r
z\\
IB85A-
531
I
'jU
CO i u ' u '
THOUGHTS
ON
LETTER of EDMUND BURKE, Efq ;
TO THE
SHERIFFS of BRISTOL,
ON THE
AFFAIRS of AMERICA.
BY THE EARL OF ABINGDON.
OXFORD,
Printed for W, JACKSON : Sol4 by J. ALMON, in Piccadilly,
and J. BEW, in Paternofter-Row, LONDON; and by the
Itookfellers of BRISTOL, BATH, and CAMBRIDGE.
[ Price One Shilling. ]
THOUGHTS
ON THE
LETTER OF EDMUND BURKE,
HAVING feen Mr. Burke's late Publication
on the affairs of America, I was led to
read it with all that attention which every per-
formance of his muft neceffarily deferve. I
fympathife moft cordially with him in thofe
feelings of humanity, which mark, in language
fo expreflive, the abhorrence of his nature to
the effufion of Human Blood. I agree with
him in idea, that the War with America is
?< fruitlefs, hopelefs, and unnatural"; and I will
add, on the part of Great-Britain, cruel and
unjuft. I join hand in hand with him in all
his propofitions for Peaces and I look with
longing eyes for the event. I participate with
him in the happinefs of thofe friendfhips and
connexions^ which are the fubje&s, fo deferved-
A 2 ly,
4
The name of Rocking-
ham is a facred depofit in my bofom. I have
found him difinterefted, I know him to be hc^
neft. Before I quit him therefore, I will firfl
abandon human nature.
So far then are Mr. Burke and I agreed. I
am forry that we fhould difagree in any thing.
But finding that we have differed, on a late oc-
cafion, in our parliamentary conduct ; and that
I cannot concur with him in opinion on a mat-
ter, as I think, of very great national impor-
tance : it is therefore not in the zeal of party,
but in the fpirit of patriotifm, not to confute,
but to be convinced, not to point out error, but
to arrive at truth, that I now venture to fubmit
my thoughts to the Public. I feel the weight
of the undertaking, and I wifh it in abler hands,
I am not infeniible to my own incapacity, and
I know how much I fland in need ot excufe ;
but as public good is my object, public candour,
I truft, will be my beft apologift.
Mr. Burke commences his Letter with the
mention of " the two laft Acts which have
ct been ,paffed with regard to the Troubles in
<c America." The firft is, " for the Letter of
cc Marque," the fecond, " for a partial fufpen-
" fion'of the Habeas Corpus" Of the former,
he
( 5 )
he fays little, as not worthy of much notice.
Of the latter, his diftindtions are nice, his ftric-
tures many, his objections unanfwerable ; and
yet, although fo well apprifed of the dangers
and mifchiefs of this Adi, he lays, cc I have not
" debated againft this Bill in its progrefs through
" the Houfe, becaufe it would have been vain
" to oppofe, and impoffible to corredt it." But
this is matter of inquiry. As I thought diffe-
rently, I adted differently. Being in the coun-
try, this Bill was in its way through the Houfe
of Lords before I knew any thing of it. Upon
my coming accidentally to town, and hearing
of its malignity, I went down to the ttoufe, I
oppofed it, and entered my folemn Protefi on
the Journals againft it. It is true, I flood fingle
and alone in this bufinefs ; but I do not there-
fore take fhame to myfelf. Redtitude of inten-
tion will even fandlify error. But Mr. Burke
fays, " During its progrefs through the Houfe
cc of Commons, it has been amended^ fo as to
<c exprefs more diftindtly than at firft it did, the
<c avowed fentiments of thofe who framed it."
Now if the Bill was amended in its progrefs
through the Houfe of Commons, Mr. Burke's
reafon " for not debating againft the Bill" can-
not be well founded ; for his reafon is, " that
" it would have been vain to oppofe, and //#-
to correct it :" but to amend a thing is
A3 to
( 6 )
to correft it; and therefore if the Bill wai
amended^ it was not impojfibk to correct it.
The cafe was this. This Bill was brought
Into the Houfe of Commons under the black
coverture of defigning malice. Some of the
honourable Members of that Houfe, feeing it
in this dark difguife, endeavoured to unrobe it
of its darknefs. Their endeavours fucceeded r
and " it was amended^ fo as to exprefs more dif-
<c tindly than it at firft did, the avowed fenti-
cc ments of thofe who framed it." In this
fhape it came to the Houfe of Lords : bad
enough in all confcience : but I ufe Mr. Burke's
own words when I fay, " there is a difference
<e between bad and the worft of all." I thought
it bad, and therefore I put my negative upon
it: had it been worfe, a fortiori, I fliould
have done the fame. But here it would feem
as if Mr. Burke and I were not agreed in our
notions of bad and worfe : for what he holds
bad, I efteem tvorfe, and what he calls <worfe> I
think bad. To explain myfelf. He confiders a
partial Sufpenlion of the Habeas Corpus a greater
evil than an univerfal fufpenfion of it. I conceive
the contrary : though if Mr. Burke's premifes
were right, I fhould approve his reafoning, and
admit his confequences. He fays, " whenever
** an A61 is made for a ceffation of law and
" juftice*
( 7 )
" juftice, the whole people fhould be univerfally
" fubjefted to the fame fufpenfion of their
" franchifes." Be it fo : but then the whole
people fhould fall under the reafon and occa-
fion of the Act. If England was under the
fame predicament with America, that is to fay,
if Englifhmen were looked upon to be Rebels,
as the Americans are, in fuch a cafe, a partial
fufpenfion of the Habeas Corpus would be invi-
dious, and confequently more unjuft than a ge-
neral GiCpenfion of its for why fhould one Rebel
be diftinguiihed from another ? but Englifh-
men are not accounted Rebels, and the Ameri^
cans are ; and therefore in the fame degree that
3 partial fufpenfion, on the one hand, might be
juft, an univerfal fufpenfion, on the other,
"would be unjuft. Where the offence is local,
the punifhment too mufl be local. It would
have been unjuft if the lands in America had
been forfeited to the Crown in the year 1745,
becaufe Scotland was then in rebellion. I do
not ufe thefe arguments in favour of the Bill.
The principle was bad with refpedt to America :
it was worfe with regard to this country. And
herein confided the very malignity of the Bill :
for whilft the Habeas Corpus was taken away
from the imputed guilty Americans, the inno-
cent Englifh were at the fame time deprived of
its benefit j fufpicion, without oath, being
A 4 made
( 8 )
made the two-edged fword that was to cut
both ways.
But, fays Mr. Burke, "The alarm offuch a
" proceeding," (that is of an univerfal fufpen-
fion of the people's franchifes) " would then be
" univerfal. It would operate as a fort of call
" of the nation" As to my part I have heard
fo many calls of the nation of late, without any
anfwer being made to them; that I fearthe
nation has either loft its hearing or its voice :
but fuppoiing otherwife, of what avail can a
call of the nation be againft the fupremacy of an
aft of parliament ? And who fhall dare to refift
the authority of a ftatute that can alter the efta-
blifhed religion of the land, nay even bind in all
cafes whatsoever ? But more of this by and by.
Mr. Burke goes on to fay, <c As things now
" (land, every man in theWeft-Indies, every one
" inhabitant of three unoffending Provinces on
" the Continent, every perfon coming from the
" Eaft-Indies, every gentleman who has travelled
" for his health or education, every mariner who
" has navigated the feas, is, for no other offence,
" under a temporary profcription." But how did
things ftand before the amendment of the bill?
Not only every man as defcribed above, but
every
every individual in this kingdom was under the
fame temporary profcription. The writing of
a letter to, or receiving a letter from, America,
in this country, though the contents were ever
fo harmlefs, was ground of fufpicion fufficient
to immure a man in the caftle of Dumfries, or
Pendennis, or wherefoever elle perfecution
fhould think fit to fend him *. We have been
faved from this hell-governed profcription. Op-
pofition removed it from us. It had been well
to have done fb from every fubjedl of the realm:
but it did what it could, and the liberty of
many unoffending perfons has been preferved
thereby.
This being the ftate of the bill, amended, as
Mr. Burke himfelf confeffes, one might have
thought that, though bad, it was better than it
had been ; but the very reverfe of this is the
opinion of Mr. Burke : for in one place, he fays,
* It is faid that the number of perfons who died in different
prifons during the defpotic government of the Marquis dePombal,
late minifler of Portugal, without having been con<viied of any
crime, is computed at 3970 perfons ; and thofe who were lan-
guifliing in irons at the time of his difgrace amounted to 800.
If this acl had patted, as it was firft framed, and if we may mea-
fure our punifhments by thofe meted out to our brethren in Ame-
rica; what reafon is there to fuppofe that our fituation had
not been the very counterpart of this ?
" the
( 16 )
" the limiting qualification, inflead of taking
ec out the fling, does, in my humble opinion
" fharpen and envenom it to a greater degree."
And, in another, he adds, " that far from fof*
" tening the features of fuch a principle, and
" thereby removing any part of the popular
" odium or natural terrors attending it, I fhould
f e be forry, that any thing framed in contradiction
" to the fpirit of our conflitutiondid not inftantly
" produce in fad, the groffeft of the evils, with
" which it was pregnant in its nature." So that
amendment^ by foftening the features, and re-
moving the popular odium, without producing
the groffeft of evils with which it was pregnant
in its nature, has, if I may ufe fuch terms of
contrariety, made the bill worfe. Such is the
dodrine of Mr. Burke, and juft it may be : but
if it be, I can only fay that he and I fee objeds
through different mediums 5 and that if he
thinks it right to do evil that good may come
of it, I wifh to do good, by averting the evil.
The phyfician that flops the progrefs of a
difeafe, may, at one time or another, hope for
its cure ; but he that leaves the difeafe to the
efforts of nature alone, trufts to a caufe that is
very unfure in the effed, Mr. Burke, however,
in aid of his opinion fays, that, " On the next
" unconftitutional ad, all the fafhionable world
" will be ready to fay- Your prophecies are ri*
" diculous,
( It )
* diculous, your fears are vain, you fee how little
" of the mifchiefs which you formerly foreboded
" are come to pals. Thus by degrees that artful
" foftening of all arbitrary power, the alledged
cc infrequency or narrow extent of its operation,
" will be received as a fort'of aphorifm : and Mr.
