without any such "Act of Assembly" none of the Colonists ever rebelled. What Act of Parliament is here meant? Surely not the eleventh of Henry the Seventh, chapter the first, in favour of a King de facto. Probably the twelfth and thirteenth of William the Third, chapter the second, "for the further limitation of the Crown, &c," is intended. And is it imagined that the words "Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging" in that statute, form his Majesty's title to the sovereignty of these Colonies? The omission of them might have looked odd; but what force is added by their insertion? The settlement of the Crown of England includes the settlement of the Colonies. King William is mentioned—and will the gentleman venture to say, that William was not King of England and Sovereign of these Colonies, before his title was "declared" or "recognised" by "an Act of Parliament?" The gentleman slurs over this case. His zeal for the "illustrious House of Hanover" would be little gratified, by inferring, that because the two Houses, with the consent of the Nation, made a King, therefore the two Houses can make laws. Yet that conclusion would be as justifiable as this—that the assent of the Colonies to an election of a King by the two Houses, or to the limitation of the Crown by Act of Parliament, proves a right in Parliament to bind the Colonies by statutes "in all cases whatsoever." In such great points, the conduct of a people is influenced solely by a regard for their freedom and happiness. The Colonies have no other head than the King of England. The person, who by the laws of that Realm is King of that Realm, is our King.

A dependence† on the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain, is a novelty—a dreadful novelty. It may be compared to the engine invented by the Greeks for the destruction of Troy.‡ It is full of armed enemies, and the walls of the Constitution must be thrown down before it can be introduced among us.

When it is considered that the King as King of England has a power in making laws—the power of executing them—of finally determining on appeals—of calling upon us for supplies in times of war or any emergency—that every branch of the prerogative binds us, as the subjects are bound thereby in England—and that all our intercourse

We may be *chained in by a line of fortifications—obliged to pay for the building and maintaining thorn—and be told that they are for our defence.] With what face can we dispute the fact after having granted that those who apply the money, had a right to levy it? For surely it is much easier for their wisdom to understand how to apply it in the best manner, than how to levy it in the best manner. Besides the right of levying is of infinitely more consequence than that of applying. The people of England, who would burst out into fury if the Crown should attempt to levy money by its own authority, have always assigned to the Crown the application of money."

From the words relating to "application," the author of "The Controversy" deduces a "proof," that the writer of the Letters is very deficient in "his knowledge of the Constitution,"† &c. Answer. Is this treatment generous? In such questions, ought the attack to be turned from the cause to the man? The writer of the Letters pretends not to be distinguished as a "critick on Government," nor for "justness or elegance of composition."‡ Surely, even the author of "The Controversy" must now be convinced of his aversion to writing, as that performance, with all "the justness and elegance of its composition, knowledge of the subject bandied, and constitutional learning displayed in it," and employed to pull to pieces the reputation of the writer of the Letters, has not roused him during so many years since its publication, to make a single effort in vindication of his character. Was it imagined that every objection was just, because not replied to? Many reasons, besides a fear of encountering objections, may prevent an answer. In truth, he cannot be called a volunteer author. He never did, and never dared to write, but when the honour or interest of his country was assaulted; when duty compelled every one to contribute what assistance he could in her defence, and when he hoped the cause would draw some kind of a veil over his defects. He expected he might escape, as the Spartan youth did, with some slight censure for engaging improperly armed, but that his motive would excuse him from a severe one. How well founded the present reproach is, will now be considered. One would imagine, that a man of common sense, on reading the foregoing extract from the Litters, would understand the writer plainly to mean, by "levying," the power of "taxing;" and by "applying," the power of "employing" the money raised by taxing; or, in other terms, the actual expenditure of it. This meaning is evident, the conclusion being express, that "if others may be judges in applying money, of consequence it may be "employed to our injury;" and then follow some instances in which it "may be so employed." All this is very clear. How, then, does the very ingenious gentleman open his way to the writer of the Letters to give him this violent blow? By a dexterity worthy of imitation, if justifiable. He leaves out of his quotation all the words enclosed within the last crotchet, beginning at the words "of consequence," and ending at the words "our defence," that showed, beyond a possibility of doubt, in what sense the word "applying" was used—takes no notice of the omission—imposes another sense on the word—and then insults, may it be said, over the supposed mistake of saying, "that the people of England have always assigned to the Crown the application of money."

What sense he or others may assign to the word "application," is not the point; but whether the word, taken in that sense which the writer of the Letters expressly annexed to it, is used with propriety by him, or whether it is used in such a manner as to "prove he is very deficient in his knowledge of the Constitution?" By that word, as he defines it, positively as language can declare any meaning, he intends the actual expenditure and "employment" of money. And is the reader to be tricked out of that definition, and another sense shuffled in, merely to impeach a man's character by slight of pen?

