practicable to be exercised in their collective capacities; from hence arose the necessity of representation, upon the genuine principles of which, every member of the community should have a voice. In forming this representation, care was taken of the landed interest, and Knights of the Shire were elected by proprietors of land to represent it. But this alone would have been a partial, inadequate representation; care was also taken to have the trading interest represented, that so not the landed interest only, but the whole body of the people should be represented by the House of Commons; in choosing whom, says a learned Judge, there is scarce a free agent in England who has not a vote. This subject might be continued further if necessary, but enough has been said to show your idea of representation to be erroneous.

According to you, Sir, we are bound by all laws made by the British Parliament. We have a right to be represented there, but it is impossible we can enjoy that right. So that the “persons, lives, and estates of the subjects in America are at the disposal of an absolute power, without the least security for the enjoyment of their rights.” This is a dreadful situation! And the very reading it is sufficient to freeze the blood of any man that has a spark of liberty in him. How it has roused your passions! How animated is your observations on it! You say, “most certain it is, that this is a situation which people accustomed to liberty cannot sit easy under.” Sit easy under slavery! It is a situation that all your sophistry, threats, or the arms of Britain will never make an American sit under at all.

But now the curtain is drawn up—the plan of union gentlemen, which is to restore us to the enjoyment of our lost rights! Having shown, as you think, that we have no rights at all, you very patriotically propose a plan, by which, if the British Administration pleases, we may be restored to some. But the very position tells us we are slaves. If our restoration to rights depends upon the pleasure and will of the British Legislature, they are our masters; we must submit to their pleasure. But send the author of the plan over as a delegate to solicit your cause, “the expense will be trifling;” it is a task he would, no doubt, perform “with ineffable pleasure.”

You say, Sir, you have often conversed with the author of the plan, and well understand his principles. Pray, Sir, ask him whether he did not, in a Committee of Congress, deny, from the same learned quotations about landed property, the power of Parliament to bind the Colonies in any case. His conclusions from the same premises were, I am told, very different from what you have drawn in this pamphlet. He insisted that the right of English liberty is a right to participate in legislation; that as the lands in America are not represented, Americans could not be represented, and not being represented, they, of course, could not be bound; from hence he drew an inference of the necessity of some plan of union. Did he not, Sir, on this principle, deny the power of Parliament even to regulate Trade? And did he not even vote against it in Congress?

Much has been said against the Congress for rejecting this plan. The matter, I am told, stands thus: When it was first introduced in Congress, most of the members heard it with horrour, as an idle, dangerous, whimsical, Ministerial plan. Some of the “Pennsylvania Oracles,” Friends, with whom infinite pains had been taken before hand, moved to have it committed. This was rejected; then a motion was made that the plan might lie on the table, to be taken up at any future day. This was carried in the affirmative. When the minutes came to be revised, towards the end of the sitting, the plan was omitted. Here the patriot raged, and insisted on his right to have it on the minutes. The question was put, and a great majority thought the inserting it in the Journal would be disgracing their records, and accordingly rejected it. Certainly in such a society, every question must, of course, be determined by a majority. If, then, a majority were of opinion that the inserting it on their Journal would be disgraceful and injurious, they unquestionably had a right to reject it. If his plan was defensible, why did he not enter into the argument with a gentleman from Virginia, who challenged him to it, and who said he could prove it to be big with destruction to the Colonies? ’Tis true he did, when thus called upon, say that he would defend it, if the Congress would appoint a day for that purpose. But this, Sir, was when all was hurry, and the forms of business only delayed their breaking up. Besides, it was a little remarkable, that this “Oracle” was not ready to undertake the defence of a plan, when he had been for months haranguing and caballing about it.

You have mentioned some of the objections that were hinted against the plan, for it is false to say that the merits of it were ever regularly debated in Congress. One of those objections is, that the members of the Grand Council would be corrupted, and betray the interest of the Colonies. To this you answer, “that if American virtue was not firm enough to maintain liberty, it could be supported by no wisdom or policy whatever. But supposing the people to be in so corrupt a state, yet as the election was to be triennial, they might change them every three years, &c.; and besides, to avoid all risks of the Country, they might, by altering one word, as the plan, make the election duannual or annual, which must certainly remove the objection.” No, Sir! it will not do yet, not even with the alteration. For let us once suppose this darling plan executed, an American Parliament met. Suppose when thus met, a motion is made, showing the inconvenience and difficulties of frequent elections, and proposing the making a law extending their political existence for seven years; precedents may be pleaded for it. But, Sir, supposing this Parliament to be but annual, may they not in one year, one month, one day, nay, in one hour, pass a vote, which may forever annihilate the liberties of all America? But will you not trust the virtue of Americans? Sir, I entertain a high reverence for the virtue of my countrymen. But the trust is too sacred. Permit me to tell you, that neither “wisdom or policy” would dictate the leaving the liberties of a Country to the virtues of any men, however great or conspicuous. We know too well the fallibility of human nature, and both “wisdom and policy” teach us to support our liberties with other props and pillars. I did not intend to have touched on the merits of the plan, but when I saw one of the objections to it so mutilated, I thought proper to state the objections more fully and forcibly. The whole of the plan is confused, impracticable, and dangerous, as probably soon will be shown.

I have reserved till now, purposely, my remarks on the gross abuse and calumny thrown out in your pamphlet against the Congress. How unfair, how ungenerous, to take detached parts of their proceedings, and from thence draw inferences as to their principles! How dare you, Sir, in the face of America, assert that they have proposed no plan of accommodation? That every page conveys sentiments of independence? Have they not expressly said, (and is it not the groundwork of their whole proceedings,) place America in the situation she was in before 1763, and all our complaints will subside? Is this not proposing a plan of accommodation? Yes, Sir, and the only reasonable constitutional plan that can be devised. Tear away that system of Revenue Laws, and their attendants, and peace will be restored. And is this, Sir, talking of independence? Consider the Statutes prior to 1763, to which America concedes obedience; consider the acknowledged prerogatives of the King of Great Britain, in all the Colonies; the appeal to the King and Council from judicial determinations; his negative to laws; and let any impartial man say, whether this is a system of independence. The labours and virtue of the Congress in the cause of liberty, will, to latest ages, be revered and esteemed, while you and your attempts will only be remembered to show posterity that even in these days of liberty, America had some degenerate sons—a Jefferies and a Filmer.

But, good Sir, before we part, let me ask you how you came to publish your friend to the world as a man of no principle or virtue. I see he has signed the Association. I am told he signed the Petition to the King. I find in the Association he says, (for it is certainly the act of all who signed it,) “the present unhappy situation of our affairs is occasioned by a ruinous system of Colony administration, adopted by the British Ministry about the year 1763, evidently calculated for enslaving those Colonies.” And, Sir, I find further, that he did, for himself and those he represented, firmly agree and associate, under the sacred ties of virtue, honour, and love of his Country,