular Circumftances is ex 
 cluded from this great Privilege, and refufes to exer- 
 cife his natural Right of quitting the Country, but 
 remains in it, and continues to exercife the Rights of 
 a Citizen in all other Refpects, muft be fubject to the 
 Laws which by thefe Acts he implicitly, or to ufe your 
 own Phrafe, virtually confents to: For Men may 
 fubject themfelves to Laws, by confenting to them 
 implicity; that is, by conforming to them, by adhering 
 to the Society, and accepting the Benefits of its Confti- 
 tution, as well, as explicitly and directly, in their own 
 Perfons, or by their Reprefentatives fubftituted in their 
 Room*. Thus, if a Man whofe Property does not 
 
 * Wollajlon s Rel. of Nat. 
 
[ II ] 
 
 entitle him to be an Elector of Members of Parliament 
 and therefore cannot be reprefented, or have any Share 
 in the Legiflature, " inherits or takes any Thing by 
 " the Laws of the Country to which he has no indu- 
 " bitable Right in Nature, or which, if he has a Right 
 " to it, he cannot tell how to get or keep without the 
 " Aid of the Laws and the Advantage of Society, 
 " then, when he takes this Inheritance, or whatever 
 " it is, with it he takes and owns the Laws that gave 
 " it him. And fmce the Security he has from the 
 " Laws of the Country, in Refpect of his Perfon and 
 " Rights, is the Equivalent for his SubmhTion to them, 
 " he cannot accept that Security without being obliged, 
 6 in Equity, to pay this Submiffion: Nay his very 
 " continuing in the Country {hows that he either likes 
 " the Conftitution, or likes it better, notwithftanding 
 " the Alteration made in it to his Difadvantage, than 
 " any other; or at leaft thinks it better, in his Circum- 
 " ftances, to conform to it, than to feek any other; 
 " that is, he is content to be comprehended in it." 
 
 From hence it is evident that the Obligation of the 
 Laws of Parliament upon the People of Britain who 
 have no Right to be Electors does not arife from their 
 being virtually reprefented, but from a quite different 
 Principle; a Principle of the Law of Nature, true, 
 certain, and univerfal, applicable to every Sort of 
 Government, and not contrary to the common Under- 
 ftandings of Mankind. 
 
 If what you fay is a real Fact, that nine Tenths of 
 the People of Britain are deprived of the high Privilege 
 of being Electors, it mows a great Defect in the pre- 
 fent Conftitution, which has departed fo much from 
 its original Purity; but never can prove that thofe 
 People are even virtually reprefented in Parliament. 
 
[ 12 ] 
 
 And here give me Leave to obferve that it would be 
 a Work worthy of the beft patriotick Spirits in the 
 Nation to effectuate an Alteration in this putrid Part 
 of the Conftitution; and, by reftoring it to its priftine 
 Perfection, prevent any " Order or Rank of the Sub- 
 " jects from impofing upon or binding the reft without 
 " their Confent." But, I fear, the Gangrene has 
 taken too deep Hold to be eradicated in thefe Days of 
 Venality. 
 
 But if thofe People of Britain who are excluded from 
 being Electors are not reprefented in Parliament, the 
 Conclufion is much ftronger againft the People of 
 the Colonies being reprefented; who are confidered by 
 the Britijb Government itfelf, in every Inftance of 
 Parliamentary Legislation, as a diftinct People. It has 
 been determined by the Lords of the Privy Council 
 that " Acts of Parliament made in England without 
 " naming the foreign Plantations will not bind them*." 
 Now what can be the Reafon of this Determination, 
 but that the Lords of the Privy Council are of Opinion 
 the Colonies are a diftinct People from the Inhabitants 
 of Britain, and are not reprefented in Parliament. If, 
 as you contend, the Colonies are exactly in the fame 
 Situation with the Subjects in Britain, the Laws will in 
 every Inftance be equally binding upon them, as upon 
 thofe Subjects, unlefs you can difcover two Species of 
 virtual Reprefentation; the one to refpect the Subjects 
 in Britain, and always exifting in Time of Parliament; 
 the other to refpect the Colonies, a mere Non-Entity, 
 if I may be allowed the Term, and never exifting but 
 when the Parliament thinks proper to produce it into 
 Being by any particular Act in which the Colonies 
 
 * 2 Peer Williams. 
 
I 13 -J 
 
 happen to be named. But I muft examine the Cafe of 
 the Colonies more diftinclly. 
 
 It is in vain to fearch into the civil Conftitution of 
 England for Directions in fixing the proper Connexion 
 b etween the Colonies and the Mother Kingdom; I mean 
 what their reciprocal Duties to each other are, and 
 what Obedience is due from the Children to the general 
 Parent. The planting Colonies from Britain is but of 
 recent Date, and nothing relative to fuch Plantation can 
 be collected from the ancient Laws of the Kingdom; 
 neither can we receive any better Information by ex 
 tending our Inquiry into the Hiftory of the Colonies 
 eftablimed by the feveral Nations in the more early 
 Ages of the World. All the Colonies (except thofe of 
 Georgia and Nova Scotia) formed from the Englifh 
 Nation, in North America, were planted in a Manner, 
 and under a Dependence, of which there is not an In- 
 ftance in all the Colonies of the Ancients; and there 
 fore, I conceive, it muft afford a good Degree of 
 Surprife to find an Englijh Civilian* giving it as his 
 Sentiment that the Englijh Colonies ought to be go 
 verned by the Roman Laws, and for no better Reafon 
 than becaufe the Spanifh Colonies, as he fays, are go 
 verned by thofe Laws. The Romans eftablimed their 
 Colonies in the Midft of vanquifhed Nations, upon 
 Principles which beft fecured their Conquefts; the Pri 
 vileges granted to them were not always the fame; their 
 Policy in the Government of their Colonies and the 
 conquered Nations being always directed by arbitrary 
 Principles to the End they aimed at, the fubjecting the 
 whole Ea rth to their Empire. But the Colonies in 
 North America, except thofe planted within the prefent 
 Century, were founded by Englijhmen; who, becoming 
 
 * Strahan in his Preface to Domat. 
 