Has not the Constitution "assigned to the Crown the actual expenditure and employment of money?" Is not this power part of the Executive? Does not Mr. Justice Blackstone mention this power to show the vast influence of the Crown? He particularly takes notice of it, with respect to the army, in these expressions: "Paid, indeed, ultimately by the people, but immediately by the Crown; raised by the Crown, officered by the Crown, commanded by the Crown."||

Is not the word "application," used here, too, not only properly, as defined, but properly in a constitutional sense?

True it is, that the word is sometimes used as synonymous with appropriation, though this latter seems to be the fittest word to mean the designation of money to particular purposes in acts of Parliament. Could it be possible, that the author of "The Controversy" should imagine the writer of the Letters could be ignorant of such designation or appropriation of money by Parliament, when one can scarcely open a book of Statutes without observing them? Parliament may accommodate grants of money to publick necessities, and may call officers of the Crown to account for money; but those powers no more prove the actual expenditure and employment of money to belong to Parliament, than the power of calling officers of the Crown to account for injurious leagues, or declarations of war, proves the power of Parliament to make leagues or to declare war. Besides, it being contended against the Colonies, that the "sovereign power" is lodged in King, Lords and Commons, the same persons may tax and expend, to what excess, and in what manner they please, while the Colonies will have no kind of control over them; and that such an union of those powers is unconstitutional and dangerous to the Colonies in extreme, was the point the writer of the Letter offensively ventured to insist on.

Exactly in the sense here contended for, are the words "appropriation" and "application" used in some of the best authorities. Bishop Ellys, in his Tracts on Liberty, page 31, says: "The Parliament, at present, in granting money, does, for the most part, appropriate it to particular services, whereby the application of it is more effectually secured." "When any aids are given, the Commons only do judge of the necessities of the Crown, which cannot be otherwise made manifest to them than by inquiring how the money which hath been granted, and revenue of the Crown, is expended and applied."* "Out of the aids given by Parliament, (which, by the law of England, are appropriated, and ought to have been employed in the common profit of the whole Realm,) many large sums of money, during the times of such heavy taxes upon the people, have been diverted under the head of secret services, and for salaries, bounties, and pensions," &c.†

Some other unfairnesses there are in this famous piece, that need only be viewed, to be refuted; but of which, it may be said, if a "precedent" established by the respectable gentleman himself, can procure pardon for the expression, that "they are not entitled to notice." How could he venture to assert, as he does, that "the purpose of the Letters was to excite resentment in the Colonies against their parent country, and to push them on to a separation from her." The Letters prove the contrary. Few men have expressed a warmer zeal for the connection than the writer of them! Yet his reputation is to be attacked on every account, and a charge even of disloyalty directly levelled against him. The author is welcome to take what other licenses he pleases in his apprehensions of the writer; but he ought not to have denied his integrity. Their intentions must stand the test of a tribunal that decides for eternity. May they then appear equally pure.

True, indeed, are those words of Lord Clarendon: "Let no honest "man that is once entered into the lists, think, he can, by any skill or comportment prevent these conflicts and assaults—but let him look upon it as a purgatory he is unavoidably to pass through, and constantly performing the duties of justice, integrity, and uprightness, depend upon Providence, and time, for a vindication."

† This word, "dependence," as applied to the states connected with England, seems to be a new one. It appears to have been introduced into the language of the law, by the Commonwealth Act of 1659 A "dependence on Parliament" is still more modern. A people cannot be too cautious in guarding against such innovations. "The credentials of the Imperial Ambassadors to the states of Holland, were directed 'to our faithful and beloved. The words seem to be very kind, but the cautious states discovered that this was the style of the Imperial Chancery in writing to the vassals of the Empire. The question was, whether the credentials should be opened? And it was urged, that a solemn embassy ought not to be disappointed, for a few trifling words. But the states resolved to send them back unopened, which they did. Other credentials were then sent, with a proper direction, and the Ambassadors were well received."—Arcana, imp dent p. 196.

‡ 7 Co. 18.

* The probability of this measure taking place, is confirmed by the Canada Bill, a political device so extraordinary, as to excite surprise even in those Colonists who live in the year 1774. By this Bill, it is said, the Legislative power is lodged in the Governour and a few men, not less than seventeen, nor more than twenty-three, appointed and re-moveable by the Crown; and the Government becomes wholly military. Trials by jury are abolished, though multitudes of English subjects settled there on the encouragement given by the King's Proelamatson in 1763. The French laws are restored, and all the country on the back of these Colonies is added to Canada and put under the same military Government, This is indeed to be "chained in." Nothing is wanting to complete the plan, but our money to defray the expense of erecting strong holds along our woods and mountains, and to bribe our Indians; and then the expression of "Beating our words into plough-shared" will be reversed in an extraordinary manner; for "our plough-shared" will furnish the very "swords" that are to cut our own throats.

† Page 25.

‡ Pages 22 and 25.

|| 1 Blackstone, 330.

* Words of the Commons at a conference with the Lords.—Parl. Hist.

† Address of the House of Commons to Queen Anne.—Parl. Hist.