|
they and the Canadians should be "at the beck of Government." The regular troops introduced here last war, were rather for conquest than defence, and that conquest was in a good measure effected by the assistance of the Colonists, who, for their pains, have those very conquests which were partly achieved with their own blood and treasure, now held up as a rod to subjugate them to their fellow-subjects in Great Britain. For which purpose the regular troops have been kept in this country ever since the last war.
Notwithstanding the New-York Freeholder has so elegantly described the miseries of a civil war, he says, "what has been said hitherto is on the supposition that all the British Americans would unite in a war against Great Britain." How then would it be a civil war? He thinks, however, that this could not happen, and asks, "are not several Provinces as much in the hands of Government as Canada?" I know of none that are; most of the Governments are indeed Royal Governments, but surely that don't affect their rights—would that tie their hands from asserting and defending their liberties? The contrary is, I apprehend, generally understood here. He indeed says, "were a war to break out the Americans themselves would be divided." Very truly said, if a civil war should happen to break out there would be a civil war. Wherefore then would he insinuate that an opposition to the tyrannical claims and usurpations of Great Britain, should be deemed a civil war? Or, if the Americans should be compelled to take up arms to defend their liberties, why must it be construed that they make war against the King? Should the British Parliament think proper to legislate for, and tax Hanover, and the Act should be signed by the King, does any one imagine the Hanoverians would pay any regard to such Act? Or, if the British Parliament should take upon themselves to alter the form of their Government, would they submit? There can be no doubt but that they would defend their Constitution with arms against whoever was to attempt enforcing their submission; nor by their doing so would they forfeit their allegiance to their Prince.
The introducing the last rebellion in Scotland as a case in point, or as any parallel to the present disputes, is not a mark of the Freeholder's candour, even if a civil war was certain; and if he does not adduce it as a case in point, it is invidious; that it is not a parallel case, is plain to the most common understanding; for the rebellion in Scotland was not for grievances unredressed, liberties invaded, or oppression; no, it was an attachment to the person of the Pretender, a competitor to the British Crown against the late King. What is there similar between that rebellion and the disputes in America? The Americans are loyal to their Sovereign King George the Third. It is much to be doubted if there is a single native of North America, who is a Jacobite; they have no dispute with the King as exercising his rightful authority as King of these Colonies; it is against the usurpations of the Parliament of Great Britain--they contend for their most sacred rights as free men, invaded by that Parliament--which claims the disposal of them as their slaves, and are doing their utmost effectually to exert those claims. Therefore, to introduce the tears of Scotland, seems merely for the sake of the unhappy issue to the Pretender and his adherents. Had the Freeholder been candid enough to introduce a case in point, he could not well be at a loss for one--he cannot be supposed ignorant of the rise of the states of Holland; the encroachments which Philip the Second, King of Spain, made on the civil and religious liberties of his subjects in the Netherlands, produced a revolt of seven from seventeen Provinces; and notwithstanding the very great power of Philip, his having an army of twenty thousand veterans (esteemed the best soldiers in Europe) in the neighborhood, commanded by the ablest General of his time, and the assistance he drew from the Provinces which did not revolt, yet, under all these disadvantages, in the course of some years (with some small assistance from England and France) they effected their liberty, though not without spending some of their best blood; nor could it be expected otherwise in a contest of such importance, against a Prince as obstinate and cruel as he was powerful.
This case, although it be very much like the present dispute between Great Britain and the Colonies--save only that Philip was the lawful Sovereign of those Provinces, and the Parliaments of Great Britain have only their own claim of sovereignty, yet, the Freeholder did not choose it for a parallel, perhaps, because it had an happy issue, which would not so well answer the intention of intimidating the Americans, in order to their submission to the usurpations of the British Parliament.
In Mr. Gaine's paper of the 26th September is another letter from a New-York Freeholder, who again introduces his subject with a pathetick declaration on the miseries of a civil war. It might be imagined that, by a civil war, he would mean any forcible resistance to the unconstitutional measures pursued by the British Administration, did he not make mention of, "friends, brethren, parents, and children imbruing their hands in each others' blood." If the inhabitants of this Continent were not very generally determined to oppose those measures; if they were not resolved to refuse submission to the usurpations of the British Parliament; or that the advocates for despotism were numerous, and would risk their all in favour of those usurpations, there might perhaps be some reason to fear a civil war; but such a fear will appear to be groundless, when it is considered that by far the most of the Colonies, although not absolutely unanimous, yet have so very great a majority who are ready to defend their liberties, that the very few who may differ from them would hardly attempt to counteract their brethren and friends with force. In a single Colony, or perhaps a few Colonies, though the majority, in support of their liberties, may not appear so great, it is, however, by much too formidable for the few enemies of American liberty to venture upon so hardy an undertaking, as by force of arms to oppose such measures as may be adopted by the great number of the friends of freedom in defence of their liberties. If such enemies there be, their situation must be truly deplorable, as they would be deemed traitors to their King and country, notwithstanding their acting in virtue of any commission from Administration, founded on unconstitutional Acts of the British Parliament; "for an illegal commission is so far from conveying a power unto any man to act, that it is a greater crime to do any thing upon the imaginary authority of it, than it would be to commit the same fact without all colour and pretence of power and warrant, seeing, the injury of the one case doth affect and terminate in him that receives it; whereas, in the other, it affects the King, the Government, and the whole body of the people."—Lord SOMMERS'S Judgment, &c.
Now as the King cannot lawfully in Great Britain, by his sole authority, make any law that an officer can be either bound or authorized to act upon, (seeing a law to be binding there must have the sanction of Parliament) in like manner, the King with his British Parliament cannot rightfully make any law which ought to be binding upon the Colonies. As the King with his Parliament of Great Britain will be, at most, to the Colonies, what the King alone is to Great Britain; but to speak more properly,
|