to the Grand Seignior of Turkey, where the people, as well as the country, are the properly of the Emperour, every man’s fortune and life being solely at his disposal, without the least check or restraint. “But it is evident from the Charter itself,” says he. Where is the evidence? Is it not as evident from the Alcoran or Church Liturgy? These matters we have already considered in other papers, to which I refer you.

He then admits there is one specious argument in our favour; but, says he, it leads to such absurdities as demonstrate its fallacy. It is this: “The Americans are entitled to all the privileges of an Englishman; it is the privilege of an Englishman to be exempt from all laws that he does not consent to, in person, or by representative; the Americans are not represented in Parliament, and therefore are not subject to its authority.” I suspect, my countrymen, we have not been conversant enough in the school of absurdities to be able to detect the fallacy of this obstinate, this unwieldy argument. However, nil desperandum Massachusettense duce. “If (says our arch reasoner) the Colonies are not subject to the authority of Parliament, Great Britain and the Colonies must be distinct States, as completely so as England and Scotland were before the union, or as Great Britain and Hanover are now.” Where, in the name of common sense, is the absurdity of Great Britain and the Colonies being distinct States, united under one common Sovereign, seeing Scotland was so once, and Hanover is so now? The very instances that he adduces to illustrate his absurdities with, prove to demonstration that there is no absurdity in the supposition. An absurdity consists in a supposition or declaration inconsistent with the truth of fact, or the possible relation of things. But, says he, “in this case the Colonies will owe no allegiance to the imperial Crown, and perhaps not to the person of the King.” Our subtile manager has not told us, and I dare say never will, where the inconsistency is in not owing allegiance to the King, or point out the absurdities deducible from thence. Finding he could not get along with his reductio ad absurdum, he, like a person thoroughly acquainted with the futility of his argument, prudently chose to waive the subject. There is not only no absurdities deducible from the supposition of our owing no allegiance to the imperial Crown, but it is not true that this consequence follows from his premises, there being no connexion between our being independent of Parliament, and the inference drawn from thence. Let us examine it. A King of England, as such, is a political entity. He has two distinct capacities, or bodies; the one natural, in common with other men, and subject to like passions; the other a body politick, consisting of those constitutional powers, prerogatives, and capacities which he derives from his subjects as their Sovereign. This latter body never dies. Upon the dissolution of the natural, which is called the demise of the King, the body political is transferred or conveyed over from the deceased to another natural body; the name of King being a term of continuance. He forms one of the three distinct powers, or bodies, which are entirely independent of each other, composing the supreme power or legislative authority of the Empire. The Lords spiritual and temporal is another, and aristocratical branch, distinct and independent. The House of Commons is a third democratical power, freely chosen by the people from among themselves. These three constitute that aggregate body called the British Parliament, whose sovereignty is constitutionally over all its constituents. By what principle in logick, then, by what hair-breadth argument, can be inferred a subjection to the two last of those powers, or to all three in concert, from an allegiance to the first? Where is the middle term that enforces the conclusion? Where the intermediate idea that shows the connexion? If there are none, (and I defy him to show any,) where, upon his own principles, is the mighty absurdity of Great Britain and the Colonies being distinct States, having one common Sovereign? To strengthen the supposition, I would ask, whether the Peers of the Realm, who sit in the House of Lords, are Peers of America? This noble independent order are the Representatives of all the Commons in the Kingdom; and, like the House of Commons, can give their assent to no law which does not bind themselves equally with all the other members of the community. This is one of the principal securities to the people against oppression. But where is the American’s security? On their supposition, avarice and ambition unchecked, is the guardian of his property; arbitrary will, and perhaps sportive caprice, the tenure by which he draws his breath.

The next inference that our indefatigable writer makes against us is, that by possibility we may owe no allegiance to the person of the King, that is, to the King of England, in no capacity whatever. Where he gets this conclusion, or how he draws it, I dare not hazard a conjecture, unless it be that he conjured it up with that huge group of verbose absurdities through which we have just now forced our way. Admitting it to be deducible from a state of facts, there is no inconsistency in the whole affair. And I will venture to say, that he who possesses such a facility at drawing of consequences, fas vel nefas, well knows that premises established are not to be invalidated by deductions therefrom. It is therefore unnecessary at this time to inquire, whether allegiance be in fact due to the person of the King, or to the British Crown. This is the less necessary, as Massachusettensis himself seemed to think there was no difficulty in getting over his own objection, after he had made it. It was the opinion of Lord Coke and others, the first in fame, that allegiance is due to the former. Either supposition is perfectly consistent with the American plan of independence. The latter we have above shown to be so. Allegiance to the person of the King is admitted to be so. Charles the First, who titled himself at the head of our former Charter, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c., stipulated for himself and his Royal successors, by which the inhabitants of this Colony became his liege subjects, and he their acknowledged Sovereign. Now, although personal allegiance may be due, yet it is evident, both from the words of the Charter, its design and subject-matter, which is the best key for construction, that British royalty was a necessary qualification, and an English Crown an essential appendage of the person who is constitutionally the Sovereign of this Province. The person upon the Throne of England, by virtue of the British Constitution, is our rightful Sovereign, by virtue of our Provincial Charters, not because he is King of England, but because our Constitution vests the sovereignty of this Province in the person who is designated by a British Crown and an English Sceptre.

It is obvious to observe here, that when Our Charter was granted, and after, until the reign of Queen Anne, England and Scotland were two perfectly distinct and totally independent States, the supreme power of each being lodged in a Parliament of its own. Charles the First being a Prince common to both States, formed one branch of the supreme legislative authority in both Kingdoms. If, therefore, our becoming subject to this Prince brought us within the jurisdiction of the English Parliament, upon the principles of the Tories, for the same reason it subjected us to the sovereign power of the Scottish legislators, and of consequence exposed us to the service of two masters, to the distraction and misery of double legislation and complicated taxation—as great a political curse as can be in reserve in the store of Heaven for any people under its broad canopy. I have something further to say on this curious paper.

FROM THE COUNTY OF HAMPSHIRE.

NANSEMOND COUNTY (VIRGINIA) COMMITTEE.

March 24, 1775.

However disagreeable and unhappy it is to hold up for publick censure the conduct of any man, yet when we consider the present unfortunate disputes between the Mother Country and her Colonies would probably, in the result, be the ruin of both, if some timely, judicious, and wise methods were not contrived to effect a reconciliation, and adjust the lamentable differences; we cannot but think that all those who endeavour to frustrate, and labour to counteract such laudable ends, are enemies to America, no friends to the excellent Constitution of England, and strictly merit the censure and disesteem of all lovers of their Country, freedom, and just rights. We, therefore, the Committee for the County of Nansemond aforesaid, in obedience to the eleventh Article of the Association, as well as for the above-mentioned reasons, think it our duty to publish the behaviour