[-14 1 
 
 private Adventurers, eftablifhed themfelves, without 
 any Expenfe to the Nation, in this uncultivated and 
 almoft uninhabited Country; fothat their Cafe is plainly 
 diftinguifhable from that of the Roman, or any other 
 Colonies of the ancient World. 
 
 As then we can receive no Light from the Laws of 
 the Kingdom, or from ancient Hiftory, to direct us 
 in our Inquiry, we muft have Recourfe to the Law of 
 Nature, and thofe Rights of Mankind which flow from 
 it. 
 
 I have obferved before that when Subjects are de 
 prived of their civil Rights, or are dissatisfied with the 
 Place they hold in the Community, they have a natural 
 Right to quit the Society of which they are Members, 
 and to retire into another Country. Now when Men 
 exercife this Right, and withdraw themfelves from 
 their Country, they recover their natural Freedom and 
 Independence: The Jurifdiction and Sovereignty of the 
 State they have quitted ceafes; and if they unite, and 
 by common Confent take Poffeflion of a new Country, 
 and form themfelves into a political Society, they 
 become a fovereign State, independent of the State 
 from which they feparated. If then the Subjects 
 of England have a natural Right to relinquifh their 
 Country, and by retiring from it, and affociating 
 together, to form a new political Society and indepen 
 dent State, they muft have a Right, by Compact with 
 the Sovereign of the Nation, to remove into a new 
 Country, and to form a civil Eftablifhment upon the 
 Terms of the Compact. In fuch a Cafe, the Terms 
 of the Compact muft be obligatory and binding upon 
 the Parties; they muft be the Magna Charta, the fun 
 damental Principles of Government, to this new Society; 
 and every Infringement of them muft be wrong, and 
 
I -15 1 
 
 may be oppofed. It will be neceffary then to examine 
 whether any fuch Compact was entered into between 
 the Sovereign and thofe Englijh Subjects who eftablifhed 
 themfelves in America. 
 
 You have told us that " before the firft and great 
 " Act of Navigation the Inhabitants of North America 
 " were but a few unhappy Fugitives, who had wan- 
 ; dered thither to enjoy their civil and religious Liber- 
 " ties, which they were deprived of at Home." If 
 this was true, it is evident, from what has been faid 
 upon the Law of Nature, that they have a Right to a 
 civil independent Eftablimment of their own, and that 
 Great Britain has no Right to interfere in it. But you 
 have been guilty of a grofs Anachronifm in your Chro 
 nology, and a great Errour in your Account of the 
 firft Settlement of the Colonies in North America; for 
 it is a notorious Fact that they were not fettled by Fu 
 gitives from their native Country, but by Men who 
 came over voluntarily, at their own Expenfe, and 
 under Charters from the Crown, obtained for that Pur- 
 pofe, long before the firft and great Act of Navigation. 
 
 The firft of thefe Charters was granted to Sir Walter 
 Raleigh by Queen Elizabeth under her great Seal, and 
 was confirmed by the Parliament of England in the 
 Year i584*. By this Charter the whole Country to 
 be poffeffed by Sir Walter Raleigh was granted to him, 
 his Heirs and AiTigns, in perpetual Sovereignty, in as 
 extenfive a Manner as the Crown could grant, or had 
 ever granted before to any Perfon or Perfons, with full 
 Power of Legiflation, and to eftablifh a civil Govern 
 ment in it as near as conveniently might be agreeable to 
 
 * This Charter is printed at large in Hakluyt s Voyages, P. 725, 
 Folio Edition, Anno 1589; and the Subftance of it is in the 3d Fol, 
 of Salmon s Mod. Rift. P. 424. 
 
[ 16 ] 
 
 the Form of the Englijh Government and Policy thereof. 
 The Country was to be united to the Realm of England 
 in perfect LEAGUE AND AMITY, was to be within the 
 Allegiance of the Crown of England, and to be held 
 by Homage, and the Payment of one Fifth of all Gold 
 and Silver Ore, which was referved for all Services, 
 Duties, and Demands. 
 
 Sir Walter Raleigh, under this Charter, took Poffeffion 
 of North America, upon that Part of the Continent 
 which gave him a Right to the Tract of Country which 
 lies between the twenty fifth Degree of Latitude and 
 the Gulf of St. Lawrence; but a Variety of Accidents 
 happening in the Courfe of his Exertions to eftabliih a 
 Colony, and perhaps being overborn by the Expenfe 
 of fo great a Work, he made an Affignment to divers 
 Gentlemen and Merchants of London, in the 3ift Year 
 of the Queen s Reign, for continuing his Plantation in 
 America. Thefe Affignees were not more fuccefsful in 
 their Attempts than the Proprietor himfelf had been; 
 but being animated with the Expectation of mighty 
 Advantages from the Accomplifhment of their Under 
 taking, they, with others, who affociated with them, 
 obtained new Charters from King James the Firft, in 
 whom all Sir Walter Raleigh s Rights became vefted 
 upon his Attainder; containing the fame extenfive 
 Jurifdictions, Royalties, Privileges, Franchifes, and 
 Pre-eminences, and the fame Powers to eftabliih a civil 
 Government in the Colony, as had been granted to Sir 
 W. Raleigh, with an exprefs Claufe of Exemption for 
 ever from all Taxes or Impofitions upon their Import 
 and Export Trade. 
 
 Under thefe Charters the Proprietors effectually pro- 
 fecuted, and happily fucceeded, in planting a Colony 
 upon that Part of the Continent which is now called 
 
Virginia. This Colony, after ftruggling through im- 
 menfe Difficulties, without receiving the leaft Affifiance 
 from the Englifh Government, attained to fuch a De 
 gree of Perfection that in the Year 1621 a General 
 Affembly, or legiflative Authority, was eftablifhed in 
 the Governour, Council, and Houfe of Burgeffes, who 
 were elected by the Freeholders as their Reprefentatives; 
 and they have continued from that Time to exercife the 
 Power of Legiflation over the Colony. 
 
 But upon the I5th of July, 1624, King James dif- 
 folved the Company by Proclamation, and took the 
 Colony under his immediate Dependence; which occa- 
 fioned much Confufion, and created mighty Appre- 
 henfions in the Colony left they mould be deprived of 
 the Rights and Privileges granted them by the Com 
 pany, according to the Powers contained in their 
 Charters. 
 
