terms, which she would judge to be intolerably severe and cruel, if imposed on herself. "Virtual representation" is too ridiculous to be regarded. The necessity of a supreme sovereign Legislature, internally superintending the whole Empire, is a notion equally unjust and dangerous. "The pretence" says Mr. Justice Blackstone, speaking of James the First's reign, "for which arbitrary measures was no other than the tyrant's plea of the necessity of unlimited powers, works of evident utility to the* publick, the supreme reason above all reasons, which is the salvation of the King's lands and people." This was not the doctrine of James only. His son unhappily inherited it from him. On this flimsy foundation was built the claim of ship money, &c. Nor were there wanting men, who could argue, from the Courtly text, that Parliaments were too stupid or too factious, to grant money to the Crown, when it was their interest and their duty to do so. This argument, however, was fully refuted, and slept above a century in proper contempt, till the posterity of those who had overthrown it, thought fit to revive the exploded absurdity. Trifling as the pretence was, yet it might much more properly be urged in favour of a single person, than of a multitude. The counsels of a Monarch may be more secret. His measures more quick. In passing an Act of Parliament for all the Colonies, as many men are consulted, if not more, than need be consulted, in obtaining the assent of every Legislature on the Continent. If it is a good argument for Parliaments, it is a better against them. It therefore proves nothing but its own futility. The supposed advantages of such a power could never be attained but by the destruction of †real benefits, evidenced by facts to exist without it. The Swiss Cantons, and the United Provinces, are combinations of independent states. The voice of each must be given. The instance of these Colonies may be added: for stating the case, that no act of internal legislation over them had ever been passed by Great Britain, her wisest statesmen would be perplexed to show, that she or the Colonies would have been less flourishing than they now are. What benefits such a power may produce hereafter, time will discover. But the Colonies are not dependent on Great Britain, it is said, if she has not a supreme unlimited Legislature over them. "I would ask these loyal subjects of the King," says the author of a celebrated invective against us. ‡ "what King it is they profess themselves to be the loyal subjects of? It cannot be his present most gracious Majesty, George the Third, King of Great Britain, for his title is founded on an Act of Parliament, and they will not surely acknowledge that Parliament can give them a King, which is of all others, the highest act of sovereignty, when they deny it to have power to tax or bind them in any other case; and I do not recollect that there is any Act of Assembly, in any of the Colonies, for settling the Crown upon King William or the illustrious House of Hanover."* "Curious reasoning this."† It is to be wished the gentleman had "recollected" that

* With such smooth words may the most dreadful designs be glossed over. "There are some men who call evil, good, and bitter, sweet. —justice is now called popularity and faction."—Parl. Hist. 8. 193.

"A man shall not unprofitably spend his contemplation, that upon this occasion considers the method of God's justice (a method terribly remarkable in many passages, and upon many persons, which we shall be compelled to remember in this discourse), that the same principles, and the same application of those principles, should be used to the wresting all sovereign power from the Crown, which the Crown had a little before made use of for the extending its authority and power beyond its bounds, to the prejudice of the just rights of the subject. A supposed necessity was then thought ground enough to create a power, and a bare averment of that necessity to beget a practice to impose what tax they thought convenient upon the subject, by writs of ship money never before known; and a supposed necessity now, and a bare averment of that necessity, is as confidently, and more fatally, concluded a good ground to exclude the Crown from the use of any power, by an ordinance never before heard of, and the same maxim of "salus populi suprema lex," which has been used to the infringing the liberty of the one, made use of for destroying the rights of the other."—Lord CLARENDON'S Hist. b. v. p. 54.

† Thus the Patriots of Charles's days argued: "It is not, that ship money hath been levied against us, but it is, that thereby ship money is claimed, which is the gift and earnest penny of all we have: it is not, that our persons have been imprisoned for the payment of ship money, but that our persons and lives are, upon the same ground of law, delivered up to will and pleasure. It is, that our birthright is destroyed, and that there hath been an endeavour to reduce us to a lower state than villanage. The Lord might tax his villain de haut et de basse, might imprison him, but his life was his own; the law secured him that."—Lord CLARENDON.

‡ See note on these words "Therefore a power of regulating our trade, involves not in it the idea of a Supreme Legislature over us." —Page 590.

