they will discover further signs of a true English spirit. However, should they prove as loyal as Phileirene wishes them to be, twenty riflemen will, I doubt not, prove a match for any ten of them; and if we reason from former experience, Braddock and Howe have left us a proportion still more favourable. As to the common Soldiers, they have no great inducement to make them fight. If they will fight for pay, I think we could increase their wages. At any rate, a groat a day to feed upon, half an hour’s exercise in the week, and ten years’ loitering in crowded barracks, can give them but an indifferent title to the character of true British veterans.

That our skill in the military art, could we but attain it, would rebound with ten-fold destruction on our own heads, is rather hard. For shall we take that immense pains which it will cost an American to acquire it, and which alone can put us on an equal footing with these veterans, and then turn it against ourselves? This would be an infatuation which Phileirene and all his fellow-blusterers have not been able to accomplish, and, I fear, never will, not-withstanding the facts which can demonstrate its truth.

I once thought of touching on the doctrine of Rebellion and our duty to God; but as the facts necessary to demonstrate his assertions on this head might border on impiety, and the attempt itself would be blasphemous, I would not have it entered on; for if one man sin against another, the Judge may plead for him; but if a man sin against God, who shall entreat for him? Yet the matter may be settled in few words. God is certainly on the side of justice and the oppressed, and the Devil on the side of injustice and oppression. They may be considered as the leaders in this cause, and every man as actuated by the spirit of his leader. I will leave it to Phileirene and the world to determine which spirit he and his party are inspired with.

To the Friend to the Constitution:

SIR: As you may be acquainted with facts which have escaped the notice of all beside yourself; as you may be able to defend your cause by arguments, which, though hitherto concealed, will strike conviction into the hearts of the most stupid, insensible, and obstinate bigots; and as your proofs may be derived from sources hitherto unexplored by any other; I call upon you to exercise those political talents and abilities which, doubtless, you are possessed of, in demonstrating the truth of the foregoing assertions of Mr. Phileirene. Should the task prove hard or laborious, you must comfort yourself with this reflection, that it is the only means whereby you can prove yourself possessed of that candour and honesty, which is so rare amongst your party. If, in the course of your demonstration, this one point should fall in our favour, viz: that the present is a struggle of might against right, and that right is on our side, we have, little to fear, even should every other assertion of Phileirene prove true. For when was arbitrary power successful in Great Britain? Not in the days of Charles the First, nor yet at the Revolution. William the Bastard is the principal instance of the kind I now recollect. If we be permitted, then, to draw any conclusions from former experience, while we have a legitimate King on the Throne we have little to fear. Had arbitrary power succeeded in the days of Charles the First, or James the Second, we should at present be in the same state or a worse than the people of France. Now would you, Sir, or Phileirene, or any of your party, rather find yourselves in this state and condition, than that your forefathers had pursued the measures they then adopted? According as you answer this question, we shall be condemned or justified, even should we be forced to draw the sword.

A LOVER OF ENGLISH LIBERTY.

To the Author of a Pamphlet, entitled “A Candid Examination of the Mutual Claims of GREAT BRITAIN and her COLONIES, &c.”

Philadelphia, March 8, 1775.

SIR: When your pamphlet was first put into my hands, I accidentally opened it at the last page but one, and was pleased to see the following words: “Thus I have, my dear countrymen, with the utmost candour and freedom, and the most benevolent regard for your true interest and happiness, laid before you the Constitutional extent of Parliamentary jurisdiction, and deduced your rights from the most solid foundation, and explained your duties.” Pleased with this declaration, I eagerly began a careful perusal of the pamphlet; but what was my surprise to find that instead of deducing the rights of America from a “most solid foundation,” you have laboured to show that America has no rights at all; and that we are the most abject slaves on earth. This set me upon an examination of the principles on which you have grounded your arguments; and from this examination it evidently appeared that you have ignorantly misunderstood or wilfully misapplied them.

The first principle which you lay down, and which, indeed, is the groundwork of your whole performance, is this: “There must be in every State a supreme Legislative power of the Colonies, and that the Colonists are, therefore, subject to its laws.”

It may be proper before we proceed, to observe, that though there is no difficulty in laying down general principles on the nature of Government, yet it requires judgment and understanding to make a proper application of them. If it shall appear that your several quotations are totally inapplicable to the situation of the Colonies, with respect to their connection with Great Britain, your arguments must fall, of course, to the ground. And I apprehend I shall not only be able to make, this appear, but clearly to show, as I said before, that you either did not understand the authors quoted, or that you have wilfully misapplied them.

Whoever has read, and is conversant with the authors on Government, will agree that whenever the above principle is laid down, it amounts in substance to this, and this only viz: Wherever men have, from a state of nature, entered into a state of society, there must be somewhere power lodged to make laws obligatory on all the members of that society. This power of making laws, however modified, is called the Legislative power; and any one will readily assent to the necessity there is, that this Legislative power should be supreme over the members; for if, after the Legislative power has ordained any thing to be done, the members should afterwards be left to their own choice to adopt or reject it, it follows clearly there must be an end of Government. Now let us consider whether this principle is not fully satisfied in the several Governments of America, without having recourse for an application of it to the Parliament of Great Britain. I will undertake to show that the principle is applicable to our several Governments, and to them only; and this I shall do from your own quotations.

Mr. Locke tells us that “The first fundamental positive law of all Commonwealths is the establishing the Legislative power; this Legislative is not only the supreme power of the Commonwealth, but is sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have placed it.” It cannot be denied. It is as, well established as the Legislature of Great Britain; its powers within the bounds of the Province are as supreme and unlimited as the power of the Legislature of Great Britain. Here, then, the principle applies;—as there is a Legislative power in the Province of Pennsylvania, that power is, from the nature of all Governments, supreme, and all the inhabitants of the Province must be obedient, to its laws. But to, proceed: “There can be but one supreme power, which is the Legislative to which all the rest are, and must be subordinate.” This principle is certainly right; but let us see how judiciously it is applied. Certainly in the Province of Pennsylvania there neither is nor can be more than one supreme power, viz: the Legislature of the Province. To them the several Corporations, and other inferiour jurisdictions must submit. But observe how completely wretched you aim to make the Americans. You quote Locke to prove that there can be but one supreme power, which is the Legislature; if so, and if the Parliament, as you say, is the Legislature of the Colonies, it follows that we have hitherto been deceived, and that there is no such thing as a Colony-Legislature in existence. But, Sir, this supreme power, the community of Pennsylvania have undeniably vested in the Assembly and Governour, subject to our Sovereign’s negative; and, of course, the Legislature of Great Britain is not the Legislature of Pennsylvania; for it would be “irregular and monstrous” to suppose us subject to two Legislatures. But this will not satisfy you. You will have