the Lords and Commons of Great Britain having no constitutional right to act or do any thing that will be binding upon the Colonies, the only legal power in Great Britain respecting the Colonies, centres in the person of the King our Sovereign; and every Act passed there which respects America, receives no more authority than what it may derive from the King's assent to such Act; but as that amounts really to no more than a law made by the King's sole authority, which by the Constitution is not binding on the subject, the Colonies cannot in duty be bound to obey any such law. The law binding of right in the Colonies is that law only which is enacted in the Colonies, and receives the King's assent, either in person or by his Representative; and all officers acting by virtue of any other than a law according to the Constitution, will fall within the description above cited from Lord Sommers.

The New-York Freeholder has with much art endeavored to reduce the rise of the present disputes with Great Britain to the three penny duty on tea. It is a pity that abilities should be prostituted to give a false colouring to facts, which, without that disguise, appear in their true light to a common understanding; without it, it is very clear that the contention is not about the three penny duty only, but the claim of taxation by the British Parliament, and their actual exercise of the powers founded on that claim, over the Colonies. The precedents which he has alleged do not invalidate my preceding argument; for though it be granted that the Colonies have not opposed the operation of those precedents, it neither proves the Parliamentary right for having exercised that power, nor deprives the Colonists of their right of asserting and resuming all those rights usurped from them; and they are at any time at full liberty to oppose their future operation; any acquiescence on their part in time passed notwithstanding; for the bare submission to power unconstitutionally exercised, does in no wise confer right to those who thus exercise it, any more than it confers right to a robber, who by force obtains a submission from those whom he despoils; nor will it render the case better if the submission be obtained by deception; nor indeed may any people rightfully surrender any of their rights, further than necessary for the publick good; if they do, such surrender will be a mere nullity. The Freeholder very kindly assigns a reason in behalf of the British Parliament for the Tea Act. He says, "that commercial states should always encourage the consumption of their own manufactures, which is of general utility, as it promotes industry; but articles of foreign luxury, and tea is one, are the proper objects of taxation, &c." I don't recollect to have any where read that the British Parliament ever pretended this as the motive for their taxation of the Americans, but rather have avowed it as a test of their right to tax them. Be their motive what it may, he treats the Act as if made by rightful authority, when he knows that the right to that authority is the very thing which the Colonists disclaim.

In the same manner he takes it for granted that the East India Company had a good right to send their tea to America; when it is well known that the intention of it was generally understood to be expressly to enforce the Tea Act, as the duty was payable when the tea was landed. This was clearly the view of the Ministry; and the East India Company's tea was made use of as an instrument for affecting that purpose. Why then talk of individuals? It was in the light of an instrument of destruction to American liberty that their tea was considered; yet notwithstanding it was thus considered, the people at Boston made use of every method in their power for its preservation, consistent with their getting clear of it, without having it landed there; but that was the point insisted on—that was the desirable thing so earnestly sought for by the Ministerial agents; otherwise the tea might have been preserved by being secured in the Castle, or by the King's ships. These agents therefore left the people no alternative but to destroy it, or suffer it to be entered for duty.— To compare it then with the Stamp papers shows what candour may be expected from this writer. The Stamp papers were liable to no duty on being landed and stored— the tea was liable; whether that at Charlestown paid the duty, is what I cannot affirm or deny; the Act requires the payment.

The Freeholder's feeble attempt to apologize for the severity of the Boston Port Bill, and other Acts relative to that Province, is at once a proof of his willingness for that service, and of the indefensibility of those tyrannical Acts, since even with his abilities he passes over them briefly. But what can be said in the defence of them which may not with equal propriety be said in defence of every species of usurpation and cruelty which disgrace the history of mankind?—the difference between them being rather in degree than kind. The severity of the Boston Port Bill, singly considered, will render it the abhorrence of all good men, even supposing the British Parliament had a just right to the sovereignty of that Province; but when viewed in the light of usurpation, as having no rightful authority to act as they have, it adds the highest injustice to cruelty. The opposition to the Board of Commissioners, &c, the impeachment of the Chief Justice of both Houses, has been vindicated, and the two Houses have fully justified their conduct, notwithstanding any thing "determined after a full hearing." After the Freeholder's declaration of his impartiality, &c., he again recurs to his topick of a civil war, and asserts that the Colonies South of New England have really no other contest with the parent state but the three penny duty on tea, "and that if they should be plunged any deeper, or further involved in trouble, they will undeniably be dragged into it by the Massachusetts Bay." Does he not know the contrary to be true? Can he expect this to be believed on his bare assertion? Does he really believe it himself? His compliments to the American people will not palliate this insult to their understandings, nor atone for his apparent design of disuniting them. He says, "an American Constitution, not a civil war, is what will relieve them." I have not heard it asserted that a civil war was to be sought after for relief! But a manly defence of their sacred rights, even by force of arms, whenever absolutely necessary against a foreign force, may and probably will insure effectual relief.

An American Constitution is what is required; however, it ought to be remembered, that such a Constitution is required as a matter of right, not as a grace to be obtained by petition to the Parliament of Great Britain, who have indeed no true authority for that purpose. Let that august Assembly only relinquish all pretence of right to govern the British Colonies in America, and leave that to whom it solely and exclusively belongs, namely, the King, our lawful Sovereign, with his Parliament in the respective Colonies, and the Americans have a Constitution without seeking further; then would the Colonies be united with Great Britain by the strong ties of mutual interest and sincere affection, without any jealousies or resentment; the cause taken away, the effects would cease; and the strictest harmony, cemented by the bands of ancient consanguinity and similarity of manners, would take place, which would probably continue for ages united under one and the same head of the whole British Empire.

He asks, "But does not Parliament claim a right to tax the Colonies, which must in the end enslave them?" He admits that the Parliament "asserts this claim;" and says, "but whilst it proceeds no further, it cannot hurt us. It is sufficiently balanced by our assertions to the contrary." Had he been able to prove that they had barely asserted it, he had done something to the purpose; but there being such glaring proofs to the contrary, one may reasonably ask him what he means by saying, "But surely it is time enough to run to extremities when the claim is oppressively put in execution." Need he be told that this is already done? The Boston Port Bill is a proof, with a witness. Or does he think, that, not sufficiently oppressive, or oppressively put in execution, but that the Americans must wait till the "Harpies of taxation were actually and every-where tearing our substance from us?" I think it justifiable to say, that then it would be rather too late for obtaining an adequate remedy. He asks, "What, is America then to be exempted wholly from the burthen of supporting Government?" Here again he calls the British Administration (which, with respect to its exercise in America, is mere tyranny) emphatically Government; and from the great obligations he supposes British America lies under to Great Britain, he thinks we ought to bear our just share of the burthen of National expense. Let me ask, wherefore? It is very certain that British America has her own expenses of