" Hume will not be fingular in telling us, that
" the felicity of mankind is no more difturbed
" by it, than by earthquakes^ or thunder, or the
" other more unufual accidents of nature," Now
as to the fafhionable world, living as they do
tinder the tyranny of that greateft of all ty-
rants, fafhion^ upon fuch an occaiion, I fhould
hardly look up to them as a fit court of appeal.
And as to Mr. Hume, let thofe remember who
adopt his aphorifms that that great philan-
thropift and friend of liberty, Doftor Franklin,
has not, in the depths of his wifdom thought,
" alledged infrequency or narrow extent of ope-
ce ration," any argument to prevent the protec-
tion of mankind even " againft the more un-
" ufual accidents of nature 3" and let them in
the remembring of this, regret, that his poli-
tics, like his philofophy, have not been the
fubjedts of our experiment. Happy, thrice
happy, had it been for this country, if, inftead
of befetting this able man with foulmouthed
language, and indecent mockery, (indecent
doubly
( 12 )
doubly fo, becaufe of the venerable council be-
fore whom he flood) his advice, like his con-
dutforSy had been made ufe of to draw the'
forked lightning from that portentous cloud,
which, with overfpreading ruin, has now burft
upon our heads.
Another argument made ufe of by Mr.
Burke for not debating againft the Bill, is this.
" It is," fays he, " fome time fince I have
c been clearly convinced, that in the prefent
" ftate of things, $11 oppofition to any meafures
" propofed by minifters, where the name of
" America appears, is vain and frivolous." I
think fo too : but then, it does not therefore
follow that oppofition is to be laid afide. The
queftion, how far a member of either houfe
can give over his attendance in parliament, be-
caufe he is out-voted, is a nice queftion ; and
worthy the examination of thofe who have lei-
fure and abilities for the purpofe. My own
private opinion is, that no member, indivi-
dually, can do this, confiftently with his duty.
Collectively he may: as the precedent of fecef-
iion, during the adminiftration of Sir Robert
Walpole, {hews ; and as reafon proves : for it
is not to be prefumed that a combination to
this end can be obtained, without a fufficient
foundation
( 13 )
foundation for it's and therefore when it does
take place, it is intended, as Mr. Burke elfe-
"where fays, < as a fort t>f call of the nation/'
But even here, I mull not think it juftifiable,
unlefs fupported on the following grounds.
In the firft place, the feceffion muft be general,
that is to fay, it muft not confift of this or that
party only in oppofition, but muft include the
whole minority againft the meafures that have
provoked feceffion. In the next place, it mull
be a feceffion not fubjilentio, but proclaimed
either by Remonftrance on the Journals, or
public Addrefs to the People ; and when both
thefe circumftances attend the a&, then fecef-
fion is not only juftifiable, but is the moil faith-
ful pledge of duty that can be given. I have
therefore exceedingly to lament that a fecef-
fion, fuch as this is, has not been carried into
execution ; and not only on account of the
proof that would have been given thereby to
the nation of the fincerity of oppofition, but
becaufe I do verily believe from my foul, that
if it had, daring as minifters are and have been,
they would not have prefumed to have gone
the lengths they have done in the open viola-
tion of the Constitution; though upheld, as they
fay they are, by parliament, by the country-
gentlemen, and by their long tribe of obfequi-
pus addreflers,
But
( 14 )
But to return more direftly, to the
ment of Mr. Burke, and admitting that " all
" oppofition, where the name of America ap-
f* pears, is vain and frivolous," and therefore
that Mr. Burke was right in not debating
againft the ^Bill, the fame reafon muft hold
good in every cafe of oppofition where the
fame circumftances exift : for not to debate in
this inftance, and to debate in another, " where
e the name of America appears," muft be
wrong. Both cannot be right. And there-
fore Mr. Burke's repeated propoiitions fo ably
made, and fo well fupported, for peace, might
have been difpenfed with. Objections to taxes,
in aid of this deftructive war, were unneceffa-
ry. In fhort all debate was
* { Time mifpent, and language mifapplied :"
for " all oppofition is vain and frivolous, where
" the name of America appears,"
Having thus ftated the reafons, and examined
the motives that occafioned a difference in con-
dutt between Mr. Burke and me ; I (hall now,
turning over thofe many leaves of his letter, of
which, were I to take any notice, it muft be in
admiration and in praife, proceed to that part
of it wherein our difference In opinion prevails.
And here, in page 46, Mr. Burke fays, " But I
"do
( is )
** do afiiire you, (and they who know me pub-
* c lickly and privately will bear witnefs to me)
cc that if ever one man lived, more zealous
" than another, for the fupremacy of Parlia-
< e ment, and the rights of this imperial Crown,
" it was myfelf." Now if I cannot join with
Mr. Burke in this folemn declaration of his, I
truft, it will not be therefore imputed to me,
that I am lefs zealous than he is for the rights
of the firitifli Legiflature 5 nor if { object to the
terms of his propolition fhall I be condemned
as captious : for to cavil does not belong to me,
and more efpecially about words. But when I
fee, and know, and am perfuaded, that thefe
very modes of fpeech, jupremacy of Parliament *
rights of this imperial Crown, with their kindred
others, unity of Empire y allegiance to the State,
and fuchlike high-founding fefquipedalia verba,
by becoming, in defiance of their impropriety,
the deities of modern invocation, and by ope-
rating as incantations to miflead mankind, have
done more mifchief to the State even than the
fvvord itfelf of Civil War; be their authority
ever fo great, I can never fubfcribe to their
ufe. Supremacy of Parliament is a combination
of terms unknown to the Englilh polity ; and
as to allegiance to the State, though it be the
fandtified phrafeology of an Archbifliop, it is,
like the cc Whiggifm" he cenfures, allegiance
" run
( 16 )
<c run mad."' Supremacy is an appendant of
the Crown, and io is allegiance. The former
is the right of the King, (as heretofore it was of
the Pope) in his ecclefiaflical capacity, the latter
in his temporal ; and there cannot be two rights,
in one State, to the fame thing. Who ever
heard of the oaths of fupremacy and of alle-
giance to the Parliament ? And why are they
not taken to the Parliament ? Becaufe they are
due to the King, and not to the Parliament ;
and it is not fit that the Parliament fhould in-
vade <c the rights of this imperial Crown."
Let each poflefs its own, and fo the conftitution
will be preferved. That the Parliament is fu-
preme, I admit. It is thefupreme court ^ or curia
magna of the Conftitution -, as the Houfe of
Lords is the fupreme court of Juftice, or dernier
refort of the Law. Both are fupreme^ and yet
fupremacy was never attributed to the Houfe of
Lords, but ever, in the language of the con-
Ititution, belonged to the King, as the
* Vide the Archbifiiop of York's Sermon, printed by T-
Harrifon and S. Brooke in Warwick-Lane, p. 22. It had been
well if this, or any thing elfe that the Primate faid, could have
fet afide the criminal charges to which his Sermon was expofed :
but as it was indefenfible, fo is it matter of great national con-
cern to find fuch doftrines propagated by the once Tutor of the
Heir-apparent to the Crown ; though it prove of fome cpnfo-
lation, as the Earl of Shelburne remarked, that his Majefty,
'perceiving the evil tendency of fuch principles, had, in his wif-
dcm, removed him from the tuition of the Prince.
Head
( '7 )
Head of the Church. In like manner I admit,
that the people are bound in obedience to the
laws of Parliament : but this does not therefore
infer {C allegiance to the State." Allegiance is
one thing) obedience another. Allegiance is
due to the King, fo long as, in his executive
capacity> he fhall protect the rights of the
People. Obedience is due to the laws, when
founded on the conftitution : but when they
are fubverfive of the conflitution, then diibbe-
dience inflead of obedience is due j and re-
fiftance becomes the law of the land.
Thefe were my reflections, confequent on
Mr. Burke's declaration ; but my hope was,
that although we differed in ivords^ in things
we might yet be agreed. How great then was
my difappointment, when inftead of feeing this
fubjecl: unrobed of its gorgeous apparel, and like
truth made to appear naked and unadorned,
when inftead of difcuflion, which fuch a decla-
ration feemed neceffarily to call for, when in-
ftead of reafoning, and of argument, as if
afraid of their confequences, I found afiertions
without the fhadow of proof, and precedents
importing no authority, but upholding error,
fubftituted in their room. " Many others, in-
" deed," fays Mr. Burke," might be more
" knowing in the extent, or in the foundation
B " of
of thefe rights. I do not pretend to be an
antiquary, or a lawyer, or qualified for the
chair of profeflbr in metaphyfics. I never
ventured to put your folid interefts upon fpe-
culative grounds. My having conftantly de-
clined to do fo has been attributed to my in-
capacity for fuch difquifitions > and I am in-
" clined to believe it is partly the caufe. I ne-
" ver fhall be aihamed to confefs, that where
" I am ignorant, I am diffident. I am indeed
" not very folicitous to clear myfelf of this im-
ce puted incapacity; becaufe men, even lefs
cc converfant than I am, in this kind of fub-
" tilties, and placed in ftations, to which I
" ought not to afpire, have, by the mere
" force of civil difcretion, often conducted the
" affairs of great nations with diftinguimed
" felicity and glory." This may be very true,
but furely it is not very fatisfadtory. To be
more zealous than any one man living 6C for the
" fuprernacy of parliament ; and the rights of
" this imperial crown," and lefs knowing than
others " in the extent and foundation of thefe
" rights/' is to profels more of implicit faith
and enthufiafm, than, I confefs, I expeded to
have met with, at leaft now adays, in civil
concerns. Of fanatics in the church I knew
there were ftill many to be found, but a ftate
fanatic, I thought, was a phenomenon in poli-
tics
( '9 )
tics not of modern appearance. If indeed our
parliaments were, as our Scottifh race of Kings
held themfelves to be, God's vicegerents, and
governed the ftate de jure divino ; then fuch a
degree of belief had been only correfpondent to
the occafion of it : but parliaments have ever
been the works of men's hands, as, thank God,
we now know that our kings are 5 or other-
wife we had not had our prefent moft gracious
Majefty on this throne, nor yet that additional
folemn contradt between king and people, I
mean the aft cf fettlement y for the eternal fecu-
rity, as I truft, of thofe rights of the fubjedl
which are intrufted to the executive power.
