fole judge of fuch contests? It would undoubtedly be a glorious fight to have eight or ten petitions, or double returns, from Bofton and Barbadoes, from Philadelphia and Jamaica, the members returned, and the petitioners, with all their train of attornies, folicitors, mayors, fele&t men, provostmarthals, and above five hundred or a thousand witneffes, come to the bar of the houfe of commons. Poffibly we might be interrupted in the enjoyment of this pleafing fpectacle, if a war fhould break out, and our conftitutional fleet, loaded with members of parliament, returning officers, petitions, and witneffes, the electors and elected, should become a prize to the French or Spaniards, and be conveyed to Carthagena or to La Vera Cruz, and from thence perhaps to Mexico or Lima, there to remain until a cartel for members of parliament can be fettled, or until the war is ended. In truth, the author has little ftudied this bufinefs; or he might have known, that fome of the moft confiderable provinces of America, fuch for inftance as Connecticut and Maffachusetts Bay, have not in each of them two men who can afford, at a distance from their eftates, to spend a thoufand pounds a year. How can these provinces be reprefented at Westminster? If their province pays them, they are American agents, with salaries, and not independent members of parliament. It is true, that formerly in England members had fala ries ries from their conftituents; but they all had fala❤ ries, and were all, in this way, upon a par. If thefe American reprefentatives have no falaries, then they must add to the lift of our penfioners and dependants at court, or they must starve. There is no alternative. Enough of this vifionary union; in which much extravagance appears without any fancy, and the judgment is shocked without any thing to refresh the imagination. It looks as if the author had dropped down from the moon, without any know. ledge of the general nature of this globe, of the general nature of its inhabitants, without the leaft acquaintance with the affairs of this country. Go+ vernor Pownal has handled the fame fubject. To do him justice, he treats it upon far more rational principles of fpeculation; and much more like a man of business. He thinks (erroneously, I conceive; but he does think) that our legiflative rights are incomplete without fuch a reprefentation. It is no wonder, therefore, that he endeavours by every means to obtain it. Not like our author, who is always on velvet, he is aware of fome difficulties; and he proposes fome folutions. But nature is too hard for both thefe authors; and America is, and ever will be, without actual reprefentation in the houfe of commons; nor will any minifter be wild enough even to propofe fuch a reprefentation in parliament; however he may choose to throw out that that project, together with others equally far from his real opinions and remote from his defigns, merely to fall in with the different views, and captivate the affections, of different forts of men. Whether these projects arife from the author's real political principles, or are only brought out in fubfervience to his political views, they compofe the whole of any thing that is like precife and definite, which the author has given us to expect from that adminiftration which is fo much the fubject of his praises and prayers. As to his general propofitions, that "there is a deal of differ"ence ence between impoffibilities and great difficul"ties;" that "a great fcheme cannot be carried, "unless made the bufinefs of fucceffive admini"ftrations;" that "virtuous and able men are "the fitteft to ferve their country;" all this I look on as no more than fo much rubble to fill up the fpaces between the regular mafonry. Pretty much in the fame light I cannot forbear confidering his detached obfervations on commerce; fuch as, that * "the fyftem for colony regulations would be very fimple, and mutually beneficial to Great "Britain and her colonies, if the old navigation "laws were adhered to." That" the tranfporta "tion fhould be in all cafes in fhips belonging to "British fubjects." That "even British fhips * P. 39. "fhould 1 "fhould not be generally received into the colonies "from any part of Europe, except the dominions "of Great Britain." That "it is unreasonable "that corn and fuch like products fhould be re"ftrained to come firft to a British port." What do all these fine obfervations fignify? Some of them condemn as ill practices, things that were never practifed at all. Some recommend to be done, things that always have been done. Others indeed convey, though obliquely and loofely, fome infinuations highly dangerous to our commerce. If I could prevail on myself to think the author meant to ground any practice upon these general propofitions, I fhould think it very neceffary to ask a few questions about fome of them. For inftance, what does he mean by talking of an adherence to the old navigation laws? does he mean, that the particular law, 12 Car. II. c. 19, commonly called "The Act of Navigation," is to be adhered to, and that the feveral fubfequent additions, amendments, and exceptions, ought to be all repealed? If fo, he will make a strange havock in the whole fyftem of our trade laws, which have been univerfally acknowledged to be full as well founded in the alterations and exceptions, as the act of Charles the Second in the original provifions; and to purfue full as wifely the great end of that very politick law, the increase of the British navigation. I fancy the writer could hardly propose any thing more more alarming to thofe immediately interested in that navigation than fuch a repeal. If he does not mean this, he has got no farther than a nugatory propofition, which nobody can contradict, and for which no man is the wifer. * That "the regulations for the colony trade "would be few and fimple if the old navigation"laws were adhered to," I utterly deny as a fact. That they ought to be fo, founds well enough; but this propofition is of the fame nugatory nature with fome of the former. The regulations for the colony trade ought not to be more nor fewer, nor more nor lefs complex, than the occafion requires. And, as that trade is in a great meafure a fyftem of art and reftriction, they can neither be few nor fimple. It is true, that the very principle may be deftroyed, by multiplying to excefs the means of fecuring it. Never did a minifter depart more from the author's ideas of fimplicity, or more embarrass the trade of America with the, multiplicity and intricacy of regulations and ordinances, than his boafted minifter of 1764. That minifter feemed to be poffeffed with fomething, hardly fhort of a rage, for regulation and reftriction. He had fo multiplied bonds, certificates, affidavits, warrants, fufferances, and cockets; had fupported them with fuch fevere penalties, and extended them without the leaft confideration of cir→ cumftances VOL. II. L |