* "The Controversy between Great Britain and her Colonies Reviewed." The learned gentleman who wrote this piece, has thought proper to quit his argument, step out of his way, personally abuse, and severely attack the writer of the "Farmer's Letters." His principal objections are the following, and the answers here given may perhaps be sufficient to show with what force his objections are generally urged. First. He says, "the writer of the Letters tells us that the drawbacks which are allowed on some articles upon their exportation from England amount to more money than all the duties together which are laid upon them on their arrival in the Colonies will produce. I believe it is the first time that the Colonies of any state have complained of the injustice of the mother country in laying taxes upon them, which were not sufficiently heavy, nor was it ever before discovered that the proper means to redress the grievances of any people, were to increase their taxes." Page 16. Answer: The truth of the assertion in the Letters is not denied. It is assumed by the author of "The Controversy," as the foundation of his argument. If then, Parliament would have raised more money, "by stopping the drawbacks, than by laying the duties to be paid in the Colonies," why were they laid? From respect for Parliament it must be supposed, they were laid for some purpose. It was not for the sake of the money. For what then? To establish a precedent for taxing the Colonies, says the writer of the Letters. The author of "The Controversy" does not deny it; but enters into a dissertation upon the more and the less, which is not the point in question. Second. The writer of the Letters says, that, an Act of Parliament commanding us to do a certain thing, if it has any validity is a tax upon us, for the expense* that accrues in complying with it. In reply to this the author of "The Controversy" enumerates many instances of sovereignty subjecting the Colonies to expense, which he supposes may be legally exercised within the Colonies "by Act of Parliament." Pages 23, 24. Answer: The propriety of this supposition is denied, and remains to be proved. "Absurdities and contradictions" are plentifully attributed to the writer of the Letters, because he will not acknowledge, that the power of Parliament "to regulate trade, and preserve the connection of the whole Empire in due order," involves in it a power to "tax the Colonies," or "to put them to any expense," Parliament shall please. A person of such sagacity, as the author of "The Controversy," might plainly have perceived, if his resentment had not prejudiced his candour, that the writer of the Letters was unwilling to give up any point, which he then thought essential to the freedom and welfare of his country, and at the same time was † unwilling to propose any new subject of dispute. Justly has the author of "The Controversy" observed, that "it would be endless to trace this doctrine of taxes through all the consequences," Page 23. Third. The writer of the Letters says, "we are as much dependent on Great Britain as a "perfectly free people can be on another." On this the author of "The Controversy" kindly observes, that—" it is a pity the learned editor (the English editor, it is supposed) has not given the publick a dissertation on that most ingenious and instructive passage." Page 25. Answer: American understandings discover no inconsistency in the idea of "a state being dependent, and yet perfectly free," and their temper is so moderate that they would be content with that degree of freedom, which is compatible with a dependence. If the proposition puzzles British understandings, it is presumed to be, because Britons will not give themselves the trouble to think of any dependence, but of such, as is destructive of all freedom; though they themselves are dependent in some measure on others. Fourth. The writer of the Letters says, "if money be raised upon us by others without our consent, for our defence, those who are the judges in levying it, must also be the judges in applying it," [Of consequence, the money, said to be taken from us for our defence, may be employed, to our injury.

† Id. p. 17.

* This sentence related to the dissolution of the Assembly of New-York, for not complying with the Act of Parliament for not supplying troops. Last session of Parliament an Act was passed for the more commodious Quartering of the troops in America. It is not yet come over; but deserves the attention of the Colonists, even if it has not the remarkable features, that distinguish the productions of the last session.

† If any person shall imagine that he discovers in these Letters, the least dislike of the dependence of these Colonies on Great Britain, I beg that such person will not form any judgment on particular expressions, but will consider the tenor of all the letters taken together. In that case, I flatter myself, that every unprejudiced reader will be convinced that the true interests of Great Britain are as dear to me, as they ought to be to every good subject.

"If I am an enthusiast in any thing, it is in my zeal for the perpetual dependence of these Colonies on their mother country—a dependence founded on mutual benefits, the continuance of which can be secured only by mutual affections. Therefore it is, that with extreme apprehension I view the smallest seeds of discontent, which are unwearily scattered abroad. Fifty or sixty years will make astonishing alterations in these Colonies; and this consideration should render it the business of Great Britain more and more to cultivate our good disposition towards her: but the misfortune is, that those great men, who are wrestling for power at home, think themselves very slightly interested in the prosperity of their country fifty or sixty years hence, but are deeply concerned in blowing up a popular clamour for supposed immediate advantages.

"For my part, I regard Great Britain as a bulwark, happily fixed between these Colonies and the powerful Nations of Europe. That Kingdom remaining safe, we, under its protection, enjoying peace, may diffuse the blessings of religion, science, and liberty, through remote wildernesses. It is therefore incontestibly our duty, and our interest, to support the strength of Great Britain. When confiding in that strength, she begins to forget from whence it arose, it will bean easy thing to show the source. She may readily be reminded of the loud alarm spread among her merchants and tradesmen, by the universal association of these Colonies, at the time of the Stamp Act, not Jo import any of her manufactures.

"In the year 1718, the Russians and Swedes entered into an agreement not to suffer Great Britain to export any naval stores from their Dominions, but in Russian or Swedish ships, and at their own prices. Great Britain was distressed Pitch and tar rose to three pounds a barrel. At length she thought of getting these articles from the Colonies; and the attempt succeeding, they fell down to fifteen shillings. In the year 1756, Great Britain was threatened with an invasion. An easterly wind blowing for six weeks, she could not man her fleet, and the whole Nation was thrown into the utmost consternation. The wind changed. The American ships arrived, The fleet sailed in ten or fifteen days. There are some other reflections on this subject, worthy of the most deliberate attention of the British Parliament; but they are of such a nature, that I do not choose to mention them publickly. I thought it my duty, in the year 1765, while the Stamp Act was in suspense, to write my sentiments to a gentleman of great influence at home, who afterwards distinguished himself, by espousnig our cause, in the debates concerning the repeal of that Act."—Farmer's Letter, xii, Page 100.

If the author of "The Controversy" had seen the letter above referred to, he would have found, that, the difference between the prerogative in Great Britain and America, and the exercise of internal legislation by Parliament over the Colonies, with some other points therein mentioned, were represented in the strongest terms the writer of the Letters could use, as unjust, and certainly tending in a few years to produce the deepest discontents. The time is at length come when silence in America on these subjects would be stupid or criminal.