Again : Why fhould a man be eilher antiqua-
rian, lawyer, or metaphyficiarj, or what need
is there of fpeculation, to know <c the extent
" and foundation of thefe rights ?" The rights
of Englishmen want no fuch profeffional au-
thority for their fupport : neither are they mere
abftrad terms, the entia rationis, or creatures
of the underftanding; but are, for our know-
ledge, written in our hearts, with the blood of
our ancestors. But " the affairs of great na-
" tions are often conducted with diftinguifhed
" felicity and glory by the mere force of civil
-" difcretion." What ! are the rights of Eng-
liftimen to be held at the dijcretion of mi-
B 2 niilers?
( 20 )
nlfters ? Is civil discretion the rule of our go-
vernment ? Wherein does civil difcretion differ
from will, the law of tyrants ? And will any
minifter of this country fay, " I am not con-
ec verfant in this kind of fubtilties, theextent and
ec foundation of thefe rights," and therefore will
govern by this unconditional power, the mere
force of civil difcretion ? This can never be :
but I have faid that I found affertions without
the fhadow of proof, and precedents importing
no authority, but upholding error > and this
obliges me to be more circumftantial. The
fubjecl; is a deep one ; and the confideration of
it the moft interefting of any that ever fell un-
der political contemplation. It is no lefs than
to know whether our civil exiftence has any
real foundation ; or whether, as it is faid of
the fea, it be without a bottom. Perhaps
I may be loft in the depths of refearch : but if
I am, I carry this coniblation with me, that I
fink in the caufe of truth. I have this hope,
however, of prefervation about me, that I (hall
not dive into myfteries, nor yet venture among
the quickfands of metaphyfical abflradtions.
The constitution of my country is the ground
on which I wifli to ftand, and if I gain this
ihore, my.fafety prefent will reward the dan-
gers pad.
Mr.
Mr. Burke having given us his creed in the
fupremacy of parliament, next applies its un-
limited power to and over the American Colo-
nies ; and then tells us what the fupremacy of
parliament is in England. I (hall confider the
laft firft, namely the fupremacy of Parliament
in England, as a major proportion in which
the minor is contained. He fays (in order to
ihew " the compleatnefs' of the legifktive an-
" thority of parliament over this kingdom' ) that
" if any thing can be fuppofed out of the power
<c of human legislature, it is religion: I admit,
" however, that the eftablifhed religion of this
x * country has been three or fodr times altered
" by aft of parliament ; and therefore that a
" ftatute binds even in that cafe." This is con-
clufive as to Mr, Burke's idea both with refped:
to the unlimited right as well as the unlimited
power of parliament : but whilft he is fharp
even to a point for the general unlimited right
of parliament, he adduces fome cafes to blunt
the edge of its power over this kingdom. He
fays, " But we may fafely affirm, that notwith-
<c {landing this apparent omnipotence 3 it would
" be now found as impofiible for king and par-
" liament to change the eftablifhed religion of
" this country, as it was to King James alone,
*' when he attempted to make fuch an altera-
' <{ tion without a parliament." Further : " I
83 fee
( 22 )
" fee no abflradt reafon, which ean be given,
" why the fame power that made and repealed
" the high-commiffion court and the ftar-
/ c chamber might not revive them again : but
" the madnefs would be as unqueftionable as
" the competence * of that parliament which
<c fhould make fuch attempts." Furthermore:
" The king's negative to bills is one of the moil
" indifputed of the royal prerogatives, and it
<c extends to all cafes whatsoever ; but the ex-
" ercife is wifely foreborne." Moreover : " We
" know that the convocation of the clergy had
" formerly been called, and fat with nearly as
" much regularity to buiinefs as parliament it-
" felf. It is now called for form only." Thefe
then are what I call precedents without autho-
rity, but upholding error : for diftinguiming, as
niuft be done, between right and power, par-
liament cannot exercife a power without a right
to that power ; or if it does, it is an ufurpation
of power, which fooner or later never fails of re-
drefs. Precedents therefore of ads of parlia-
ment, repugnant to the fundamental principles
of the conftitution, are no proofs of the fupre-
macy or omnipotency of parliament, but in-
fiances only of the abufe of parliament ; " and
" as no government," fays Machiavel, " can be
* It is prefumed thatittftmptttMttV here meant, and that compe~
fence is an error of the prefs*
<c
C 23 )
< of long duration, which, by the original
" formation of its conftitution, is not frequent-
ly renewed or drawn back to its firft princi-
ples," fo whenever this happens to us, as
it often has done, and, I truft, is again not afar
off from us, thefe precedents, like fo many
clouds difperfed, only ferve to mew, that al-
though they may darken the face of the/con-
ftitution, they can never extinguish its light.
But a word or two more particularly of the/e
precedents. Much ftreis has been laid on the
alterations that have been made in the eftablifh-
ed religion, in order to mew the right of Par-
liament to omnipotency : it is the dodtrine of
Sir William Blackftone*: but as the moft able
chymift cannot extrad: that from any given
thing, 'which does not exift in its nature, fb is
this precedent, for this reafon, by no means a
cafe in point. In the firft place, religion has
nothing to do with the civil rights of the
State. It is fet apart from them, and belongs
to the Church J. The civil rights of the State
are of a temporal nature : they are pofitive> they
* Vide his Commentaries, vol. i. p. 161.
J I am aware how much I here differ from the very able Pre-
late, who is for harneffing Church and State together, like coach
and horfes, that He as one of the drivers may enjoy the fmack
of the whip ; a fmack which he cannot forget, and which he
gave me reafon to remember when I was at Weftminfter fchool :
B 4 but
( 24 )
are general, affeting every member of the
community equally and alike. Religion is of
a fpiritual nature : it is a negative duty, and
not a pojitive right : it is not general, but varies
according to men's confciences : it is the fub-
iect of toleration, for no laws can have power
over men's minds. What Act of Parliament
can make me believe that three is one, or one is
three, if I do not chufe to believe it ? Or that
my falvation in the next world is to be obtained
by the belief of 39 articles in this ? The ejla-
Blijhed religion, therefore, is no more than that
drefs which the State taylors have provided for
Religion to go to court in ; and the tame taylors
that made this drefs y can alter it, as we have
leen, and as the fafhion of the times changes.
But if this was not the cafe with the efta-
bliihed religion, how, in the next place, does
its alteration mew the right of Parliament to
omnipotency ? What effect has it had on the
conftitution ?, Are we lefs free now, either in
Church or State, than we were before the Re-
formation ? I mould imagine that we are more
free in both, and if fo, freedom being the firft
principle of the conftitution, the power of Par-
but as I am now out of his clutches, fp I hope I am out of his
books too, at leaft fuch as are akin to his political fermons.
Vide Archbifliop of York's Sermon, p, i o.
liament
C *s )
Kament to alter the ejlablijhed religion has been
but correfpondent to its right ; and therefore,
whilPc it is no proof of the fupremacy of Par-
liament, I ihould not be forry to fee a little
more alteration of it. I think it may ftill be
amended^ without offence to the people, or in-
jury to the conftitution ; nay even with fatis-
fation to fome of the clergy themfelves. The
fecond precedent is that of the High Commif-
Gon Court, and the Star Chamber 5 which is
in direct proof of my argument : for they,
being ufurpations of power y and abufes of the
right of Parliament, have been diffolved ; and
therefore I agree with Mr. Burke that it would
be madnefs to revive them, and for the reafon
he gives too, to wit, " the incompetence of
" Parliament:" though if the power of Parlia-
ment be unlimited^ is not the incompetency of
Parliament a pofition fomewhat paradoxical ?
The third precedent is, fc the King's negative
" to Bills, which is wifely forborne." This is
the forbearance of a known right to a power
veiled by the conftitution in the Crown, and
not the exercife of a power unknown to the
conftitution. As it therefore ihews, that, even
where there is a manifeft power, that power is
limited ; fo it proves, of courfe, that where
there is no manifeft power, there can be no
right to unlimited power. The laft precedent
is
is that concerning the Convocation of the
gy ; and to this, what I have faid on the head
of the eftabliJJoed religion, inafmuch as ecclejia-
fiical matters have nothing to do with civil
concerns, may here be applied. But I do not
recolledl that, in bringing the Convocation of
the Clergy to its prefent formal ftate only,
there was any exertion of power of any kind
to this end. If I remember aright it was a
bargain. It was agreed that, on their Convo-
cations becoming merely pafllve, the beneficed
Clergy fhould pay no further fubfidies to the
government, as they ufed to do in Convocation ;
and that they ihould be reprefented in Parlia-
ment, by being allowed to vote at the elections
for Knights of the Shire : for before this they
were not reprefented in Parliament, but in their
own Convocations; and therefore Parliament
had no right to tax them, nor were they taxed
by Parliament, notwithftanding its unlimited
power* and " the compleatnefs of its legiflative
fe authority over this kingdom."
If this then be the refult of thefe precedents,
and the State of what has been offered by Mr.
Burke for this' 'arbitrary right in Parliament,
extending even to Religion itfelf, and whofe
pzwer is limited only by " the mere force of
* e civil difcretionj" is there nothing further that
may
may be faid again/I this right ? I mall confider.
There is nothing fo much talked of, and yet
nothing fo little underftood, as the Engli/h Con-
Jlitntion. Every man quotes it, and upon every
occafion too : but few know where to find it.
If one enquire after it, an Adi of Parliament is
produced. If you afk what it is, you are told
it is the Law. Strange miftake ! The Conftitu-
tion and the Law are not the fame. They dif-
fer and in what manner I will endeavour to
point out. In the great machine of State there
are found three principal powers, with a variety
of others fubordinate to them - 3 particularlv the
Prerogative of the Crown : which is a power
there veiled not to counteract the higher powers,
but, if at any time there mould be occafion, to
fupply their deficiencies. The firft of thefe
principal Powers, is the Power of the People ;
the fccond, the Power of the Conftitution ; the
third, the Power of the Law. Now the Power
of the People is firft, becaule, without People,
there could be neither Conftitution nor Law.
