It may be of use to premise, that the question we have been examining, and which is still under consideration, is, whether we are in truth a part of the British Empire, in such a sense, as to be subject to her supreme authority in all cases whatever? Whether this subjection is fit and necessary on principles of rectitude and policy, is a distinct matter. Admitting this to be true, it is a good reason why we should immediately unite, but no evidence that we are already united. Nor is the question, whether a submission to ministerial measures be dangerous and ruinous, or forcible opposition to the regulating laws eligible and effectual. These matters are worthy your serious consideration. Our first attention ought to be to the justice of our cause; then, if prudence leads us to contend, we may reasonably expect, He who is higher than the highest, will look down with gracious approbation upon our righteous struggle, and by breaking the jaws of proud oppressors, take the prey even from between their teeth. It is necessary that the above distinctions be kept constantly in view, as they will secure us from a confusion of ideas on the one hand, and enable us to distinguish between reasoning and fallacy on the other, in publications where they are artfully confounded.

After a long parade upon miscellaneous subjects our designing reasoner fairly opens to the point. Says he, “the Colonies are a part of the British Empire.” In support of which, he produces the opinion of the best writers upon the Law of Nations: that when a Nation takes possession of a distant country and settles there, that country, though separated from the principal establishment, or mother country, naturally becomes a part of the state, equal with its ancient possessions.” The truth of this principle may be allowed with safety to our argument. For the conclusion, that a country, though separated from the principal establishment, becomes a part of the mother state, is general, depending upon an antecedent reason resulting from a particular state of facts in a number of similar instances, and therefore cannot be applied to cases not only dissimilar in general, but also in those particular circumstances upon which alone its whole force depends. The antecedent state of facts, which is assigned as a reason, by the civilians themselves, in support of their conclusion, is “a Nation’s taking possession of a country, and settling there.” It is an invariable rule m logick, which our sophister is well acquainted with, that if the antecedent position of the argument is untrue or contradicted, the conclusion of course depending thereon falls to the ground. We have already shown that this Country was taken possession of by individuals, and by them settled at their own risk, and private expense, and not by the Nation as a Nation. So that this principle carries meat in its mouth, as is sometimes said; and in the application of our logical genius, to use his own language, is felo de se, destroys itself; for being without the reason, we cannot be within his conclusion.

The above-cited opinion not only fails of proving our connection in any degree whatever; but no argument can be adduced pertinent to our present subject from any precedents in ancient history, as the settlement of the American Colonies was undertaken from views, and accompanied with circumstances, singular, and perfectly dissimilar to those which influenced colonization in the more early ages of the world. We have not yet done with the above-cited opinion. Something worse is still behind. It not only fails of serving the purpose of him who adduced it, but so far as it applies to the subject, it descends with its whole force directly against him. For the implication is violent, by a fair construction, that the opinion of the best writers on the Law of Nations is in favour of our being separate from the Mother Country, if this Colony was not taken possession of and settled by the English Nation as such,. This is apparent, not only from the force of words, and thread of reasoning as explained above; but also from their express positions, that individuals have a right to abandon the jurisdiction of a State, and settle in some vacant part of the world, and thereby recover their natural freedom. The argument holds still stronger where the country moved to was in the prior occupacy of a foreign Nation, and honestly purchased of the occupants by the persons emigrating, as in the present instance. Therefore the authority of those writers, if they are consistent with themselves, is clearly in support of the doctrine of independence. For I appeal to every man’s private knowledge of the rise and progress of this Country. You have heard, my dear countrymen, you well know, your fathers have told you, nor will it be hid from your children, or the generations to come, the wonderful transactions of our virtuous predecessors; who, under the blessing of Providence, after they had been from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another people, came and took possession of this land, wandering in it hungry and thirsty, naked and cold, finding no city to receive them, no house to repose in, no aid from their forsaken parent, a few in number surviving the accumulated hardships, they and their posterity settled and defended it, in their own right, at their own risk and expense against the horrid attacks of nations, savage, heathen, delighting in havock and in blood. Nay, I will venture to appeal to Massachusettensis himself, to his oracle of infallibility, the author of the history of this Province; these are his words, speaking of the war with Philip, in which many valuable lives were lost. Says he, “Fighting made soldiers. As soon as the inhabitants had a little experience of the Indian way of fighting, they became a match for them. An addition to their numbers they did not want. Be that as it may, this is certain, that as the Colony was at first settled, so it was now preserved from ruin without any charge to the Mother Country.” What are your feelings? Does not strong conviction arrest your minds? Does not reason and passion join their voice? Look to the graves of our slaughtered ancestors; they will open their mouths, and teach us freedom’s price in serious lessons wrote with blood.

Thus our silver-tongued disputant, (I had almost said doubled-tongued,) imagining that he had, or that a particular class of courtfidians would believe he had, proved, that the Colonies were a part of the British Empire, by an argument that concludes directly in his teeth, so far as it applies; he justly observes that two supreme independent authorities cannot exist in the same state, as it would be imperium in imperio, the height of political absurdities; and thence infers, as well he might, our entire subjection to the uncontrollable power of the parent State. We may, in our turn, retort this argument with additional force, and, in his own way, prove we are not a part of the British Empire, by the following plain demonstrated position, viz: The Colonies are not subject to the supreme authority of Great Britain. The greatest statesmen and sages in the law of the past and present age, tell us that representation is commensurate with legislation—that they are inseparably joined by God himself in an eternal league. Two supreme independent authorities cannot exist in the same State. The Colonies are not represented in the supreme legislative court of the Parent Country. If then we are not subject to the superlative power of the British State, we are not part of the British Realm or Empire. What, my friends, becomes of this famous argument urged by Massachusettensis, which is introduced with so much pomposity, with such artful encomiums on the British Constitution, as would, he seems to hope, reconcile one to slavery for the sake of being governed by King, Lords, and Commons; which is managed with such a career of words, and backed with such argumentative similes, taken from the economy of the human body, as would, he may think, induce the Colonists cheerfully to become the slaves of British subjects, if not the servants of British slaves.

To remove all scruples respecting the matter, our writer in his next paragraph, without attempting to prove it, boldly asserts: It is beyond a doubt that it was both the sense of the Parent Country and our ancestors, that they were to remain subject to Parliament. It is evident, says he, from the Charter itself, and this authority has been exercised by Parliament from time to time, almost ever since the first settlement of the Country, and has been expressly acknowledged by our Provincial Legislatures. I presume he never has, nor ever will he, or his posterity find a single instance where the authority of Parliament, to bind us in all cases whatsoever has been acknowledged by our Provincial Assemblies. They have, and do now, admit the right of regulating trade, from the necessity of the case, and the fitness and rectitude of the measure. And if his ipse dixit is to be the rule of political faith, he might as well have told us, that it was the sense of our ancestors, and the Parent State, that we should be subject