 To put an End to this Confufion, and to conciliate 
 the Colony to the new Syftem of Government the Crown 
 intended to eftablifh among them, K. Charles the Firft, 
 upon the Demife of his Father, by Proclamation the 
 1 3th of May, 1625, declared " that Virginia mould 
 be immediately dependent upon the Crown; that 
 " the Affairs of the Colony mould be vefted in a 
 " Council, confifting of a few Perfons of Underftand- 
 " ing and Quality, to be fubordinate and attendant to 
 ;< the Privy Council in England; that he was refolved 
 to eftablifh another Council in Virginia, to be fub- 
 " ordinate to the Council in England for the Colony; 
 " and that he would maintain the neceffary Officers, 
 " Minifters, Forces, Ammunition, and Fortifications 
 " thereof, at his own Charge." But this Proclamation 
 had an Effect quite different from what was intended; 
 
 C 
 
[ 18 ] t 
 
 inftead of allaying, it increafed the Confusion of the 
 Colony; they now thought their regular Conftitution 
 was to be deftroyed, and a Prerogative Government 
 eftablifhed over them; or, as they exprefs themfelves 
 in their Remonftrance, that " their Rights and Privi- 
 " leges were to be affaulted." This general Difquie- 
 tude and Diffatisfa6Hon continued until they received a 
 Letter from the Lords of the Privy Council, dated 
 July the 22d, 1634, containing the Royal Affurance 
 and Confirmation that " all their Eftates, Trade, 
 " Freedom, and Privileges, mould be enjoyed by them 
 " in as extenfive a Manner as they enjoyed them before 
 " the recalling the Company s Patent;" whereupon 
 they became reconciled, and began again to exert 
 themfelves in the Improvement of the Colony. 
 
 Being now in full PofTeffion of the Rights and Pri 
 vileges of Engli/bmen, which they efteemed more than 
 their Lives, their Affection for the Royal Government 
 grew almoft to Enthufiafm; for upon an Attempt to 
 reftore the Company s Charter by Authority of Parli 
 ament, the General Affembly, upon the ift of April, 
 1642, drew up a Declaration or Proteftation, in the 
 Form of an Act, by which they declared " they never 
 " would fubmit to the Government of any Company 
 " or Proprietor, or to fo unnatural a Diftance as a 
 " Company or other Perfon to interpofe between the 
 " Crown and the Subjects; that they were born under 
 " Monarchy, and would never degenerate from the 
 " Condition of their Births by being fubject to any 
 " other Government; and every Perfon who mould 
 " attempt to reduce them under any other Government 
 " was declared an Enemy to the Country, and his 
 " Eftate was to be forfeited." This Act, being pre- 
 fented to the King, at his Court at York, July 5th, 1644 
 
[ 19 ] 
 
 drew from him a moft gracious Anfwer, under his 
 Royal Signet, in which he gave them the fulleft Af- 
 furances that they fhould be always immediately depen 
 dent upon the Crown, and that the Form of Govern 
 ment fhould never be changed. But after the King s 
 Death they gave a more eminent Inftance of their At 
 tachment to Royal Government, in their Oppofition 
 to the Parliament, and forcing the Parliament Com- 
 miflioners, who were fent over with a Squadron of Ships 
 of War to take PoffefTion of the Country, into Articles 
 of Surrender, before they would fubmit to their Obedi 
 ence. As thefe Articles reflect no fmall Honour upon 
 this Infant Colony, and as they are not commonly 
 known, I will give an Abftract of fuch of them as relate 
 to the prefent Subject. 
 
 1. The Plantation of Virginia, and all the Inhabitants 
 thereof, fhall be and remain in due Subjection to the 
 Commonwealth of England, not as a conquered 
 Country, but as a Country fubmitting by their own 
 voluntary Act, and fhall enjoy fuch Freedoms and 
 Privileges as belong to the free People of England 
 
 2. The General AfTembly as formerly fhall convene, 
 and tranfact the Affairs of the Colony. 
 
 3. The People of Virginia fhall have a free Trade, as 
 the People of England, to all Places, and with all 
 Nations. 
 
 4. Virginia fhall be free from all Taxes, Cuftoms, 
 and Impofitions whatfoever; and none fhall be 
 impofed on them without Confent of the General 
 Affembly; and that neither Forts nor Caftles be 
 erected, or Garrifons maintained, without their Con 
 fent. 
 
 Upon this Surrender of the Colony to the Parliament, 
 Sir W . Berkley, the Royal Governour, was removed, 
 
I 20 J 
 
 and three other Governours were fucceffively elected by 
 the Houfe of Burgeffes; but in January 1659 Sir 
 William Berkeley was replaced at the Head of the Go 
 vernment by the People, who unanimoufly renounced 
 their Obedience to the Parliament, and reftored the 
 Royal Authority by proclaiming Charles the 2d King 
 of England, Scotland, France, Ireland, and Virginia; 
 fo that he was King in Virginia fome Time before he 
 had any certain Affurance of being reftored to his 
 Throne in England. 
 
 From this Detail of the Charters, and other Acts of 
 the Crown, under which the firft Colony in North 
 America was eftablilhed, it is evident that " the Co- 
 c lonifts were not a few unhappy Fugitives who had 
 " wandered into a diftant Part of the World to enjoy 
 " their civil and religious Liberties, which they were 
 " deprived of at home," but had a regular Government 
 long before the firft Act of Navigation, and were 
 refpedled as a diftinct State, independent, as to their 
 internal Government, of the original Kingdom, but 
 united with her, as to their external Polity, in the 
 clofeft and moft intimate LEAGUE AND AMITY, under 
 the fame Allegiance, and enjoying the Benefits of a 
 reciprocal Intercourfe. 
 
 But allow me to make a Reflection or two upon the 
 preceding Account of the firft Settlement of an Englijh 
 Colony in North America. 
 
