centre in that Island. It hath been justly observed, "that natural inclination leads every man to the cultivation of the soil, and the extensive Continent of America will enable her inhabitants to indulge that inclination for centuries to come; nothing but oppression can ever induce them to turn their thoughts towards manufactures whilst the produce of their fields can supply them with those manufactures." Long custom, added to their natural connections with their mother country, will lead them to prefer those of Britain to any others; and the certain market they would meet with there, together with the danger they will run in trading with a foreign Power, who in case of a war may cancel all the debts due to them, will induce them to supply Britain with all the rough material she can manufacture, and to trade with other Nations for such only as would be superfluous to her. But it is objected that America would supply foreign Powers with tobacco, and Britain would lose that valuable branch of trade. To this I answer, that her own interest would induce America first to supply Britain with as much of that commodity as she wanted for home consumption; because so much would bring a better price from thence than from any other market. The revenue of Britain would not therefore be affected; and, with regard to the superfluity, Great Britain could never be said to lose those profits which any of her subjects gained, because the wealth would finally centre in the capital of the Empire. The happy temperature of her climate would invite the indolent, the residence of her Monarch would draw the ambitious, the grandeur of her metropolis would attract the vain and curious, and the refinements of her pleasures would induce the luxurious of her extensive Empire to spend all their superfluous wealth in a city where they could indulge every wish of their hearts; not to mention the vast superiority Great Britain would have over the Colonies by all the Officers of Government in them being appointed, the Government directed, and even the Legislature controlled, (in the exercise of the King's negative) by the British Councils. But it is objected, that if America were indulged with this extension of trade, still she would not contribute to the support of Government, unless compelled to it by a British Parliament. Either this objection is true or false. Suppose it true. If all the wealth arising from the trade and labours of the Americans finally centres in Britain, it is as immaterial to the state whether America actually pays the taxes herself or enables others to do it, as it is whether the publican or tallow-chandler pay their taxes to the exciseman, who pays them into the Exchequer, or whether they pay them into the Exchequer themselves. But I deny the objection to be true. The Assemblies of the Colonies of America, when proper requisitions have been made of them as a free people, who had a right to exercise their judgment upon the expediency of the requisitions, have never refused to contribute to the utmost of their power towards supporting the dignity of the British Empire; nor can the British aristocracy produce a single instance of any one Colony's having refused to grant supplies when their Sovereign bath requested them, but such where their Governours, instead of requesting those supplies with a respect due to free people, have insolently demanded them, with threats in case of refusal; or when, in the Proprietary Colonies, their proprietors have refused to pass any Supply Bills, by which his large estate in the Province would be obliged to contribute any thing towards warding off the common danger, and then, by the address of his Governour, Administration hath been abused with a belief that disloyalty in the people to their Sovereign occasioned the want of those supplies, which were really withheld by the avarice of the proprietor. In the last war, when the usual requisitions were made, the Assemblies, fond of demonstrating their loyalty to their Sovereign, and their regard for the dignity of the British Empire, exerted themselves so much beyond their ability, that the Parliament of Great Britain thought it but just to repay them what they had actually contributed more than their proportion. Have they ever since been asked to contribute and refused? Why then distrust them now? Or why run the risk of destroying the goose to get at that wealth which will be at the service of their Sovereign whenever he asks for it in the usual way? But it is objected, that the last war was undertaken solely on account of America, and therefore she was more materially interested in its success than any of the inhabitants of Britain. The event has proved the very reverse. Each Colony possessed of more lands than their inhabitants could cultivate, were really prejudiced by Great Britain's extending her Dominion in America. Their lands fell immediately fifty per cent in their value by the emigration of their inhabitants to the new conquered Colonies; the manufactures from Britain came much higher than formerly, by the great demand for them to supply their new acquired subjects; their exports to Britain were reduced in their price on account of the additional ones from the new Dominions; and, to crown all, the British aristocracy having no longer a foreign rival to fear in America to check their aspiring views, employed their victorious arms to destroy the rights of those subjects who had assisted them in obtaining the victories which now enable them to attempt to enslave you, with even a shadow of success. But if custom hath so far habituated you to these unjust laws that you are willing, for the sake of peace, to meet your mother country more than half way, upon her agreeing to repeal those Acts, together with every precedent of legislation, do you, on your parts, agree to secure the trade of the Colonies to Great Britain be re-enacting the laws of navigation in your own respective Assemblies, which, when they have obtained the Royal assent, will be eternally binding on you? But never consent to submit to those laws as the Acts of a British Parliament.

It is objected, that the third plan proposed is too violent and illegal to be adopted. Let us consider whether it is so; and here permit me to make a few distinctions which are supported by those laws of England, which our ancestors, when they, with leave of their Sovereign, settled America, imported with them.

When a Judge pronounces an erroneous judgment, in a cause properly within his jurisdiction, he is not answerable as a criminal for such an errour in judgment, because no man is infallible, and corruption is not presumed. The judgment so pronounced by him, though erroneous, is not absolutely void, but avoidable, and till it is regularly reversed, by a superiour Court of Judicature, it is to be considered as a judgment; may as such be enforced, but cannot be legally resisted.

If a Judge pronounces judgment in a cause in which he has no jurisdiction, or if a man constitutes himself a Judge, or is by others, who have no right to do so, illegally constituted a Judge, and as such presumes to enforce such usurped jurisdiction, even though the judgment is a just one, he is answerable for the consequences. The judgment thus pronounced by him, though a just one, is absolutely void, and as such may be legally resisted. The Judge and every person concerned in endeavouring to enforce such a judgment, are trespassers; and if any person should be killed in resisting such judgment, the Judge who pronounced the sentence, if present at the execution, and all his assistants, are answerable for the murder.

The Courts of Admiralty, at the time our ancestors settled America, had no jurisdiction of any offence committed in any river or bay where the land could be seen across from one side to the other; and if they presumed to usurp such jurisdiction, by seizing any vessel in such places, they, and all acting under them, were trespassers; their judgments were absolutely void, and by the statute of second Henry the Fourth, chapter eleven, they were liable for double damages.

The King cannot create any new offence, which was not so at the common law, or alter the mode of trial of those already created in Britain, without the consent of his British Parliament, or, in other words, without the consent of the Representatives of the people, who are to be judged for such offences, and affected by such trials; and if he should, such trials would be illegal; the judgments absolutely void; the persons injured by them may not only maintain an action against, and indict as trespassers, the persons who attempt to enforce such illegal and void judgments, but may resist them by force, and if in such resistance they kill the trespassers, it will not be murder, because, say the books, the persons slain were trespassers, covering their violence with a show of justice; he who kills them is indulged by the law, and those who engage in such unlawful actions must abide by the event, at their peril.