The Power of the Conftitution is iecond, for it
is the immediate efTed of this firft caufe $ and
if the People and the Conftitution make the firft
and the fecond Power > there is no need to prove
that the Law is the third Power of the State.
It follows in the order I have laid down.
As from the People then is derived the Conjlitu-
tion,
ft on, fo from the Con flit ut ion is derived the
Law > the Conjlitution and the Law being, in
a due courfe of lineal confanguinity, the de-
fcendants of the People.
But now I (hall be afked, what is this Confli-
tution, and what is this Law? I anfwer, that
by pointing out their relations, their differences
too are marked. But this is not enough : defi-
nition is neceffary, and therefore, as a definition
of the name I would fay, that Conjlitution fignified
Company and was the fame with public or poli-
tical Law - y and that Law, as here meant, was
the municipal or civil Law of the State ; but
as a definition of the thing^ perhaps both may
beft appear as derived the one from the other.
I define Conjlitution then to be, thofe Agree-*
ments entered into, thofe Rights determined
upon, and thofe Forms prefcribed, by and be-
tween the Members of any Society in the firft
fettlement of their union, and in the frame and
mode of their Government ; and is the Genus
whereof the municipal or civil Law of fuch
ertablifhed Community is the Species : the for-
mer^ afcertaining the reciprocal duties, or feveral
relations fubfifting betwixt the governors and go-
verned \ the latter ', maintaining the rights and
adjusting the differences arifing betwixt indivi-
duals, as parts of the fame whole. And this I
take
( 29 )
take to be the true diftindlion, and real diffe-
rence between the Conjlitution and the Law of
England. But this is matter of Theory only. It
is the paffive ftate of Government, and Govern-
ment muft be a&ive. Praffiice therefore is to be
ibperadded to this Theory ; and hence the ori-
gin of Parliaments. What then are Parlia-
ments ? Parliaments make the formal, as Rights
do the fubftantial, part of the Conflitution ;
and are the Deputies, the Agents, or Appointees
of the People, entrufted by them with the
Powers of Legijlation, for the purpofe of pre-
ferving (and not of deftroying) the eftablimed
Rights of the Conflitution. But what are the
eftablifhed Rights of theConftitution ? In detail^
they are multifarious, and many : but reduced
to their firft principles, they are thefe, fcc Security
" of Life, Liberty, Property, and Freedom in
< Trade" Such are the great Outlines of the
Englijh Conjlitution, the fhort hiftory, or abflracl:
of that original Compatt, which is the bond or
cement of our civil union, and which forms, in
particular, the relations that exift betwixt the
legijlative Power of the State, and the People.
But there is ftill another relation to be confidered.
The legijlatfae Power of the State muft receive
its force from an executive Power. This exe-
cutive Power is lodged in the Crown, from
whence a relation arifes betwixt the Crown and
People -, and is called " the Contrail between
" King
<f King and People/ 7 As Compa5l then is that
Agreement of the People with the legijlative
Power, or amonJ th^mfelves, concerning their
fame Rights ; fo L,ontraft is that Bargain of the
People with the executive Power concerning
their different Rights *. But here it will be
* Writers upon this fubjeft have confounded the two terms,
Csmpaci and Conirad together ; making them to fignify one
and the fame thing, though really different. Compaft is an
Agreement entered into without any other confideration, than
that cf the plighted faith of the parties to the articles agreed
upon : for the articles being general, it is equally the intereft of
every individual to obferve them without any additional obliga-
tion ; and fuch is the original Ccmpaft t or Ccnftitution of this
country. Bat ContraQ is a Bargain, with a condition annexed
thereto, that demands a quid pro quo ; and fuch is the " Con-
* trad between King and People" : for the executive Power being
lodged in the Cro c iut7, the King may fuffer the Laws to fleep, or
pervert them " from their right ufe to their worft abufe," which,
making the articles of this Contract not general > calls for different
covenants ; and therefore the King, at his coronation, takes an
oath to protect the Rights of the People ; and the People, in re-
turn, owe, and may be called upon to fwear, Allegiance to the
King. It may be further obferved, that as it was not to be fup-
pofecl that Parliaments, whofe rights were precifely the fame
with thofe of the People, could poflibly enacl Laws fubverfive of
thofe Rights, fo the original Compact feeming to require no other
fan&ion, no other agreement between the legiflative Power and
the People was ever thought of: but now Corruption, that felf-
devouring monfler of the State, making frefn covenants necef-
fary, it is to be hoped, that the fame explicit, uncvofive, exprefs
Contract, which exiils between the King and People, will foon,
very foon, be made to fubfiit between the Parliament and People.
It was the doclrine of unlimited Power in the Crown that obtained
the former ; it is the ROW new and more dangerous doclrine ot
unlimited tftiiuer in Parliament that muft procure the latter.
(aid,
faid, How is this known, and where is this to
be found ? I reply, As well in the reafon of
the things themfelves, and our own experience,
as in the letter and fpirit of our Charters : for
inftance, in Magna Charta, which is not only
declaratory of the original Compatf, or funda-
mental Rights of the People, but is itfelf that
folemn Contratf, which was had between King
and People, for the proteftion of thofe
Rights; and therefore, as fuch, proves quod
erat demonjlrandum.
But now I may be told, that although I have
made a diftinftion between the Conjlitution and
the Law of England, I have cited Magna
Charta^ which is an Aft of Parliament, and
confequently the Law of England, as for the
Conjlitution of England. The objection is fpe-
cious only, for it is groundlefs. In the firft
place, it is not true that Magna Cbarta is an
Aft of Parliament ; and for this reafon : that
it was obtained in the field of battle, with
fword in hand, in Runing-Mead, bet ween Wind-
for and Staines, where the People had pitched
their tents, and where, as hiftory further in-
forms us, " King John arid his adherents ap-
" peared to be an inconiiderable number, but
" the Lords and Commons filled the country."
It
( 3* )
It is therefore true, that Magna Charta was
the Aft of the People at large y and not of the
Legiflature alone. Befides : it is proved by
Acts of Parliament, that it is not an Ad of
Parliament $ and that Parliament (unlimited as
its power is now faid to be) has no power over
it at all : for it is declared by the ftatute of the
25th of Edw. I. that Magna Cbarta was ob-
tained by the common jlffent cf all the Realm*
and that it was to be received as the Folcright>
or common Law of the Land. And by the
43d of Edw. III. all ftatutes made againft
Magna Cbarta are declared to be void : fo that
whilft Magna Cbarta proves the Conftitntion to
be anterior to the Law, Acts of Parliament
fhew that it is not fubjecl: to the Law, nor
under the power of Parliament. But, in the
next place, admitting Magna Charta to be an
Act of Parliament, ftill the objection remains
without foundation. For Magna Charta, be-
ing not enatfive of new Rights, but, as I have
faid before, declaratory only of thofe old Rights
of the People, fome of which are of Saxon
anceftry, others coeval with the firft form of
Britifh Government, is a Law only in proof of
the Confutation ; and therefore fupports my
pofition, that the Conftitution and the Law are
not the fame.
But
( 33 )
But there is ftill another objection, which I
muft anticipate in order to remove. It may be
objected, that if (as I have fhewn) the People
be made the Jburce of all power in the State, ia
what manner is fuch an idea to be reconciled
with the dodtrine, that " Government certainly
" is an Inftitution of divine Authority?" * for
thefe (upon another occafion) are the words of
Mr. Burke > though, he adds, that its Forms
and the Perfons who adminifler it> all originate
from the People. What a pity that an <c In-
" ftitufi'pn of divine Authority" (hould ever be
found in the hands of Devils, as our Govern-
ment fometimes unhappily is! But I do not
mean to enter into the merits of this dodtrine.
Indeed I am bound not to do fo : for I have
faidj that I will not dive into myfteries, left I
be drowned -, and I will keep my word. But
as this faid mode of attributing to natural effedts
fupernatural caufes, or mixing Church and
State together, has already done a great deal of
rnifchief to the community $ as I perceive that
the divine Right of Parliaments, like the divine
Right of Kings, to do what is wrong, with its
concomitant train> paffive obedience and non-
refiftence, is now from the
<c Pulpit, drum ecclefiaftic,
" That's beat with fift, inftead of a ftick,"
* Vid. Thoughts on the Caufs of the prefent Difcontents,
fifth edit. p. 67.
C founding
( 34 )
founding forth in the ears of the * People > as
I am content to judge of things paft by the
prtfent, kaving to others all better rules of
judging 3 and inafrnuch as example goes before
precept ; fo theprefent ftate of America afford-
ing not only much notable information on this
head, but ferving to illuftrate the whole of
itfhat has been here faid on the fubject of Go-
* See a Sermon preached before the Univerfity of Oxford, on
friday, December 13, 1776, being the day appointed by pro-
clamation for a general Fail. By Myles Cooper, LL. D. Pre-
fident of King's College, New- York, and Fellow of Queen's
College, Oxford. Publifhed at the requeft of the Vice-Chan-
ccllor and Heads of Houfes, afid printed at the Clarendon prefs.
This Doctor fays, p. 12. '* It is difficult indeed to affign any
" reafens that will juftify the Rebellion of Subjects againft the
" fovereign Authority." " Submiffion to tlie higher Powers"
& is enjoined at leaft upon Chriftians, under the feve reft penalty.
" But were Chriftianity altogether out of the queftion, yet the
" iufurreUon of fubje&s againft their rightful Governors, is
41 condemned by thofe Laws which are fundamental to fociety."