 America w4 no Part of the Kingdom of England; 
 it was poffeffed by a favage People, fcattered through 
 the Country, who were not fubject to the Englijh Do 
 minion, nor owed Obedience to its Laws. This inde 
 pendent Country was fettled by Englijhmen at their own 
 Expenfe, under particular Stipulations with the Crown: 
 Thefe Stipulations then muft be the facred Band of 
 
Union between England and her Colonies, and cannot 
 be infringed without Injuftice. But you Object that 
 no Power can abridge the Authority of Parliament, 
 " which has never exempted any from the Submiffion 
 " they owe to it; and no other Power can grant fuch 
 " an Exemption." 
 
 I will not difpute the Authority of the Parliament, 
 which is without Doubt fupreme within the Body of 
 the Kingdom, and cannot be abridged by any other 
 Power; but may not the King have Prerogatives which 
 he has a Right to exercife without the Confent of Par- 
 liament? If he has, perhaps that of granting Licenfe 
 to his Subjects to remove into a new Country, and to 
 fettle therein upon particular Conditions, may be one. 
 If he has no fuch Prerogative, I cannot difcover how 
 the Royal Engagements can be made good, that " the 
 " Freedom and other Benefits of the Britijb Conftitu- 
 " tion" mail be fecured to thofe People who mail 
 fettle in a new Country under fuch Engagements; the 
 Freedom, and other Benefits of the Britijb Conftitution, 
 cannot be fecured to a People without they are ex 
 empted from being taxed by any Authority but that of 
 their Reprefentatives, chofen by themfelves. This is 
 an eifential Part of Britijb Freedom; but if the King 
 cannot grant fuch an Exemption, in Right of his Pre 
 rogative, the Royal Promifes cannot be fulfilled; and 
 all Charters which have been granted by our former 
 Kings, for this Purpofe, muft be Deceptions upon the 
 Subjects who accepted them, which to fay would be a 
 high Reflection upon the Honour of the Crown. But 
 there was a Time when fome Parts of England itfelf 
 were exempt from the Laws of Parliament: The In 
 habitants of the County Palatine of Chefler were not 
 
[ 22 ] 
 
 fubject to fuch Laws* ab antiquo, becaufe they did not 
 fend Reprefentatives to Parliament, but had their own 
 Commune Concilium; by whofe Authority, with the 
 Confent of their Earl, their Laws were made. If this 
 Exemption was not derived orginally from the Crown, 
 it muft have arifen from that great Principle in the 
 Britijh Conftitution by which the Freemen in the Nation 
 are not fubject to any Laws but fuch as are made by 
 Reprefentatives elected by themfelves to Parliament; 
 so that, in either Cafe, it is an Inftance extremely ap 
 plicable to the Colonies, who contend for no other 
 Right but that of directing their internal Government 
 by Laws made with their own Confent, which has been 
 preferved to them by repeated Acts and Declarations of 
 the Crown. 
 
 The Conftitution of the Colonies, being eftablifhed 
 upon the Principles of Britijh Liberty, has never been 
 infringed by the immediate Act of the Crown; but 
 the Powers of Government, agreeably to this Confti 
 tution, have been conftantly declared in the King s 
 CommifTions to their Governours, which, as often as 
 they pafs the Great Seal, are new Declarations and 
 Confirmations of the Rights of the Colonies. Even in 
 the Reign of Charles the Second, a Time by no Means 
 favourable to Liberty, thefe Rights of the Colonies 
 were maintained inviolate; for when it was thought 
 necefTary to eftablifh a permanent Revenue for the 
 Support of Government in Virginia, the King did not 
 apply to the Englijh Parliament, but to the General 
 Affembly, and fent over an Act, under the Great Seal 
 of England, by which it was enacted " by the King s 
 " Moft Excellent Majefty, by and with the Confent 
 " of the General Affembly," that two Shillings per 
 
 * Petyfs Rights of the Commons. King s Vale Royal of England. 
 
[ 23 ] 
 
 Hogfhead upon all Tobacco exported, one Shilling 
 and Threepence per Tun upon Shipping, and Sixpence 
 per Poll for every Perfon imported, not being actually 
 a Mariner in Pay, were to be paid for ever as a Revenue 
 for the Support of the Government in the Colony. 
 
 I have taken Notice of this Act, not only becaufe 
 it mows the proper Fountain from whence all Supplies 
 to be raifed in the Colonies ought to flow, but alfo as 
 it aifords an Inftance that Royalty itfelf did not difdain 
 formerly to be named as a Part of the Legiflature of 
 the Colony; though now, to ferve a Purpofe deftructive 
 of their Rights, and to introduce Principles of Defpotifm 
 unknown to a free Conftitution, the Legiflature of the 
 Colonies are degraded even below the Corporation of 
 a petty Borough in England. 
 
 It muft be admitted that after the Reftoration the 
 Colonies loft that Liberty of Commerce with foreign 
 Nations they had enjoyed before that Time. 
 
 As it became a fundamental Law of the other States 
 of Europe to prohibit all foreign Trade with their Co 
 lonies, England demanded fuch an exclufive Trade 
 with her Colonies. This was effected by the Act of 
 2^th Charles 2d, and fome other fubfequent Acts; 
 which not only circumfcribed the Trade of the Colonies 
 with foreign Nations within very narrow Limits, but 
 impofed Duties upon feveral Articles of their own Ma 
 nufactory exported from one Colony to another. Thefe 
 Acts, which impofed feverer Reftrictions upon the 
 Trade of the Colonies than were impofed upon the 
 Trade of England, deprived the Colonies, fo far as 
 thefe Reftrictions extended, of the Privileges of Englifb 
 Subjects, and conftituted an unnatural Difference be 
 tween Men under the fame Allegiance, born equally- 
 free, and entitled to the fame civil Rights. In this 
 
[ 24 ] 
 
 Light did the People of Virginia view the Adi of 25th 
 Charles 2d, when they fent Agents to the Englifb Court 
 to reprefent againft " Taxes and Impofitions being laid 
 " on the Colony by any Authority but that of their 
 " General Affembly." The Right of impofmg internal 
 Duties upon their Trade by Authority of Parliament 
 was then difputed, though you fay it was never called 
 into Queftion; and the Agents fent from Virginia upon 
 this Occafion obtained a Declaration from Charles 2d 
 the iQth of April 1676, under his Privy Seal, that 
 Impofitions or " Taxes ought not be laid upon the 
 " Inhabitants and Proprietors of the Colony but by the 
 ;< common Confent of the General Affembly, except 
 :< fuch Impofitions as the Parliament mould lay on 
 :t the Commodities imported into England from the 
 :< Colony:" And he ordered a Charter to be made out, 
 and to pafs the Great Seal, for fecuring this Right, 
 among others, to the Colony. 
 
