domestic legislation of the mother country, are no more dependent upon it in the general system, thần the Ile of Man is, or than in the feudal fyftem of Europe many fubordinate principalities are dependent on the jurifdiction of the Seignior Suzerain, or Lord Paramount, but owing only a limited obedience. "It is not meant by what has been faid, to effect the cafe of any external duties laid upon their ports, or of any restrictions, which by the act of navigation, or other acts, are laid upon their commerce; for they are in the fame cafe as all other colonies belonging to the rest of the maritime powers in Europe, who have fhut up their colonies, which out-grew their mother countries, fuch as Carthage, the northern emigrants, &c. Precedents were alfo quoted from what happened in the Netherlands, and other places, which thould ferve as a beacon to warn us from pursuing fuch measures as brought about thofe reyolu. nions."

The arguments that were used without doors on both fides were much of the fame nature with the following: "What a noife," fays an advocate on the one fide, "have we had of late about American charters, American legislation, American freeholders, and the privileges of thofe freeholders? But is there any legiflation in America? Are there any freeholders there? No man who knows any thing of the law of England will affert that there is any legislation in America, or one freeholder in that part of the world. The king has no power of legiflation, and he cannot by his charters convey to any clafs of his fubjects a power not refident in the crown. The parliament, including his majefty, as the head thereof, has a power of legislation, but they poffefs that power unalienably.

I

"The

"The power of legiflation is not a chattle to be difpofed of by grant or other conveyance. It is a truft granted by the common law for the good of the community, and for their good must remain with the auguft body in which it refides. The power of making bye-laws, for the utility of fubordinate bodies politic, is a quite different affair. That power is of. ten created by the parliament, which has effentially, in itfelf, all the powers of government. But charters from the crown, not confirmed in parliament, cap convey no jurifdiction whatever, because the king is not the fountain of law, as he is of honour.

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

"Every foot of ground in England lies in fome manor, which is itself the creature of cuftom time out of mind. These manors antiently poffeffed all jurif, diction civil and criminal; and this jurifdiction was exerted in the court of freeholders, in which the lord, or his steward, was the judge, the freeholders ferving as jurors, by virtue of their free holds. Thus you fee that our freeholders are, by virtue of their freehold, poffeffed of a radical judicative authority in manors, which they are entitled to by the common law, and poffefs their eftates by the fame tenure by which his majefty holds his crown. They are indebted to no prince for this eftate and judicative authority thereto appendant. Their title to their lands is

a

a tide of independence, and in every refpect equal to the royal title by which the crown is held.

"And as these freehold eftates are of a very particular nature with refpect to their origin, fo they are conveyed in a very particular manner. They cannot be taken by a writ of fieri facias. And if they are feized by a writ of elegit, one moiety only of the eftate can be applied, for payment of the debt and cofts on which the judgment is founded, the other moiety must remain for his fupport and maintenance. The freehold defcends to the heir, difcharged of all debts, or specialties.

66

nures.

Now, we have seen what an English freehold is. Are there any fuch estates in America? I am certain there are not. There can be no manors in that part of the world, for we can fhew the origin of their te Their properties, pretended legislative authority, and the existence of what they call freeholds can be traced from prerogative. Are our freeholds owing to human beneficence? No; We can name feveral perfons who oppreffed us; but the Americans can point out none who have conferred upon us our eftates, or any privileges whatever. Is there an estate in America which may not be taken by the fame writ that takes in execution a negro or a horfe? The whole courfe of chancery proves that their eftates are only commercial chattles, fubject to the difpofition of the last will of the owner, and chargeable with all the debts of the deceafed proprietor. And left any doubt fhould arife about the propriety of these decrees in equity, equalizing a foreign plantation to a perfonal estate, there was a statute made in the fifth year of the preceding reign, declarative of the common law in this refpect, and ftatuting that foreign plantations hould only be regarded in the light of perfonal eftates

Afte

After that law, what man in his right fenfes can digni fy thofe eftates with the name of freeholds?

"The American eftates are deftitute of the principal characteristic of a freehold. They are derived from royal grants for the improvement of commerce. The pretended American freeholders are not original members of any court, by virtue of their freeholds. They have no manors, nor manor-courts in America, and confequently no courts to which the pretended American freeholders repair, by virtue of their freeholds, and in confequence of a title paramount to all human laws. Why then fhould they pretend to equalize their fuppofed freeholds with ours? An abfolute ignorance of all and common-fenfe could only give birth to fuch injudicious' conduct. Our freeholders have a share in the legislation; because by customs as ancient as those that establish government, they are entitled to rule in a certain diftrict of the kingdom. Can the Americans boast of the existence of any fuch customs among them, or of estates and judicative authority derived out of thefe customs? Why then should the pretend to be freeholders, and as fuch only fub. ject to the legislation of their own election,

"The Americans will, perhaps, reply, that they ferve on juries when caled by the King's writ into the fupreme court of their refpective provinces. But this happens not as with us by the excellency of tenures, whofe origin is unknown, but is owing to the grace of thofe princes who, without the authority of law, granted them that conftitution. Are tenures flowing from the prince equal to tenures held independent of the crown? Surely not. The Americans have no rights but from royal grants; and of confequence thofe rights must not be extended beyond their natural meaning, or interpreted to the prejudice of

thofe

thofe who by an inherent right, independent of the crown, govern the whole kingdom. The privileges of perfons claiming under fo high a tenure, cannot be impaired by deeds from the crown, and confequently the government of our parliament muft reach over all the English dominions, as if no fuch grants had been made, and no eftates derived out of them."

A Writer on the other fide fays, "The queftion if properly understood, is not concerning a three-penny Stamp, but liberty. Not that liberty which is the tool of contending parties, the key to power, or the reviler of a minifter's cradle; but that true and genuine liberty which expands and ennobles the heart of the poorest freeholder, and prevents his property from being touched, but by the permiffion of thofe who by the constitution are his reprefentatives in parliament.

"The infatuation of fome people here, while they endeavour by the most frivolous arguments, to establish a right to tax America, in direct violation of this animating principle of their conftitution, is to the lat degree deplorable. It fhall be my endeavours to fhew here in a few words, how fuch a right would be directly fubverfive of our conftitution, and therefore of our liberties. And here, I fhall not enter into the question whether America be in the manor of EastGreenwich, (a frivolous equivocation derived from the cafual ufe of this expreffion in the Maffachufett's charter of King Charles the fecond) nor yet whether American corn be indigeftible or unpalatable, (though I profefs I think it exceedingly palatable) because these do not feem to me to be quite pertinent to the difpute, and are indeed unworthy refutation or animadverfion. The lands in America are as much freehold and derive that tenure from the fame hand, as are the lands of England; and the holders of them, on the fame tenure,

are