are as much freeholders as thofe of England. Now it must be known to every one, that, at this day, there is not a freeholder in England who does not give his vote for a reprefentative in the affembly of the commons of England; who from thence derive their name, and their fole right of taxing the property of the people. Nor is there any freeholder in the nation fo ignorant of his right, and of the foundation of his liberty, that he would not complain of a violation of it if he were deprived of the privilege of voting for fuch a representative; yet we are fubjecting the Ameritan freeholders to that very grievance, of which we ourselves would complain as deftructive of our freedom; we are fabjecting them to be taxed by reprefentatives, in the election of whom they have not one voice. They are freeholders as we are, they choofe reprefentatives to tax them as we do; and it feems inconfiftent with the nature of the British constitution, and fubverfive of the freedom of the common people, that the property of a freeholder should be taxed by any reprefentatives but thofe for which he votes, and thereby empowers to tax him. Let the cafe, for a moment, be our own, and fuppofe ourfelves liable to be taxed by reprefentatives chofen by the freeholder's of America; fhould we hefitate an inftant in decla. ring it an abfolute violation of our libery, and a flavith impofition? Therefore the right of taxing the American freeholders, which fome would eftablish here, must needs feem as unconftitutional and arbitrary with refpect to the Americans. With what juftice then can we thus attempt to violate the liberty of the Americans? Is not this the height of infatuation?

"Having thus proved, upon fair and unquestionable principles, that we can have no right to tax

the

the freeholders in America, I fhall add a word or two upon what is termed a rebellion in America, The only occurrences there, which can have given the leaft ground for such a charge, are the tumultous proceed. ings of the mob, and the refolves of the affemblies. With regard to the former, I would only beg leave to afk, whether it is ufual to call the riotous actions of a mob rebellion? Were the weavers, when they affembled together, furrounded the parliament-house, offered most dangerous violence to the coach of a noble peer, and if I mistake not, did him a perfonal injury, at tempted to pull down his houfe, and affaulted his majefty's guards with stones, so as to occafion the death of fome of them, were they called rebels, or rioters? Has the American mob been more outrageous? and are they and the whole colonists of America, who never were guilty of any fuch riots, to be branded with the most odious and detefted name of rebels? Let us now confider how far the refolves of the American affemblies can be called rebellious. I have already proved, that England can have no right to tax America. The stamp-act seemed to them therefore unconftitutional, and a direct violation of the rights of the American affenblies, who are the true and only reprefentatives of the freeholders, and have the fole conftitutional right of taxing their property. The affemblies, by their refolves, immediately afferted their rights, and remonftrated against this infringement of them, with a spirit and freedom which was well worthy the free reprefentatives of a free people; and can this be termed rebellion? In France, in Germany, in Afia, it might have been efteemed fuch; and is it not a melancholy proof, that this country is degenerating into their fervile ftate and abject fentiments, when

the

the voice of freedom, and the affertion of liberty, meets with the fame estimation? The American affemblies were impelled to thefe refolves by the strongeft motives of juftice to themselves, to their conftituents, and to their pofterity. Had they tamely furrendered their liberties, they had been the most contemptible of mankind; they bravely affered them, and

are

There is no other method to convince either party of the weaknefs of their arguments, than firft to make them confider whether the authority to tax belongs to England or to Englishmen, and provided the prefent inhabitants who are now in England were in America, and the colonists in England, would the right of taxation be continued or altered? If it belong to this country, in confequence of the right of manorfhip, who ever fucceeds to the manors must have a claim of right to liberty, and nobody elfe; and if the colonists were to change with the prefent inhabitants, they would have a right to tax them, which they would not be ready to fubmit to. The claims of fo extenfive liberty as the colonists require, appear inconfiftent with their former connections with their mother country, and the authority which the mother country claims as her right over the colonifts, makes her rather a step-mother than a kind parent. Were they to change fituations, neither the one nor the other fhould incline to have fuch treatment, as they on this occafion were difpofed to give each other. Upon the principles of nature and reafon the colonists main arguments cannot be confufed; upon the mutual policy of the prefent government of the empire they have no force. It is a part of the unhappinefs of aft the present fystems of government, that in them rea fon and policy are frequently at variance, and the paf

Lons

fions and interefts of leading men, prevail more powerfully, than the general good of fociety. It is the belt government where a juft balance is kept,-where the intereft of every man is the general good of the whole. This is a maxim that might be practifed provided policy was founded upon morality: but in the present state of nations it is only a fpeculation, which is a great pity.

Two bills were brought in this feffion of parliament, one for fecuring the dependency of the colonies upon the mother country, and another for repealing the ftamp-act. The first met with no oppofition, the latter was warmly difputed.

.

The enemies of the miniftry, who were many of them, under a fecret influence, which fome think has been baneful to thefe kingdoms, ftrained every nerve to prevent the repeal of the stamp-act. Arguments were drawn from the outrageoufnefs of the behaviour of the Americans, and the infult they had of fered to the dignity of the English government, and the confequences that would follow provided the act was repealed. That it would fhew fuch weakness and pufillanimity in government, as would encourage the Colonists to give fresh affronts, and leffen the respect of the King's fubjects to the dignity of the crown, and the authority of the laws. It was urged further, that as the power of taxation was an effential branch of authority, it ought in justice to be exercised over all the members of the empire, in proportion to their feveral abilities; that it would fhew a degree of partiality unworthy of good government, to exempt one part of the fubjects from a duty which others were obliged to pay, and from burdens which the reft of the community were under a neceffity, to bear.-That it was contrary to the truft repofed by the people in the legilla.

ture, and tended to destroy all confidence upon which government is founded. It was denied that the colonifts were unable to bear the weight of the tax impofed by the ftamp-act, and it was afferted as an inftance to the contrary, that if the debt contracted by them in the late war, 1,755,000l. had been already paid in the courfe of only three years, that the far greater part of their remaining burden, amounting to 760,000l. would be difcharged in two years more. Other arguments were used; the general burden of the mother country, the ability of the Colonists, their exemption from all taxation, and their peremptory refufal to contribute to any relief from the public load of debt that the nation groaned under.

It was replied that feveral of these objections had no weight in them, as all the confequences they fuppofed were guarded against by the bill for fecuring the dependence of the colonies upon the mother country, which both fecured the dignity of GreatBritain, and her conftitutional fuperiority over America. In fupport of the repeal, it was argued that. the colonists had really borne their proper fhare of the public burdens according to the confeffion of the other party; for the heavy debt which they had contracted during the war was a fufficient proof that they had contributed largely to the public expence; and their being paid back a part of it fince, was a convincing evidence that the parliament were perfuaded they had done more than they were well able to do. It was further urged that nothing could be more diftant from the fact, than the affertion that they paid no taxes; for they even paid many, which the parliament had impofed upon them. They paid port duties, which lay heavy upon their trade before the impofing of the ftamp-act, befides many port du

4

ties