 But whether the Adi of 25th Charles 2d, or any of 
 the other Acts, have been complained of as Infringe 
 ments of the Rights of the Colonies or not, is imma 
 terial; for if a Man of fuperiour Strength takes my 
 Coat from me, that cannot give him a Right to my 
 Cloak, nor am I obliged to fubmit to be deprived of 
 all my Eftate becaufe I may have given up fome Part 
 of it without Complaint. Befides, I have proved irre- 
 fragably that the Colonies are not reprefented in Parlia 
 ment, and confequently, upon your own Pofition, that 
 no new Law can bind them that is made without the 
 Concurrence of their Reprefentatives; and if fo, then 
 every Act of Parliament that impofes internal Taxes 
 upon the Colonies is an Adi of Power, and not of 
 Right. I muff fpeak freely, I am confidering a Question 
 which affects the Rights of above two Millions of as 
 
1 25 J 
 
 loyal Subjects as belong to the Britifh Crown, and muft 
 ufe Terms adequate to the Importance of it; I fay that 
 Power abftracted from Right cannot give a juft Title 
 to Dominion. If a Man invades my Property, he 
 becomes an AggrefTor, and puts himfelf into a State 
 of War with me: I have a Right to oppofe this Invader; 
 If I have not Strength to repel him, I muft fubmit, 
 but he acquires no Right to my Eftate which he has 
 ufurped. Whenever I recover Strength I may renew 
 my Claim, and attempt to regain my PofTeffion; if I 
 am never ftrong enough, my Son, or his Son, may, 
 when able, recover the natural Right of his Anceftor 
 which has been unjuftly taken from him. 
 
 I hope I mall not be charged with Infolence, in de 
 livering the Sentiments of an honeft Mind with Free 
 dom: I am fpeaking of the Rights of a People; Rights 
 imply Equality in the Inftances to which they belong, 
 and muft be treated without Refpect to the Dignity of 
 the Perfons concerned in them. If " the Britijb Em- 
 " pire in Europe and in America is the fame Power" 
 if the " Subjects in both are the fame People, and all 
 ;< equally participate in the Adverfity and Profperity 
 " of the Whole," what Diftindtions can the Difference 
 of their Situations make, and why is this Diftinction 
 made between them? Why is the Trade of the Colonies 
 more circumfcribed than the Trade of Britain? And 
 why are Impofitions laid upon the one which are not 
 laid upon the other? If the Parliament " have a Right 
 to impofe Taxes of every Kind upon the Colonies," 
 they ought in Juftice, as the fame People, to have the 
 fame Sources to raife them from: Their Commerce 
 ought to be equally free with the Commerce of Britain, 
 otherwife it will be loading them with Burthens at the 
 
 D 
 
[ 26 ] 
 
 fame Time that they are deprived of Strength to fuftain 
 them; it will be forcing them to make Bricks without 
 Straw. I acknowledge the Parliament is the fovereign 
 legiflative Power of the Britijh Nation, and that by a 
 full Exertion of their Power they can deprive the Co 
 lonifts of the Freedom and other Benefits of the Britijh 
 Conftitution which have been fecured to them by our 
 Kings; they can abrogate all their civil Rights and 
 Liberties ; but by what Right is it that the Parliament 
 can exercife fuch a Power over the Colonifts, who have 
 as natural a Right to the Liberties and Privileges of 
 Englijhmen as if they were actually refident within the 
 Kingdom? The Colonies are fubordinate to the Au 
 thority of Parliament; fubordinate I mean in Degree, 
 but not abfolutely fo: For if by a Vote of the Britijh 
 Senate the Colonifts were to be delivered up to the 
 Rule of a French or Turkifh Tyranny, they may refufe 
 Obedience to fuch a Vote, and may oppofe the Execution 
 of it by Force. Great is the Power of Parliament, 
 but, great as it is, it cannot, conftitutionally, deprive 
 the People of their natural Rights; nor, in Virtue of 
 the fame Principle, can it deprive them of their civil 
 Rights, which are founded in Compact, without their 
 own Confent. There is, I confefs, a confiderable 
 Difference between thefe two Cafes as to the Right of 
 Refiftance: In the firft, if the Colonifts mould be dif- 
 membered from the Nation by Act of Parliament, and 
 abandoned to another Power, they have a natural Right 
 to defend their Liberties by open Force, and may law 
 fully refift; and, if they are able, repel the Power to 
 whofe Authority they are abandoned. But in the other, 
 if they are deprived of their civil Rights, if great and 
 manifeft Oppreffions are impofed upon them by the 
 State on which they are dependent, their Remedy is to 
 
lay their Complaints at the Foot of the Throne, and 
 to fuffer patiently rather than difturb the publick Peace, 
 which nothing but a Denial of Juftice can excuse them 
 in breaking. But if this Juftice mould be denied, if 
 the moft humble and dutiful Reprefentations mould be 
 rejected, nay not even deigned to be received, what is 
 to be done? To fuch a Queftion Thucydides would make 
 the Corinthians reply, that if " a decent and condef- 
 :c cending Behaviour is mown on the Part of the Co- 
 
 1 lonies, it would be bafe in the Mother State to prefs 
 " too far on fuch Moderation:" And he would make 
 the Corcyreans anfwer, that " every Colony, whilft 
 
 6 ufed in a proper Manner, ought to pay Honour and 
 " Regard to its Mother State; but, when treated with 
 " Injury and Violence, is become an Alien. They 
 " were not fent out to be the Slaves, but to be the 
 " Equals of thofe that remain behind." 
 
