single thought on the situation of those people, who, in order to obtain justice for injuries, however great or small, must, by the laws of that Colony, attend their County Court, at such a distance, with all their witnesses, monthly, till their litigation be determined? Or, does his Majesty seriously wish, and publish it to the world, that his subjects should give up the glorious right of representation, with all the benefits derived from that, and submit themselves the absolute slaves of his sovereign will? Or, is it rather meant to confine the Legislative body to their present numbers, that they may be the cheaper bargain whenever they shall become worth a purchase.

One of the articles of impeachment against Tresilian, and the other Judges of Westminster Hall, in the reign of Richard the Second, for which they suffered death as traitors to their country, was, that they advised the King that he might dissolve his Parliament at any time; and succeeding Kings have adopted the opinion of these unjust Judges. Since the establishment, however, of the British Constitution, at the glorious Revolution, on its free and ancient principles, neither his Majesty, nor his ancestors, have exercised such a power of dissolution in the Island of Great Britain; and when his Majesty was petitioned by the united voice of his people there, to dissolve the present Parliament, who had become obnoxious to them, his Ministers were heard to declare in open Parliament, that his Majesty possessed no such power by the Constitution. But how different their language and his practice here! To declare, as their duty required, the known rights of their country, to oppose the usurpations of every foreign judicature, to disregard the imperious mandates of a Minister or Governour, have been the avowed causes of dissolving Houses of Representatives in America. But if such powers be really vested in his Majesty, can he suppose they are there placed to awe the Members from such purposes as these? When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then, indeed, their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the state, and calls for an exercise of the power of dissolution. Such being the causes for which the representative body should, and should not, be dissolved, will it not appear strange to an unbiassed observer that that of Great Britain was not dissolved, while those of the Colonies have repeatedly incurred that sentence?

But your Majesty, or your Governours, have carried this power beyond every limit known, or provided for, by the laws. After dissolving one House of Representatives they have refused to call another, so that for a great length of time, the Legislature, provided by the laws, has been out of existence. From the nature of things, every society must at all times possess within itself the sovereign powers of legislation. The feelings of human nature revolt against the supposition of a state so situated as that it may not in any emergency provide against dangers which perhaps threaten immediate ruin. While those bodies are in existence, to whom the people have delegated the powers of legislation, they alone possess and may exercise those powers; but when they are dissolved, by the lopping off one or more of their branches, the power reverts to the people, who may exercise it to unlimited extent, either in assembling together in person, sending Deputies, or in any other way they may think proper. We forbear to trace consequences any further; the dangers are conspicuous with which this practice is replete.

That we shall at this time also take notice of an errour in the nature of our land holdings, which crept in at a very early period of our settlement. The introduction of the feudal tenures into the Kingdom of England, though ancient, is well enough understood to set this matter in a proper light. In the earlier ages of the Saxon settlement, feudal holdings were certainly altogether unknown, and very few, if any, had been introduced at the time of the Norman conquest. Our Saxon ancestors held their lands, as they did their personal property, in absolute dominion, disencumbered with any superiour, answering nearly to the nature of those possessions which the feudalists term allodial, William, the Norman, first introduced that system generally. The lands which had belonged to those who fell in the battle of Hastings, and in the subsequent insurrections of his reign, formed a considerable proportion of the lands of the whole Kingdom. These he granted out, subject to feudal duties, as did he also those of a great number of his new subjects, who, by persuasions or threats, were induced to surrender them for that purpose. But still much was left in the hands of his Saxon subjects, held of no superiour, and not subject to feudal conditions. These, therefore, by express laws, enacted to render uniform the system of military defence were made liable to the same military duties, as if they had been feuds; and the Norman lawyers soon found means to saddle them also with all other feudal burdens. But still they had not been surrendered to the King; they were not derived from his grant, and, therefore, they were not holden of him. A general principle indeed was introduced, that "all lands in England were held either immediately or immediately of the Crown;" but this was borrowed from those holdings which were truly feudal, and only applied to others for the purposes of illustration. Feudal holdings were, therefore, but exceptions out of the Saxon laws of possession, under which all lands were held in absolute right. These, therefore, still form the basis, or ground-work, of the common law, to prevail wheresoever the exceptions have not taken place. America was not conquered by William, the Norman, nor its lands surrendered to him, or any of his successors. Possessions there are undoubtedly of the allodial nature. Our ancestors, however, who migrated hither, were farmers, not lawyers. The fictitious principle that all lands belong originally to the King, they were early persuaded to believe real; and accordingly took grants of their own lands from the Crown. And while the Crown continued to grant for small sums, and on reasonable rents, there was no inducement to arrest the errour, and lay it open to the publick view. But his Majesty has lately taken on him to advance the terms of purchase, and of holding to the double of what they were, by which means the acquisition of lands being rendered difficult, the population of our country is likely to be checked. It is time, therefore, for us to lay this matter before his Majesty, and to declare that he has no right to grant lands of himself. From the nature and purposes of civil institutions, all the lands within the limits which any particular society has circumscribed around itself are assumed by that society, and subject to their allotment only. This may be done by themselves assembled collectively, or by their Legislature, to whom they have delegated sovereign authority; and if they are allotted in neither of these ways, each individual of the society may appropriate to himself such lands as he finds vacant, and occupancy will give him title.

That in order to enforce the arbitrary measures before complained of, his Majesty has, from time to time, sent among us large bodies of armed forces, not made up of the people here, not raised by the authority of our laws. Did his Majesty possess such a right as this, it might swallow up all our other rights whenever he should think proper. But his Majesty has no right to land a single armed man on our shores, and those whom he sends here are liable to our laws made for the suppression and punishment of riots, routs, and unlawful assemblies; or are hostile bodies, invading us in defiance of law. When in the course of the late war it became expedient that a body of Hanoverian troops should be brought over for the defence of Great Britain, his Majesty's grandfather, our late Sovereign, did not pretend to introduce them under any authority he possessed. Such a measure would have given just alarm to his subjects in Great Britain, whose liberties would not be safe if armed men of another country, and of another spirit, might be brought into the Realm at any time without the consent of their Legislature. He, therefore, applied to Parliament, who passed an Act for that purpose, limiting the number to be brought in, and the time they were to continue. In like manner is his Majesty restrained in every part of the Empire. He possesses indeed, the Executive power of the laws in every state, but they are the laws of the particular state, which he is to administer within that state, and not those of any one within the limits of another. Every state must judge for itself the number of armed men which they may safely trust among them, of whom they are to consist, and under what restrictions they shall be laid.

To render these proceedings still more criminal against our laws, instead of subjecting the military to the civil