He fays too, p. 22. " When men's principles are wrong, their
" practices will feldom be right. When they fuppofe thofe
" Powers to be derived folely from the People, which are or-
" dained of God, and their heads are filled with ideas of ori-
*' ginal Compacts which never exljlcd^ and which are alwayi
" explained fo as to anfwer their prefent occafions ; no wonder
" that they confound the dudes of rulers and fubjeds, and are
*' perpetually prompted to dictate where it is their bufinefs to
" obey. When once they conceive the governed to be fuperior
" to the go-vernors, and that they may fet up their pretended
" natural Rights in oppofition to the pofitive Laws of the State ;
" they will naturally proceed to *' defpife dominion and fpeak
" evil of dignities," and to open a door for anarchy, confufion,
" and every evil work, to enter." What more did Sacheverel
fay ? And yet Sacheverel was impeached, whilft Do&or Cooper
may expect preferment.
( 35 )
ternmeht, I ihall, with fome advantage I truft,
and in as few words as I can, make ufe of
the inftance.
America, having declared itfelf independent
of Great-Britain, returned to that ftate of Na-
ture, or ftate of Society, where Government
was to be instituted; arid being fo circum-
ftanced, whilft it proceeded to form itfelf into
feparate Commonwealths, or States, each Com-
monwealth or State provided a Conftitution or
Form of Government of its own j which, al-
though differing in mode and manner, agreed
in fubftance and effect* The Precedent there-
fore of one Conftituticn anfwering for every
other, I ill all here avail myfelf of fuch extracts
from the Conftitution of the State of Majfa-
cbufettS) as are neceffary to my pUrpofe. This
Conftitution then, or Form of civil Govern-
ment, con fills of forty-three Articles^ and is
entitled, " An Adi of the General Convention of
" the Common wealth, or State ofMaflachufetts,
" declaring the fame to be a free State, and
" independent of Great-Britain, and eftablifh*
<c ing a new Conftitution and Form of civil
" Government ; which General Convention
" was elefted by the whole People for this file
" purpoje, &c. J> It next recites thofe (but too
much to be lamented) arbitrary and defpotic
meafures of this country^ which occafioned the
C 2 Declaration
( 36 )
Declaration of Independency ; and after this,
proceeds to fay, <c The antient Government
<f of this Colony being thus totally diffofoed,
" and the People driven into a State of Nature y
" it becomes their indifpenfible duty, and what
" felf-prefervation requires, to declare them-
<c felves independent of Great-Britain, and to
" eftablifh fuch a Conftitution and Form of
" civil Government, as to them appears beft
" calculated to promote their greateft poffible
" happinefs:" <c And whereas it is absolutely
<e neceffary for the welfare and fafety of the
ce inhabitants of this Commonwealth, that a
" juft and permanent Conftitution and Form of
" civil Government mould be eftablimed as
* c foon as poffible, derived from and founded on
" the . authority of the People only, in whom is
rt the origin of all governmental Power, and
<c who have at all times a right, by common
" confent (whenever the great end of Govern-
" ment, the general good is not obtained) to
" alter and change their Conftitution and Form
" of Government, in fuch manner as may beft
" promote the fafety and happinefs of the
" whole."
" We, therefore, the Reprefentatives of the
" Freemen of Maflachufetts, in general Con-
" mention met, for the exprefs purpofe of fram-
<c ing fuch a Conftitution and Forrrf of Go-
" vernment,
( 37 )
< vernment; gratefully acknowledging the.
" goodnefs of the fupreme Governor of all, in
" permitting us peaceably, and by common con-
" fent, deliberately to form fuch rules, as we
<c mall judge beft adapted for governing this
" Commonwealth in juftice and righteoufnefs ;
<c and being fully convinced that it is our in-
" difpenfible duty to eftablifh, to the utmoft
" of our power, fuch original principles of civil
" Government, as will beft promote the gene-
cc ral happinefs of the People, do, by virtue of
" the authority veiled in us by our Conftituents,
" declare, enad, and eftablifh the following
<c Conftitution, and Form of civil Government,
<c for this Commonwealth, to be and remain-
< in full force therein, from and after the fe-
" cond Wednefday in , and. forever
" thereafter to remain unaltered, except in fuch
<c articles as fhall hereafter, on new circum-
ftances arifing, or on experience, be found
to require alteration; and which (hall, by the
like authority of the People, convened for that
Jole purpofe, be altered, for the more effedlual
obtaining and fecuring the great end and
defign of all good Government^ the Good of
" the People"
" Be it therefore declared and enacled by
<* the general Convention of this Common-
<c wealth, affembled for the fole purpofe of de-
C 3 " daring
cc
(C
( 38 )
" daring and ena&tng Independency, and efta-
" blifhing a new Conftitution and Form of
" civil Government, and by the authority of
" the fame, it is hereby declared and enadted,
" as in the following general articles, viz.
I. " That this Colony is, and of right ought
" to be, and for ever hereafter lhail, by the
<c favour of all-gracious Heaven, be a free
cc State, and abfolutely independent of the
" Crown and Government of Great-Britain $
" and (hall be ftyled, THE COMMONWEALTH,
" OR STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS."
5. " That this declaration of the general,
" fundamental, and effential Rights of tho
<c People of this Commonwealth, fhall, for
" ever hereafter, be confidered as the general
c * fundamental of the faid new Constitution
<c and Form of Government ; and every order \
" Jaw, and Jlatute, that fiall hereafter be made
c< by the general Court of this Commonwealth^
" Jhall conform to the fpirit, and plain fimple
c< meaning and intention of tbefe general funda-
c< mentals ; and all and every ordr, law, and
" Jlatute, that may hereafter happen to be made,
*' and fiall be found contrary thereto, fiall be
** null and void, and have no ejfeffi, and be im-
fl mediately repealed : and no alteration in thefe
" general fundamentals Jhall hereafter be made,
" but only by the immediate confent of the good
" People
"
( 39 )
People of this Commonwealth at large ', or
deputies, chofenfor that fpeeial purpofe"
6. " That all men are born equally free
A * and independent, and their Maker has kft
" them free liberty to fet upfuch Governments as
" bejl pleafe themfehes" " That Magiftrates
" were fet up for the good of Nations, ftot
cc Nations for the honour and glory of Magi-
" ftrates/' That the Right and Power of
' <c Magiftrates in every country, was that which
" the Laws of that country made it fo be/'
And, " That ufurpation. gives no right ^3
^ govern/'
7. " That all men have a natural and un~
fc alienable right to worship God according to
<c the didates of their own confciences, and
<c to enjoy a full and free liberty therein ; pro-*
" vided that they, under pretence of Religion,
" do not attempt to fubvert the Couftitution
<c and Form of Government of this State, &c."
Here then is that in ejje % what Dr. Cooper
tells us " never exifted," an original CowpaB.
A Compadl too, with Powers (which, accord*
ing to him, u are ordained of God") folely de-
rived from the People 5 and, the governed be*
ing fuperior to the governors, with natural
Rights, " pretended," as he fays they are, " fet
^ up in oppofition to the poiS^ive Law of the
C 4 State/'
t 40 )
ct State." Such is this Compact, and fuch, I
prefume, being all other original Compacts in
their firft inftitution, it is no wonder that their
exiftence fhould be denied ; inafmuch as they
are the fovereign antidotes of thofe political
poifons, Priejl-Crafty and State-Craft, vvhofe
objects are dominion over " the Beafts of the
" People*."
Here too is an " inftitution of Government,"
but where " the divine authority" of it is, who
can difcover ? Indeed, in a century more, for
we are already giving up things for words, fenfe
for found, and from the golden falling back into
the iron age again, fuch notions of Government
may be well received. Tradition will inform
pofterity that the Governments of America
were inftituted de Jure divino, and not without
fbme reafon on their fide ; inafmuch as the
more natural any Government is, in my opi-
nion the more divine it is : but now that we
* Such is Doftor Cooper's humane appellation of thofe pcrfons
in America, who plundered, as he fays, the Members of the
Church of England, Him, I fuppofe, among the reft, and
others, of their property ; adding, " without any means of prc-
*' fent reurefs, though it is to be hoped, not without a profpecl
" of future retribution.'* Methinks the Doctor, having re-
ceived a flap on one cheek, in the true fpirit of a Chriltian,
fhould have turned the other, and not have looked forward to a
profpecl of plundering the Americans of their property, becaufe
they had plundered him of his. However, whenever the A-
jnericans mail come to this country to deprive us of our Liber"
tie*; I will readily join the Dp&pr in his idea of Retribution.
are
( 4.1 )
are witneffes to their in/litution y we know, we
fee, and we find that they are militated dc
Jure humano.
The next obfervation to be made is the affi-
nity of thefe Governments to that of our own
country. They are founded on original Coin-
pad:, and fo is ours. Th6 lines of diftinction
betwixt the People, the Constitution, and the
Law, are marked there as they are drawn here.
The Conftitution is derived from the People,
and the Law from the Conftitution. The Law
cannot alter the Conftitution : for all and every
Law and Statute that are, by the general Court's^
(equal to our Parliaments) made contrary there-
to, are null and void : neither is the Conftitu-
tion alter able ) but by general Conventions of
the People at large^ held exprefsly and folely for
that purpofe.
If now then I mould profefs to believe that
there is no more of divine authority in the Go-
vernment of England, than in the Governments
of America, a fample of which has been pro-
duced ; and that the former is derived from
the fame powers, by the fame means, and to
the fame end, namely, the good of the whole, as
the latter : I hope I (hall not be therefore ao
counted an Infidel by the Church, nor an un-
worthy Member of Society by the State. I muft
hope too, that if our Parliaments, who are the
Trufia*
C 4* )
Trujlees of the People, and the Guardians of
their rights, (for they are no more, and I am
one of its Members) mould ever attempt to de-
ftroy thofe rights, that, as they will well deferve
the fate, fo may they feel alj that vengeance
which the offended Majefly of an injured People
can bring down on their heads. Parliaments
who will fupport the Conftitution, will be fup-
ported by the People, and have nothing to fear j
but thofe who will fubvert the Conftitution,
Jet them tremble, as one man, even as Charles
the Firft did, who loft his head in fuch an at-
tempt ; and which, as Lord Chefterfield tells
us, " if he had not loft ? we Jiad certainly
" loft our Liberties."