 But, according to your Scheme, the Colonies are to 
 be prohibited from uniting in a Reprefentation of their 
 general Grievances to the common Sovereign. This 
 Moment " the Britifh Empire in Europe and in America 
 
 6 is the fame Power; its Subjects in both are the fame 
 :f People; each is equally important to the other, and 
 
 mutual Benefits, mutual Neceffities, cement their 
 " Connexion." The next Moment " the Colonies 
 " are unconnected with each other, different in their 
 " Manners, oppofite in their Principles, and clam in 
 
 c their Interefts and in their Views, from Rivalry in 
 
 : Trade, and the Jealoufy of Neighbourhood. This 
 " happy Divifion, which was effected by Accident, 
 " is to be continued throughout by Defign; and all 
 :i Bond of Union between them" is excluded from 
 your vaft Syftem. Divide et impera is your Maxim in 
 Colony Adminiftration, left " an Alliance fhould be 
 
[ 28 ] 
 
 " formed dangerous to the Mother Country." Un 
 generous Infmuation! deteftable Thought! abhorrent 
 to every Native of the Colonies! who, by an Unifor 
 mity of Conduct, have ever demonftrated the deepeft 
 Loyalty to their King, as the Father of his People, and 
 an unfhaken Attachment to the Intereft of Great Britain. 
 But you muft entertain a moft defpicable Opinion of 
 the Understandings of the Colonifts to imagine that they 
 will allow Divifions to be fomented between them about 
 inconfiderable Things, when the clofeft Union becomes 
 neceffary to maintain in a conftitutional Way their 
 deareft Interefts. 
 
 Another Writer*, fond of his new Syftem of placing 
 Great Britain as the Centre of Attraction to the Colo 
 nies, fays that " they muft be guarded againft having 
 " or forming any Principle of Coherence with each 
 " other above that whereby they cohere in the Centre; 
 " having no other Principle of Intercommunication 
 " between each other than that by which they are in 
 " joint Communication with Great Britain, as the 
 :< common Centre of all. At the fame Time that they 
 " are each, in their refpe6Hve Parts and Subordinations, 
 " fo framed as to be acted by this firft Mover, they 
 " mould always remain incapable of any Coherence, 
 " or of fo confpiring amongft themfelves as to create 
 " any other equal Force which might recoil back on 
 this firft Mover; nor is it more neceffary to preferve 
 " the feveral Governments fubordinate within their 
 " refpective Orbs than it is effential to the Prefervation 
 " of the Empire to keep them difconnected and inde- 
 " pendent of each other." But how is this " Principle 
 " of Coherence," as this elegant Writer calls it, be 
 tween the Colonies, to be prevented? The Colonies 
 
 * The Adminiftration of the Colonies by Governour Pownall. 
 
I 29 J 
 
 upon the Continent of North America lie united to each 
 other in one Tract of Country, and are equally con 
 cerned to maintain their common Liberty. If he will 
 attend then to the Laws of Attraction in natural as well 
 as political Philofophy, he will find that Bodies in 
 Contact, and cemented by mutual Interefts, cohere 
 more ftrongly than thofe which are at a Diftance, and 
 have no common Interefts to preferve. But this natural 
 Law is to be deftroyed; and the Colonies, whofe real 
 Interefts are the fame, and therefore ought to be united 
 in the clofeft Communication, are to be disjoined, and 
 all intercommunication between them prevented. But 
 how is this Syftem of Adminiftration to be eftablifhed? 
 Is it to be done by a military Force, quartered upon 
 private Families? Is it to be done by extending the 
 Jurifdiction of Courts of Admiralty, and thereby de 
 priving the Colonifts of legal Trials in the Courts of 
 common Law? Or is it to be done by haraffiing the 
 Colonifts, and giving overbearing Taxgatherers an Op 
 portunity of ruining Men, perhaps better Subjects than 
 themfelves, by dragging them from one Colony to 
 another, before Prerogative Judges, exercifmg a def- 
 potick Sway in Inquifitorial Courts? Oppreffion has 
 produced very great and unexpected Events: The 
 Helvetick Confederacy, the States of the United Ne 
 therlands, are Inftances in the Annals of Europe of the 
 glorious Actions a petty People, in Comparifion, can 
 perform when united in the Caufe of Liberty. May 
 the Colonies ever remain under a conftitutional Sub 
 ordination to Great Britain! It is their Intereft to live 
 under fuch a Subordination; and it is their Duty, by 
 an Exertion of all their Strength and Abilities, when 
 called upon by their common Sovereign, to advance 
 the Grandeur and the Glory of the Nation. May the 
 
I 30 J 
 
 Interefts of Great Britain and her Colonies be ever united 
 fo as that whilft they are retained in a legal and juft 
 Dependence no unnatural or unlimited Rule may be 
 exercifed over them; but that they may enjoy the 
 Freedom, and other Benefits of the Britijb Constitution, 
 to the lateft Page in Hiftory! 
 
 I flatter myfelf, by what has been faid, your Pofition 
 of a virtual Reprefentation is lufficiently refuted; and 
 that there is really no fuch Reprefentation known in 
 the Britijb Conftitution, and confequently that the Co 
 lonies are not fubject to an internal Taxation by Au 
 thority of Parliament. 
 
 I could extend this Inquiry to a much greater Length, 
 by examining into the Policy of the late Acts of Par 
 liament, which impofe heavy and fevere Taxes, Duties, 
 and Prohibitions, upon the Colonies; I could point 
 out fome very difagreeable Confequences, refpecting 
 the Trade and Manufacturers of Britain, which muft 
 neceffarily refult from thefe Acts; I could prove that 
 the Revenues arifing from the Trade of the Colonies, 
 and the Advantage of their Exports to Great Britain in 
 the Balance of her Trade with foreign Nations, exceed 
 infinitely all the Expenfe me has been at, all the Ex- 
 penfe me can be at, in their Protection; and perhaps 
 I could mow that the Bounties given upon fome Articles 
 exported from the Colonies were not intended, prima 
 rily, as Inftances of Attention to their Intereft, but arofe 
 as well from the Confideration of the difadvantageous 
 Dependence of Great Britain upon other Nations for 
 the principal Articles of her naval Stores, as from her 
 lofmg Trade for thofe Articles; I could demonftrate 
 that thefe Bounties are by no Means adequate to her 
 Savings in fuch foreign Trade, if the Articles upon 
 which they are given can be procured from the Colonies 
 
in Quantities fufficient to anfwer her Confumption; and 
 that the Excefs of thefe Savings is fo much clear Profit 
 to the Nation, upon the Suppofition that thefe Bounties 
 are drawn from it; but, as they will remain in it, and 
 be laid out in its Manufactures and Exports, that the 
 whole Sum which ufed to be paid to Foreigners for the 
 Purchafe of thefe Articles will be faved to the Nation. 
 I fay I could extend my Inquiry, by examining thefe 
 feveral Matters; but as the Subject is delicate, and 
 would carry me to a great Length, I fhall leave them 
 to the Reader s own Reflection. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 TITLES OF BOOKS TO WHICH BLAND REFERS 
 IN HIS NOTES 
 
 Brady, Robert. 16277-1700. 
 
