but as he perceives that General Burgoyne has already made up his mind on this great subject, and as it is impossible that he (General Lee) should ever alter his opinion, he is apprehensive that the interview might create those jealousies and suspicions so natural to a people struggling in the dearest of all causes, that of their liberty, property, wives, children, and their future generation. He must, therefore, defer the happiness of embracing a man whom he most sincerely loves, until the subversion of the present tyrannical Ministry and system, which he is persuaded must be in a months, as he knows Great Britain cannot stand the contest. He begs General Burgoyne will send the letters which his Aid-de-Camp has for him. If Gardiner is his Aid-de-Camp, he desires his love to him.

REMARKS ON THE LETTER FROM GENERAL BURGOYNE TO GENERAL LEE.

As General Burgoyne’s letter, dated the eighth of July, 1775, in answer to one from General Lee, is permitted to be published, it becomes of course a subject of general speculation.

General Lee, by taking no further notice of the letter than to decline the proposed interview with General Burgoyne, plainly intimates that the sword, and not the quill, is now to decide the controversy. But as the bulk of mankind are apt to be deluded by sounds, without examining whether they are derived from good sense, or only the appearance of it, there is reason to fear many weak minds have been artfully misled to believe, from General Lee’s returning only a card, and not a formal answer, that the letter carries to him conviction, and is therefore unanswerable. Indeed, was the force of the General’s arguments as irresistible as the politeness of his style is engaging, we should have more reason to tremble at the point of his pen, than at the point of his sword. But as the patriot and hero to whom he addresses himself, will doubtless prevent the latter from doing any harm, if he pleases, it shall be the object of our present inquiry, whether we are in any danger from the former.

General Burgoyne introduces the vindication of his conduct by saying, that “the vital principle of the Constitution, in which it moves and has its being, is the supremacy of the King in Parliament.” Now, if he means that the power of the King in Parliament is absolute, or that the two Houses of Parliament, with his concurrence, can make him so, over all or any part of his dominions, (for the sentence under review involves that conclusion,) as well acquainted as he is “with the doctrines of Mr. Locke, and other of the advocates for the rights of mankind,” he can find nothing in their writings to support such an unlimited power in the Crown. Or if he means that the Parliament, as the supreme legislative, “have, and ought to have a power to make laws binding upon the King’s American subjects “in all cases whatsoever,” he will find it equally difficult to produce any authority for such an absolute power, till it can be proved that America is within the realm of England, or that the Americans have consented to the laws by which it is expected they should be bound. If, therefore, America is not within the limits of the realm; if there are acts of Parliament grievous and oppressively binding upon Americans, to which they have never consented, or even acquiesced in, and no authority can be produced from the labours of those great advocates for the rights of mankind, which the General appeals to, for such an uncontrollable power over three millions of his unrepresented fellow-subjects, it follows, upon his own principles, that he must either sheathe his sword, or own that “he draws it in the cause of slavery.” If the General should require further evidence that no such unlimited power is vested by the Constitution in the King and Parliament, I beg leave to recommend to his perusal the masterly productions of Novanglus, and a writer from the County of Hampshire. In them he will find the subject treated at large, and our right of exemption placed beyond the reach of cavil.

The General goes on to say, “that towards the close of the reign of Charles the First, the true principle of resistance was changed, and a new system of Government projected accordingly. The Patriots previous to the long Parliament, and during great part of it, as well as the glorious revolution of 1638, resisted to vindicate and restore the Constitution; the Republicans resisted to subvert it.” He then says, “now, Sir, lay your hand upon your heart, as you have enjoined me to do on mine, and tell me to which of these purposes do the proceedings of America tend.”

As General Lee is silent, I beg leave to answer: that their proceedings do not tend to the subversion of the Constitution, but the preservation of it. It is for the recovery of that “liberty, peace, and safety” which we and our forefathers have dearly purchased and uninterruptedly enjoyed “till within these ten years past, that we are contending.” Since that period, we have been, and still are suffering unparalleled injuries, and more than savage cruelty, from the Parent State, under colour of law! And although we have humbly and repeatedly implored our Sovereign to extend his protection; to interpose in our behalf, and redress our grievances; our petitions have been treated with contempt, and our burdens increased: it is not, therefore, as the General suggests, a struggle “for total independency,” but the weight of taxes imposed, and to be imposed to an unlimited amount, and an impossibility of procuring relief “in any other way,” that has induced America to take up arms.

We have ever cheerfully submitted to the control of Parliament, in all cases whatsoever, relative to our commerce; not from a consciousness of the Parliament’s right, but as a limited power, exercised for the mutual benefit of both Countries.

In no case whatsoever have we been, or shall we be willing to submit to the control of Parliament relative to our taxes, or internal police; because, it is an unlimited power, which extends to all we have; and therefore cannot be consented to without incurring perpetual bondage. What, then, does the General mean by saying, “it is in the power of the Colonies to put an end to the exercise of taxation immediately and for ever?” If he means, that the right of Parliament should remain, but never be exercised, it is an instance of chicanery beneath the dignity of his exalted station: for a right to exercise a power, which implies the exertion of it, and yet is never to be exercised, is a solecism in common sense; and, indeed, is no power. If Great Britain, therefore, “is ready to open her arms to an accommodation,” let her cease hostilities, recall her forces, and renounce her claim of right to tax us; since “it can never be her interest, (as the General boldly asserts,) after her late experience, to make another trial;” and especially, since these are preliminaries, which, whilst ungranted, renders any other overture inadmissible.

The history of mankind will support me when I affirm, there never was a state which employed a Standing Army as an executive power to maintain its laws, which did not sooner or later become the sole legislative power of that state, and ultimately the destruction of civil liberty.

The General, therefore, may be as sanguine as he pleases about “the principles which actuate the Fleet and Army throughout.” No principles but such as are founded in despotism, can justify their inhuman treatment of their innocent American fellow-subjects; no, not the mandate of their Sovereign, much less of a profligate Ministry.

I have Lord Chatham’s authority to affirm, that “the value of the landed estates in England has doubled within these fifty years in consequence of their exclusive commerce with America; that the profits arising from it carried the Nation triumphantly through the last war:” it is therefore false to say, as the General does, that “the landed men have long borne burdens for America:” we, and not they, have borne the burden; and the time is now come when, I trust in God, we shall be exonerated.

But the General says, “Great Britain is resolute to maintain her rights; and if the war proceeds, one hundred and fifty thousand men will not be a match for her power.”

It ill becomes a brave and generous soldier to be the echo of such a shameful Ministerial puff!

In the name of wonder! what was the power of Great Britain before her connection with America? What will it be when fraud, oppression, and every species of injustice shall force Americans to an everlasting separation?

Is there the least probability arising from the progress of her arms hitherto, of their becoming victorious? It is true, General Gage, by an infamous breach of faith, has made