Having thus gone over the constitutional
ground of this country, and taken a compara-
tive view of the foundation upon which its
Government is fuperftrufted, the inference to
be drawn from thence is this ; that if the
Government be as I have ftated it to be,, and
as I (hall hold it to be, till the contrary be
proved, the right to unlimited fewer contended
for in Parliament, cannot, in common appre-
henfion, there exift, For although Mr. Burke
aflerts (and I mention this, becaufe I wifh to
ftate, and not to miftate his meaning, and if I
do, I truft he will impute it to the want of
comprchcnfion, and not to any intention in me)
" that
<c
cc
43 5
" that Legiflators ought to do what Lawyers
!< cannot :; for they have no other rules to bind
" them but the great principles of reafon and
< c equity, and the general fenfe of mankind j"
and although in arbitrary countries this is true,
for there the People being dhejled of all power,
and both the legiilative and executive authority
Defied folely in the Prince, he may have no
other rules than thefe to bind him -, yet in free
countries the cafe is different. In England,
" the legiflative," fays Lord Bolingbroke, " is
* c a fupreme, and may be called, in one fenfe,
an abfolute^ but in none an arbitrary power."
It is limited" fays Mr. Locke, " to the pub-
lic good of the Society." I fay, it is bound
by the rules of the Conftitution, for the rules
of the Conftitution are to the Parliament, what
the Law is to the Judges. The People make the
Conftitution, the Parliaments make the Law ;
and as the Judges are bound to determine ac-
cording to the Law of the land, fo are Parlia-
ments bound to enact: Laws according to the-
rules of the Conftitution ; and not according to
their own principles of reafon and equity, and
what they call the general fenfe of mankind :
for thele may differ with the principles of the
Conftitution, as we know they have done 5 and
therefore arifes the neceffity of afferting the
controul of the Conftitution over the Law and
the Parliament.
But
f 44 )
But of this power of the Conftitution over
the legiflative authority Mr. Burke has himfelf
given the moft pointed cafe. He fays, u before
" this Act (that is before the A<ft for the partial
t( fufpeniion of the Habeas Corpus) every man
" putting his foot on Englifli ground, every
" ftranger owing only a local and temporary
" allegiance, even aNegroflave, who had been
( fold in the Colonies, and under an Aft of
" Parliament^ became as free as every other
**. man who breathed the fame air with him."
What is it then that, fetting this Adi of
Parliament at defiance, manumits the Negro-
flave fo foon as he puts his foot on Engliflh
ground ? Let it not be faid that it is tbe pure
air of this foggy ifland, that can work thefe
wonderful wonders, for thefe are the half-
witted fayings of lawyers that would be orators,
and fit only for the lullabies of nurfes, or the
Jingjongs of children. Let it not be faid that
the Act is local j for it is not local. The At
alluded to is the 5th of G. II. ch. 27. (but
there are many other Ads to the fame effect)
and it veils a clear and unconditional property,
confined no where, but abfolute every where, in
the owner to his purchafed flave ; and yet when
this owner fhall bring his flave to this country,
he fhall lofe his ownership in him ; though he
hold him under an Aft of Parliament. No :
it is neither the one, nor the other, that gives
occafioa
( 45 )
occafion to this manumiffion. It is the Conftf-
tution of England, which maintaining liberty,
and annihilating Jlavery, renders this Adi of
Parliament a tabula rafa, a blank parchment,
without operation, without force, without effed.
It is that Conftitution, which is now rejifting the
rebellion of ' Atts of Parliament again/lit. In
mort, my idea of this Government, tofpeak as a
lawyer would do, is, that Parliaments^ as I have
faid before, are the truftees of the People, the
Conjlitution the deed of truft, wherein they
ftand feized to ufes only ; and thefe ufes being
named, they cannot depart from them : but for
their due performance are accountable to thofe
by whofe conveyance the truft was made.
The right is therefore fiduciary -, the power li-
mited. Or as a mathematician would fay,
more in the road of demonftration ; the Confti-
tution is a Circle^ the Laws the Radii of that
Circle, drawn on its furface with the pen of
Parliament, and it is the known quality of a
circle, that its radii cannot exceed its circumfe-
rence^ whilft the People, like the compares, are
fixed in the center, and defcribe the circle.
Thefe, I fay, are my ideas of this Government,
that is, of the whole political fyftem of this
country, for this is what I would mean by
Government, and I hope that they are juft
and true ; or otherwife, dreadful indeed is the
profped before us ! For if Parliaments have
the right to alter the " eftabliihed religion of
the
( 46 )
^ c the land/' and " if any thing can be fup->
" pofed out of the power of human legifla-
" ture, it is religion ;" if they are bound by
no other rules than " the great principles of
" reafon and equity, and the general fenfe of
<c mankind," and not by the more determined
principles of the Constitution, nor fubjed: to
the controul of the People ; if, by the influence
of corruption they are become " the Mafters,
" inftead of the Servants," of their Confti-
tuents, looking down on the People, and up to
the Court for honours and preferments, and
granting money that they may receive it them-
felves ; I fay, if thefe things be fo, and are they
not faid to be fc ? where is the difference be-
twixt a free and an arbitrary country ? where
the difference between the defpotifm of the
King of France, and the defpotifm of the Par-
liament of England ? And what is this but to
eredl an Ariftccratic tyranny in the State, a
many-headed Leviathan, deplorable and to be
deplored, dangerous and deftru&ive, in propor-
tion to the numbers of which its confifls.
Hitherto I have confidered the Supremacy of
Parliament, or its right to unlimited Power in
and over this Kingdom -, and if I have fhewn,
that no ftich Power can exift in Parliament
from the very nature of its inftitution, for it is
a folecifm in politics, and an aSfurdity in terms,
to fay, that in a limited Government, there can
be
( 47 )
be unlimited Power, the application of this
Power over the Colonies muft confequently fall
to the ground ; and with it the occafion of any
further reafoning upon the fubjeft. But as
Mr. Burke has made fome aflertions refpeSing
this <c unlimited legiflative Power over the
" Colonies," that are not only new and dif-
ferent from every other Writer* but new and
different from himfelf too, I hope, I {hall be
excufed the trefpafs of a page or two more in
the further conlideration of this matter.
cc
Mr. Burke fays, cc When I firft came into a
public truft, I found your Parliament in pot-
" feiiion of an unlimited legijlative Power over
" the Colonies. I could not open the Satute-
<c book without feeing the adtual exercife of
<c it, more or lefs, in all cafes wbatfoever"
Thefe then are what I have called aflertions
without the (hadow of proof, or more properly
affertions with the moft convincing proofs of
their being without foundation ; for the proofs
are taken from Mr. Burke himfelf. Here Mr,
Burke fays, " I could not open the Statute-
" book without feeing the adtual exercife of
" this unlimited Power over the Colonies in all
" cafes ivbatfoever :" but attend to what Mr,
Burke fays in his fpeech on American Taxation,
April the igth, 1774, p. 40, 3d edit, printed
for J. Dodfley, in Pallcnall.. There he fays,
44 This is certainly true; that no A& avowed-.
cc
<c
( 48 )
Iy for the purpofe of revenue, and with thtf
ordinary title and recital taken together, is
found in the Statute-book until the year
1764. All before this period flood on com-
* c mercial regulation and reftraintj" and to
prove this, that is, that a " Parliamentary in-
*' land Taxation'* was not to be found in the
Stattttfctotk before the year 1764, is the bu-
finefs of this entire page : but as the extradl
woald be too tedious for this place, fo whilft I
refer the Reader to the page itfelf, I will take
the liberty of recommending to his perufal alfo
the whole Speech, as a moft excellent oration.
If then America was not " taxed internally for
*' the purpofe of revenue before the year 1 764?
* c but all before this period flood on commer-
" clal regulation," here is a cafe of Mr.
Burke's own former fhewing, that contradicts
the cafe he now puts, of an <c aftual exercife
" of unlimited legiflative authority ever the
" Colonies in all cafes whatfoever :' for if Mr.
Burke could not find the exercife of this Power,
that is, of internal Taxation over the Colonies
for the purpofe of Revenue, in the Statute-
book, before the year 1764, no fuch Power
having been ever exercifed a he could not find
the exercife of unlimited Power over the Colo-
nies in all cafes whatfoever, before the year
1764; and if he did not then find it, he could
not find it after the year 1764 : for the firft
infbnce of the exercife of this Power after
the
( -49 )
the year 1764, was that of the Stamp- A# ;
and this Aft, as foon as it paffed, was refilled,
and being refitted, it was repealed, and being
repealed, it could afford no proof of the po-
feffion of the Power. And yet Mr. Burke
adds, <c this pofleffion pafled with me for a
ce title." But, if, as has been faid, Parliament
was not poffeffed of the Power of internal Tax-
ation over the Colonies .before the year 1764,
no title to unlimited legiflative Pow^r in all
cafes whatfoever, before this time, could be
founded on pofleffion ; for here is a manifeft
exception to this pofleffion in the cafe of an
inland Taxation ; and from the year 1 764, no
title can be derived from pofleffion, for the title
has been always difputed, and pofleffion never
obtained. So far then Mr. Burke is new and
different from himfelf. In what follows, he is
new and different from others.
No one has ever before contended, as I know
of, for the Right of Parliament to tax Ame-
rica, without the annexed idea of America be-
ing reprefented in Parliament. The idle phan-
tom, the Cock- lane Ghoft, of virtual Repre-
fentation, has been ever conjured up, as the
ego fum ille, of this vile deception. But Mr.
Burke has aflerted, has maintained, and has
proved, that America is not reprefented in Par-
liament, and yet infifts for the unlimited Right
in Parliament to bind America in all cafes
D whatfoever*
( 50 }
whatsoever. He fays, " If any thing can be
" drawn from fuch examples by a parity of the
* cafe, it is to (hew, how deep their crime,
" and how heavy their punifhment will be,
" who (hall at any time dare to refift a diftant
*' Power, actually difpofing of their property,
" without their voice or confent to the difyofition - y
f and overturning their Franchifes without
" charge or hearing *."