 A complete history of England, from the first entrance of the Romans 
 under the conduct of Julius Caesar, unto the end of the reign of King 
 Henry III. Comprehending the Roman, Saxon, Danish and Norman 
 affairs and transactions in this nation during that time. Wherein is 
 shewed the original of our English laws, the differences and disagree 
 ments between the recular and ecclesiastic powers, the true rise and 
 grounds of the contentions and wars between the barons and our 
 antient kings. And likewise an account of our foreign wars with 
 France, the conquest of Ireland, and the actions between the English, 
 Scots and Welsh, during the rame time. All delivered in plain matter 
 of fact, without any reflections or remarques. By Robert Brady . . . 
 [London! in the Savoy, Printed by T. Newcomb for S Lowndes, 1685. 
 
 6 p. 1., Ixviii, [8], 675, 254, [67] p. front, (port.) 33cm. 
 
 "A catalogue of authors used in this history": [8] p. following p. 
 Ixviii. Appendix of official documents (charters, letters, proclamations, 
 etc.) in Latin, some with English translation. In 1700 the author 
 issued a supplementary volume under title: Continuation of the Com 
 plete history of England. 
 
 Brady Robert, 16277-1700. 
 
 A continuation of the Complete history of England: containing the 
 lives and reigns of Edward I. II. & III. and Richard the Second. By 
 Robert Brady . . . [London] in the Savoy, Printed by E. Jones for 
 S. Lowndes [etc.] 1700. 
 
 1 p. 1., 467, [2], 139, [24] p. 32icm. "Authors and records fr,om 
 whence the materials are taken": 1 p. following p. 467. Appendix of 
 official documents in Latin, French and English. 
 
 Coke, Sir Edward, 1552-1634. 
 
 The first part of the Tnstitvtes of the lawes of England. Or, A com- 
 mentarie vpon Littleton, not the name of a lawyer onely, but of the 
 law it selfe 4.. Haec ego grandaeuus posui tibi candide lector. 
 Authore Edw. Coke, milite. London, Printed for the Societie of sta 
 tioners, 1628. 
 
 7 p. 1., 395 numb. 1., 1 1. fold. tab. 28icm. 
 
 Coke, Sir Edward, 1552-1634. 
 
 The second part of the Institutes of the lawes of England. Con 
 taining the exposition of many ancient, and other statutes; whereof 
 you may see the particulars in a table following . . . Authore Edw. 
 Coke, milite, I. c. Hsec ego grandaevus posui tibi, candide lector. Lon 
 don, Printed by M. Flesher, and R. Young, for E. D., R. M., W. L., 
 and D. P., 1642. 
 
 5 p. 1., 745, [1] p., 1 1. 28Jcm. 
 
[ 34 ] 
 
 Coke, Sir Edward, 1552-1634. 
 
 The third part of the Institutes of the laws of England: concerning 
 high treason, and other pleas of the crown, and criminall causes . . . 
 Authore Edw. Coke, milite, i. c. Hsec ego grandaevus posui tibi, candide 
 lector. London, Printed by M. Flesher, for W. Lee, and D. Pakeman, 
 1644. 
 
 5 p. L, 243, [18] p. 28icm. 
 
 Coke, Sir Edward, 1552-1634. 
 
 The fourth part of the Institutes of the laws of England : concerning 
 the jurisdiction of courts . . . Authore Edw. Coke, milite, I. C. Haee 
 ego grandaevus posui tibi, candide lector. London, Printed by M. 
 Flesher, for W. Lee, and D. Pakeman, 1644. 
 
 7 p. 1., 364, [35] p. front, (port.) 28cm. 
 
 [Dickinson, John] 1732-1808. 
 
 The late regulations respecting the British colonies on the conti 
 nent of America considered, in a letter from a gentleman in Philadel 
 phia to his friend in London . . . Philadelphia, printed; London, Re 
 printed, for J. Almon, 1765. 
 
 62 p. 211cm 
 
 [Dickinson, John] 1732-1808. 
 
 The late regulations respecting the British colonies on the conti 
 nent of America considered, in a letter from a gentleman in Philadel 
 phia to his friend in London . . . Philadelphia, Printed and sold by 
 W. Bradford, 1765. 
 
 38 p. 19|cm. 
 
 [Dickinson, John] 1732-1808. 
 
 The late regulations respecting the British colonies on the conti 
 nent of America considered, in a letter from a gentleman in Philadel 
 phia to his friend in London . . . Philadelphia, printed; London, Re 
 printed for J. Almon, 1766. 
 
 2 p. L, 39 p. 2lcm. 
 
 Domat, Jean, 1625-1696. 
 
 The civil law in its natural order: together with the public law. 
 Written in French by Monsieur Domat . . . and tr. into English by 
 William Strahan . . . With additional remarks on some material dif 
 ferences between the civil law and the law of England . . . London, 
 Printed by J. Bettenham, for E. Bell [etc.] 1722. 
 
 2 v. 33cm. 
 
 Hakluyt, Richard, 15527-1616. 
 
 The principall navigations, voiages and discoveries of the English 
 nation, made by sea or ouer land, to the most remote and farthest 
 
[ 35 ] 
 
 distant quarters of the earth at any time within the compasse of 
 these 1500. yeers: deuided into three seuerall parts, according to the 
 positions of the regions wherunto they were directed . . . Whereunto 
 is added the last most renowmed English nauigation, round about the 
 whole globe of the earth. By Richard Hakluyt . . . Imprinted at 
 London by George Bishop and Ralph Newberrie, deputies to Christopher 
 Barker, printer to the Queenes most excellent Maiestie, 1589. 
 8 p. 1., 643, [12], 644-825 (i. e. 822), [10] p. 28icm. 
 
 King, Daniel, d. 1664, ed. 
 
 The Vale-royall of England, or, The county palatine of Chester 
 illustrated. Wherein is contained a geographical and historical de 
 scription of that famous county . . . adorned with maps and prospects, 
 and the coats of arms belonging to every individual family of the whole 
 county. Performed by William Smith, and William Webb, gentlemen. 
 Pub. by Mr. Daniel King. To which is annexed, An exact chronology 
 of all its rulers and governors both in church and state from the 
 time of the foundation of the stately city of Chester, to this very 
 day . . . Also, An excellent discourse of the Island of Man . . . Lon 
 don, Printed by J. Streater, 1656. 
 
 6 p. 1., 99 [5] 239, [10], 55 p., 3 p. 1., 34 p. illus., plates, maps (part 
 fold.) coats of arms. 29cm. The "Chronicon cestrense" has separate 
 paging; dedication is signed: Samuel Lee. "A short treatise of the 
 Isle of Man, digested into six chapters ..." has special t.-p. and paging; 
 its "Epistle dedicatory" is signed: James Chaloner. 
 
 Locke, John, 1632-1704. 
 
 An essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil gov 
 ernment. By the late learned John Locke, esq. Boston, Re-printed 
 and sold by Edes and Gill in Queen-street, 1773. 
 
 129 p. 18Jcm. A reprint of the second treatise in Locke s "Two 
 treatises of government," London, 1690. 
 
 Petyt, William, 1636-1707. 
 
 The antient right of the commons of England asserted; or, A dis- 
 ciourse proving by records and the best historians, that the commons 
 of England were ever an essential part of Parliament. By William 
 Petyt . London, Printed for F. Smith [etc.] 1680. 
 
 5 p. 1., 75, 184 p. 19cm. 
 
 [Pownall, Thomas] 1722-1805. 
 
 The administration of the colonies. [Part l] London, Printed for 
 J. Wilkie, 1764. 
 
 1 p. L, 131 p. 19cm. 
 
 Published anonymously. First edition. 
 
[ 36 ] 
 
 Rapin-Thoyras, Paul de, 1661-1725. 
 
 The history of England, as well ecclesiastical as civil. By. Mr. de 
 Rapin Thoyra? . . . Done into English from the French ... by N. 
 Tindal . . . London, Printed for J. and J. Knapton, 1728-32. 
 
 15 v. fronts, (v. 1-10, 13, 15) fold, maps, fold, geneal, tables, 20c. 
 
 "A letter to Mr. containing some particulars of the life of Mr. 
 
 de Rapin Thoyras": vol. xiii, p. [iii]-xxiv. "A short summary of the 
 history of England": v. 15. p. 1.-144 (at end). 
 
 Salmon, [Thomas] 1679-1767. 
 
 Modern history: or, The present state of all nations, describing 
 their respective situations, persons, habits, and buildings; manners, 
 laws and customs . . plants, animals, and minerals. By. Mr. Salmon. 
 Illustrated with cuts and maps ... by Herman Moll. The 3d ed. 
 With considerable additions and improvements . . . also the history 
 and revolutions of each country, brought down to the present time . . . 
 London, T. Longman, T. Osborne [etc.] 1744-46. 
 
 3 v. front, plates, ports., maps (partly fold.) 38 cm . 
 
 Squire, Samuel, bp. of St. Davids, 1714-1766. 
 
 An enquiry into the foundation of the English constitution; or, 
 An historical essay upon the Anglo-Saxon government both in Ger 
 many and England ... A new ed. with additions. By Samuel Squire. . . 
 London, Printed for C. Bathurst, 1753. 
 
 vi, 427 p. 22icm. Appendices: 1, An essay on the balance of civil 
 power in England; 2. A list of all such cities, towns, and burrows, as 
 have ever been summoned to Parliament, with the date of their first 
 returns. 
 
 Temple, Sir William, bnrL, 1628-1699. 
 
 The works of Sir William Temple, bart. ... To which is prefixed 
 the life and character of the author, considerably enl. A new ed. ... 
 London, F. C. and J. Rivington [etc.] 1814. 
 
 4 v. 22Jcm. 
 
 Contents I. Life of the author. An essay on the original and 
 nature of government. Observations upon the united Provinces of 
 the Netherlands. Letters containing an account of the most import 
 ant transactions that passed in Christendom from 1665 to 1672. II. 
 Sequel of the author s letters, serving to supply the loss of the first 
 part of his Memoirs. A survey of the constitutions and interests of 
 the Empire, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Holland, France, and Flanders 
 in 1671. A letter to the Duke of Ormond, written in October, 1673. 
 Memoirs, pt. II-IIL III. [Essays] Poetry. IV. Letters to the king, 
 the Prince of Orange, &c. Index. 
 
[ 37 ] 
 
 Vattel, Emmerich de, 1714-1767. 
 
 The law of nations; or, Principles of the law of nature: applied to 
 the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns. By M. de Vattel . . . 
 Tr. from the French . . . London, Printed for J. Newbery [etc.] 1760, 
 59 
 
 2 v. in 1. 261 x 
 
 Williams. William Peere. 
 
 Reports of cases argued and determined in the High Court of 
 Chancery, and of some special cases adjudged in the Court of Kings 
 Bench, 2 v. (1740). 2d ed. (1746) v. 3, 1749. 
 
 [Wollaston, William] 1660-1724. 
 
 The religion of nature delineated [London?] printed in the year 
 
 1722. 
 
 158 p., 1 1. 26c. Privately printed. 
 
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 198 Main Stacks 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS. 
 
 Renewls and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. 
 
 Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405. 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 4ft 
 
 NOV 2 6 1999 
 
 FORM NO. DD6 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 BERKELEY, CA 94720-6000 
 
BERKELEY