Here then is his affertion, that America is
not reprefented in Parliament ; and his affec-
tion that Parliament has an unlimited legiflative
Power over America in all cafes whatfoever^ has
been already dated ; which is a pofition as un-
accountable to me, as it is new. But let me
fee if fuch a polition is defenfible,. and whether
a queftion or two may not ferve as an anfwer
thereto. The firft queftion I (hall propofe is,
whether Reprefentation in order to Taxation
be not an hereditary indifpenfible privilege of
the Britim Subjedt ? The next queftion is,
whether the Americans are Britifh Subjects or
not ? for if they are not Britifh Subjects,. Great
Britain has nothing to do with them r no more
than France, or Spain, or any other country
has : And again, if they are Britim Subjedls^
and Reprefentation in order to Taxation is the
hereditary indifpenfible privilege of a Britifl*
Subject, Reprefentation in order to Taxation
* See alfo Mr. Burke's Conciliatory Proportions.
mud
( 5' )
muft be the hereditary indifpenfible privilege of
the Americans, as Britidi Subjects. From whence
then can the Right to Parliament be derived of
unlimited legiflative Power over the Subjects of
Great-Britain in all cafes wbatfoever without
Reprefentation in Parliament, which the Ame-
ricans do not poffefs, as Mr. Burke has Lhewn;
and which, in order to Taxation, is the here-
ditary indifpeniible privilege of Britifli Sub-
jects ? I prefume it cannot be derived from the
Conftitution ; for no man will afiert, that the
Conftitution gives a Right to Parliament to
levy Taxes upon Britim Subjects without Re-
prefentation j and if the Conftitution does not
give this Right, the claim of it in Parliament
mull be unconjlitutional : which naturally brings
me to the conlideration of the declaratory Aft ^ as
falling under this point of view. Mr. Burke
has proved that America is not reprefented ;
every wife man fays the fame; and it is only
folly the loft that would aflert the contrary.
The declaratory Act declares, and Mr. Burke
fupports the declaration, that this country has
a right to bind America in all cafes wbatfoever ;
and of courfe to tax America, though not re-
prefented. Upon thefe principles is it pofiible
to maintain this Adt ? It has no foundation.
It refts not upon the Conftitution. It is fub-
verfive of the Conftitution. It has not the
fundamental requifites of a declaratory Law.
No Law declaratory of Rights was ever before
D 2 made,
C 52 )
made, or ought to have been made, whofe
cital did not exprefs the fources from whence
thofe Rights are derived $ whether direSt from
the Constitution, or indirect from other Ads
of Parliament founded on the Conftitution, or
from general Curtains, or particular Cuftoms,
which make the Common Law of the Land.
.Look from Magna Cbarfa, through every de-
claratory Law, down to the Aft of Settlement^
and it will be found that they are, every one
-of them, in perpetuum rei tcftimonium^ or tefti-
monials only of what had before exifted : But
this Law is declaratory not only of what never
exifted before, but of a Right, againft which
common ufage> which is the common Law of the
Land) has been in direct oppofition. I fay in
direct oppofition, for America, from beyond the
.memory of man, nay, even from the very firft
date of its civil exiftence to the era of this
reign, has been. uninterruptedly ufed to the in-
ternal Taxation of itfelf.
This Law therefore, rnuft be repealed. As
it was enacted for the dignity of this country,
fo for juftice fake, which is the true dignity of
this country, let it now be repealed. It is
againft Right, and ufurped Power cannot up-
hold it. It is true the motives that brought it
into being were intentionally upright, but with
the patronage of the Author of thofe motives,
the motives themfelves ceafed 5 and of the Act
fince,
C 53 )
frnce, the double Cabinet, as Mr- Burke calls
them, has made an infamous ufe. They knew
not where to look for the Right of Taxation.
They found it in this Aft, and have fo tyran-
nized under it, that America has now damped
its foot upon it, and will never ftir a ftep until
<c this tyranny be overpaft." Every ifland in
the Weft-Indies look upon it with terror. All
Ireland fee it with a jealous eye : For who is
the Cafuift that can discriminate between a
Britifh parliamentary Right to tax America,
and a Britifh parliamentary Right to tax Ire-
land ? The cafe is the fame. The Right has
been avowed in Parliament, and add to the
6. Geo. i, eh. 5. or Irifh declaratory Adt, the
words only, " in all cajes whatfoeyer" and the
matter is at iffue : but Inexpediency prevents
the exercife. Inexpediency! curfe on the term !
What may be inexpedient to-day, may be ex-
pedient to-morrow. Inexpediency is as the ty-
rant's fword, that hangs over the head, fuf-
pended by a thread ; and which Discretion
only is to keep from falling. But are Englifh-
men to be thus worded out of their Rights ?
Forbid it, Common-Senfe! Or rather let the
fixed Principles of the Englifh Conftitution,
and the eternal Rights of Humanity, be the
lifter Fates to cut this Thread of Danger, by
fiftablifhing in its room Themfefaes.
One word more. It may be further afked,
D 3 What!
( 54 )
What! are the Americans to enjoy all the
Rights appertaining to this Government, and
not contribute to its fupport ? I anfwer, by no
means: it is not fitting they fhould. The fun-
damental Rights of the Englifh Conftitution I
have {hewn to be, the fecurity of Life, Liberty,
Property, and Freedom in Trade ; and to thefe
Rights all Britifh Subjects 'within the realm., are
without exception, entitled, and fhould enjoy :
but it is not fo with Britifh Subjects out of
the realm, for of them fomething more is re-
quired, and of them fomething more has been
received. They, (I mean the Colonifts) fur*
rendered from the firft, one of the fundamen-
tal Rights of the Conftitution, to wit, Freedom
in Trade. This they gave up, and this they
put into the monopolizing hands of their bre-
thren here, as the gift of Contribution, for the
price of Protection. Excellent, and how va-
luable the exchange! when the very gift of
contribution did itfelf enhance the price of pro-
tection ! inefHmable jewel! than which a no-
bler did not grace the royal crown ; and yet
noble as it is, it was not enough to fatisfy the
appetite of defpotifm. More muft be had. All
was required. With Freedom in Trade, Life,
Liberty, and Property were to be parted with ;
or, in the alternative, the revenge of Herod was
to be taken in the Wood of Innocents. Revenge
has been purfued : but Herod-like, and I will
ufe the language of the immortal Shakcfpear ;
When
( 5? )
When you fhall thefe unhappy deeds relate,
then muft you fpeak,
Of one^ whofe hand
Like the bnfe Judean * threw a pearl away
Richer than all his Tribe.
I have now done with the Thoughts, which
the perufal of Mr. Burke's Letter had awaken-
ed in my mind; and find myfelf arrived at that
period where I had defigned to flop : but as I
am upon the important fubjedl: of America, as
there are one or two matters more that refting
on my mind, I could wiih to remove, and as I
foall not again trouble the public with any fur-
ther fentiments of mine upon this occafion (for
truth being my only object herein, I mall as
readily look for it in others, as feek it in myfelf)
fbj if I iliould advance one or two paces beyond
my journey's end, I hope I fhall be excufed.
Having attended my duty in theHoufe of Lords
upon every important debate refpedting America,
it was there that I derived much ufeful informa-
tion to myfelf: but yet, however inftru&ed, as I
truly have been, by the wifdom of thcfe who
oppofed the meafure of a deftruftive civil war,
I muft confefs, my mind has been more made
up on this fubject, by what has not been faid by
the advocates for it, than by what has been
advanced againft it. The frjl y the chief ^ and
* This was Herod, who flew his Wife Mariamne.
D 4 the
( 56 )
the great champion of all, for this calamity to a
country, has been the now Earl of Mansfield :
but his being fo, was to me, at the very firft
fight, an argument againft the war -, for his
Lordfhip is no warrior, and therefore I fup-
pofed that if he had been more competent to
the events of fuch an undertaking, he had been
lefs fanguine in his recommendations of it.
Let us fee, however, what his arguments were.
The firft point to be fettled was, which of the
two countries was the aggreffcr ; and of courfe
which was to blame : but this would not bear
a difpute, for in the year 1764, when all was
peace and harmony between both countries,
this country, by its Stamp-Act, flung the firft
fane at America, and fo (the year 1766 ex-,
cepted) Great Britain continued this faning of
America, like as Stephen was Jlcned^ to the
year 2775; when, by Negroes and Indians,
the Americans were to be fealped and fayed
alive, even as Bartholomew was , and, in both
inftances, perhaps for the fame reafon : for
Stephen and Bartholomew were Saints^ and the
Americans are called DhTenters, and DifTenters
arecurfed, by fome Church -of-England-Men, as
Saints. To get rid then of this ftumbling-
block, of aggrejjorjhipi fomething was to be
devifed ; and this fomething was, that America
meant to become independent of this country :
But how was this to be fupported? The learned
Lord proved it by inuendoes^ by fayings and do-
ing 5 *
( 57 )
ings, a priori, out of the American AfTcmblies;
from Montcalm's Letters, which have been
found to be forgeries -, and from Kalm's Tra-
vels, who made a voyage to America in the
year 1749, and who fays, that he was there
told, that " the Englifli Colonies in North
" America, in the fpace of thirty or fifty years,
" would be able to form a Itate by themfelves,
cc independent of Old England." But here I
muft beg leave to make an obfervation or two.
Suppofing Mr. Kalm, inftead of going to
North America in the year 1749, had come
into England, and on his arrival had been told,
that there were men in this country who on
their bare knees had drank the Pretender s health - y
would not the inference have been juft as fair
to fay, that this country meant to put the
Pretender on the throne of this kingdom, in
cxclufion of the prefent family, as to fay, what
Mr. Kalm does fay, that America meant inde-
pendency? I think it would : for the queftion
is not what individuals fay, but what is the
fenfe of the nation. And it is plain it was not
the fenfe of this country to put the Pretender
on the throne, and I hope it never will, not-
withftanding his health has been fo drank, &c.
&c. &c. &c. and what the fenfe of America
was, appeared by the unanimous declaration of
the people themfelves in the moft folemn and
Authentic manner. They fay, through their
Congrefs, (and if ever the fenfe of any people
were
C -58 )
were taken, it was here found, for fo free and
general an election of Representatives was never
before known in the annals of the world) " We
" chearfiiUy confent to the operation of fuch
<c Acts of the Britifh Parliament, as are, bona
" fide^ restrained to the regulation of cur ex-
" ternal Commerce, for the purpofe of fecuring
" the commercial advantages of the whole em-
" pire to the Mother Country/' &c. &c. * It
may be indeed faid, that America has decla-
red herfelf independent of this country, and
therefore the prophecy of Mr. Ka!m was true ;
but this does not follow : for this country, by
putting America out of the protection of its
laws, forced it, for felf-prefervation lake, into
that flate of Independency. Admitting, how^-
ever, that America did mean Independency, I
will now afk, Were the meafures purfued the
means to prevent their becoming fo? I appre-
hend not: For although the force of this conn-
try be Efficient for conqueft, ten times its force
would be infufficient to hold the country in fub-
je&ion. Three millions of people, not only
with their affeftions loft, but their inveterate
hatred gained, at three thoufand miles over the
Atlantic, diftant from the arm of power, are
not fbeafily held proftrate at the feet of Parlia-
ment, as Lord North was directed to fay could be
* Vid. Votes of the Congrefs, reprinted for J. Almon, oppo-
fite Burlington-houfe, Piccadilly, and alfo the lail Petition of
the Congrefs to the King.
done
( 59 )
done. No : One hour of juftiee and moderation
would have done more, than all the German
Blood -hounds hired from all the German Traf-
fickers in Blood, in all the petty Principalities of
Germany can atchieve in twenty years to come.
But to return to the learned Lord. Having
fet up Independency, and upon what grounds I
have (hewn, as the object of America , his
Lorfhip argued, that the Rubicon was paffed,
that we fhould kill the Americans, or the A-
rnericans would kill us, and that we could not
look back, but muft go forward, though our
deftrudrlon be certain and inevitable. In fliort
he drove us on, until we are all now driven,
like fo many afles, into a Pound \ and are fo
impounded^ that Fourteen Shillings Land-Tax
in the Pound, nay, all the Pounds, Shillings,
and Pence in the Nation, will not unpound us.
Such is our difgraceful, and truly to be la-
mented, fituation. The contempt of ourfelves,
and the mockery of all Europe befides. Bul-
lied by Frenchmen, infulted by Spaniards, me-
morialized by Dutchmen ; and yet, happy
would it be for us, if thefe were the only
calamities that we are to fuffer.
Another argument for our entering into this
favage War was, that the Americans were
Cowards ; an argument as full of indignity to
this country, as it was of reproach to him that
made it. Of Indignity, for are We to go to
war
( 60 )
war with our enemies becaufe they are cowards?
Does Englifli valour want fuch motives of in-
ducement for its exertion ? Shameful Reflec-
tion ! Of Reproach, for it was the argument
of the firft Lord of the Admiralty, the Earl of
Sandwich, that high Officer of the State 3 placed
at the Head of the Britifh Navy. And is this
the language of the gallant Navy of England ?
No : the brave love the brave, and had rather
meet bravery in the wounds of themfelves, than
cowardice in the difgrace of others. To fight
with Cowards is the lofs of Honour, and
" Honour is the Sailor's, as the Soldier's care."
But the Americans are not Cowards, and this
I fay for the honour of this country. If they
were, fuch an Army and fuch a Navy doing
no more than has been done in America, would
well warrant the propriety of thole incitements
to action, which the Earl of Sandwich thought
neceflary to hold out in the cowardice of Ame-
rica. When the Americans, therefore, are called
Cowards by us, let us remember that it is not
them, but ourfelves, that we accufe of Cowardice,
The latl argument I mall take notice of, (for
it is endlefs to recount the abfurdities that have
been urged in fupport of this iniquitous war-
fare) and which I mention for that it feems to
contain a fecret that mould be known, is the
argument of Lord Cardiff, fon of the Earl of
Bute. His Lordhip faid, as a reafon for carry-
ing
ing on this War of Parliament, that the Ameri-
cans had offered to lay kingdoms at the feet of
.the Crown, but which his Majefty difdained to
accept*. This is an heavy charge, and, as I
am as much an enemy to arbitrary power in
the Crown, as I am to arbitrary power in Par-
liament, if true, I muft confefs, except fo far
as the juftice of this nation is concerned in fiich
a war, I mould feel little concern elfe for Ame-
rica : but as it feems very unnatural that men
ihould be furrendering their liberties, at the
very time that they are fighting for them, fo I
.have reafon to believe that this argument has
.been formed upon grounds that will not fupport
it. It is true, the Americans acknowledge the
authority of the King, and will not acknowledge
the .authority of the Parliament. It is from
hence, therefore, I prefume, inferred, that the
Americans are laying kingdoms at the feet of
his Majefty ; and if fo, to explain this matter,
is to remove the charge. The Americans were
the (bbje&s of the Crown of England, and of
courfe owed allegiance to the King of England.
They were never the fubjcffs of their fellow-
fubje&s the Parliament of England, and there-
fore neither owed nor profefled allegiance to
Parliament. Befides, the King of England, by
the Conftitution of England, cannot levy taxes
on his fubjects j and therefore, for the Ameri-
* The Archbifhop of York has adopted the fame aflertion.
See his Sermon, p. 22, and 23.
cans
( 62 )
cans to acknowledge the authority of the King,
is no furrender of their property to the King :
whereas if they acknowledged the authority of
Parliament, who do exercife the right of taxa-
tion over the People when reprefented, it would
be, without their being reprefented, a furrender
of their property to Parliament ; and a forging
of chains for themfelves. Under the acknow-
ledged authority, then of the Crown, the Ame-
ricans ftill preferve their conftitutional Rights :
under the required acknowledged authority of
Parliament, they would lofe them ; and this is
the reafon that the Americans acknowledge the
one, and will never acknowledge the other.
But it is feared, that fome future King, not his
prefent Majefty, for he has not a wim to go-
vern but through his Parliaments, may, upon
requifition to his faithful American fubjeds,
procure fuch large grants of money, as {hall
enable him to govern without Parliaments.
Indeed, if we are to judge of what America
may do, by what it has done, upon fuchlike
occafions, this argument is not without its
force ) and therefore, to prevent fuch generofity
from being hereafter hurtful to this country,
(and there cannot be a better time for it,
as it is the objedl of his prefent Majefty to
maintain the fupremacy of Parliament,) let an
Adi be pafled, (if it be not too late) declaring
that all money obtained from the Colonies by
requifition from the Crown, {hall be carried
into
( 63 )
into the Exchequer, and accounted for in Par-
liament. This will remove the danger appre-
hended, and prevent thofe lovers of Jlavery,
the Americans, from making, at any future pe-
riod, the Crown of England arbitrary.
Upon the whole, when I perceive a war, and
fuch a war too, fo weakly fupported, and yet
fo violently purfued ; when I find the moft
elevated of the Church, preaching and publifh-
ing to the world paffive obedience and non-re-
fiftance to the fupremacy of Law *, whether
that Law be right or wrong, whether it be
* TheArchbiihopofYork fays, " the foundation of legal free-
dom, is the fupremacy oflaw" This I fuppofe is an apology
for his Grace's allegiance to the Quebec- A ft, and for his mak-
ing this aft a pattern for cramming Bifhopricks down the Throat*
of the Americans, by the help of the Civil Power, that is, on the
points of Bayonets. See his Sermon, pag. 19 and pag. 24*
His Lordmip fays too, " As there are in the nature of things,
*' but two forts of Government ; that of Law, and that of Force ;
" it wants no argument to prove that under the laft Freedom cannot
" fubfift." This is a diftinftion without a difference ; for when
Law is contrary to the natural or civil rights of mankind, it
is For.ce> and the worft of all forte : for it is as " a wolf in
fheep's cloathing," and cometh unawares, " like a thief in the
night. See p. 19 of the above ferm on.
Again, his Lordmip fays, " Thefe indeed" (that is " Def-
" potifm and Anarchy) have ufualfy gone together * for no Anar-
** chy ever prevailed, which did not end in Defpotifm." This
is a Bull, but an Irifh one; and not a Popifh Bull. If where
Anarchy prevails Defpotifm ends t Anarchy and Defpotifm cart-
not ufually go together. See p. 20.
His Grace will excule the Attention I have paid him in the
courfe of my obfervations : but as I am unfortunately one of thofe
Parties who have (according to him) " no Principle belonging
*' to them," and are " in the laft ftage of political Depravity,"
I was willing to examine, a little, his Lordlhip's principles ;
that if I approved them, I might adopt them.
( 64 )
good or bad, whether it be to efrablim Popery
or Proteftantifm, whether it be enacted by an
honeft, or by a corrupt and abandoned Parlia-
ment ; when I fee men that were pillored in
the reign of good old George II. penfioned in
this, and for the fame reafons ; when I hear
of others hired to root out the very idea of
public virtue from the minds, and tear benevo~
knee from the hearts of Englishmen ; when
I reflect, but why add more to the black cata-
logue of public dangers ? it is time to look at
home : it is time, even with Stentorian voice,
to call for union among the Friends of the
Conflitution : it is time that private opinion
fhould yield to public fafety : it is time that we
keep both " watch and ward,'' for if the liber-
ties of our fellow-fubjects in America are to be
taken from theirs, it is for the ideot only to
fuppofe that we can preferve our own. The
dagger uplifted againft the breaft of America,
is meant for the heart of Old England. Non
Ggitur de veffiigalibus, Libert as in dubio eft.
In fine thefe are my Sentiments, and thefe
my Principles. They are the Principles of the
Conftitution ; and under this perfuafion whilft
I have figned them with my Name, I will, if
neceffary, as readily, feal them with my Blood.
FINIS.
RETURN
JO
LOAN PERIOD 1
HOME USE
Cn^LATIONlDEPARTMENT
Main Libra
ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS
and Recharges .ay be .ode 4 days prior to the due dote.
Books moy be Renewed by colling 642-3405.
STAMPED BELOW
FORM NO. DD6
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
BERKELEY, CA 94720 @s
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRAI
coaoaisoat,
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
v \ A J'