rican Association would shortly be dissolved, and our opposition, of course, disconcerted and confounded. These views were seconded by a ridiculous opinion, industriously propagated, that the people of this Continent were too recreant and ignoble to confront the myrmidons of Britain, and would tamely suffer themselves to be dragooned out of their liberties. If this opinion had not been noised abroad, with the utmost earnestness and confidence, I could not have suspected there were any men such novices in the science of human nature, as to harbour a supposition so opposite to all those natural and moral causes which conspire to make men brave, and which are all eminently on the side of the Colonists in the present contest.

Building their future hopes on these visionary foundations, our enemies resolved to proceed in their ruinous career; and have exhibited to the world a striking example to what dangerous lengths the folly and wickedness of men will extend, when actuated by an insatiable avidity for power and dominion. New punitive statutes have been devised, confounding the innocent and guilty, even according to their own conceptions of guilt, in promiscuous and undistinguished ruin. The sword has been wantonly drawn by them,* and the blood of subjects inhumanly shed, for no other crime than an invincible adherence to the noblest principles of liberty, an ardent attachment to the true spirit of the English Constitution, and a becoming sense of the exalted privileges inherited from their ancestors, who, un-appalled by the dangers of unknown seas, the perils and hardships of the solitary wilderness, left their native countries, and began settlements which promise, through ages, to remain the favourite abodes of knowledge, religion, virtue, freedom—every thing that can adorn and dignify and felicitate the human race.

THE MONITOR, NO. VI.

On Lord NORTH’S Motion.

So determined are a certain herd of tame sequacious animals among us, to be the humble followers of Administration in every step they take, that it is impossible for these to concert any measure, however absurd, injurious, or oppressive, in which they will not readily acquiesce, with the most profound and implicit deference. It seemed once to be a first principle with all, that the Parliament has no right to tax the Colonies; and that their claim, in this respect, ought to be opposed, at the utmost hazard of life and fortune. But, at this enlightened season, many betray a servile disposition, both to acknowledge the right and to submit to the exercise of it, provided we may be indulged with the paltry privilege of raising the sums prescribed to us in the mode most adapted to our local circumstances. This inclination, indeed, is not averred in plain terms, but it may be easily collected from the favourable sentiments entertained of the motion made in the last session of Parliament, usually known by the false appellation of Lord North’s conciliatory proposition—a motion, the palpable design of which, by every rule of interpretation, is such an insult to our understandings as can entitle it to nothing but the most supreme contempt on our part.

In order to ascertain the true nature and intent of this motion, we ought not to consult the insinuations contained in private letters fabricated by the intriguing tools of the Ministry, nor the fallacious comments and glosses pretended to be founded on private explanations of his Lordship. These are but the threadbare arts of deception, the mere legerdemain of Court sharpers. To understand it aright, we must confine ourselves to the terms of the proposition itself, and to the circumstances concomitant with and subsequent to it. If we depart from these criterions, and yield our judgments to the forced constructions of those whose aim and interest it is to delude us, we may indeed fancy his Lordship’s brat a well-favoured child; but it will be, nevertheless, to the eye of discernment, no better than a monstrous birth, which, unless it be exposed to perish in its infancy, cannot fail to prove a scourge and nuisance to the community.

The words of the motion are these: “ That when the Governour, Council and Assembly, or General Court, of any of His Majesty’s Provinces or Colonies in America, shall propose to make provision, according to the conditions, circumstances, and situation of such Province or Colony, for contributing their proportion towards the common defence, (such proportion to be raised under the authority of the General Court or General Assembly of such Province or Colony, and disposable by Parliament,) and shall engage to make provision also for the support of the civil Government and the administration of justice in said Colony, it will be proper, if such proposal shall be approved by His Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament, and for so long as such provision shall be made accordingly, to forbear, in respect to such Province or Colony, to levy any duty, tax, or assessment, or to impose any further duty, tax, or assessment, except only such duties as it may be expedient to impose for the regulation of commerce. The nett produce of the duties last mentioned to be carried to the account of such Province or Colony, respectively.”

The obvious tenor of this proposal is, that we are to proffer supplies according to our abilities, and that these are to be approved or rejected by the Parliament, at pleasure, which is to be the final judge of their sufficiency, and of our ability to grant; and, consequently, its will is to be the ultimate standard of what we are to give. The reserved power of approving implies a power of rejecting, and of determining eventually how much, I will not say we are to bestow, but how much is to be extorted from us. What is this but taxing us in the gross instead of the detail? Where is the difference between demanding a precise sum from us at first, and requiring us to offer till they are satisfied and willing to accept? Does not this make the amount of our contributions to rest, in the end, upon their pleasure and absolute decision? To say that we tax ourselves, when they alone are at last to judge how much they will have from us, and to what purposes they will appropriate it, is a contradiction in terms, an impudent affront to common sense. If there be any difference between this and the requisition of a determinate sum at first, the disadvantage is on the side of the present mode. Were we apprized with certainty of what is expected from us, we should have some visible and stationary object to regulate our conduct by; we might examine whether it would be our interest to purchase peace at the known price demanded; the conditions being clear and explicit on their part, we might comply with more safety on ours. But, as the matter now stands, we should be in quest of a mere phantom; we might propose again and again, without success; and while we were made the sport of fruitless delusive negotiations, penal laws and military force would be gaining such ground upon us, as might enable our enemies to exact submissions still more unreasonable and ignominious.

The genuine nature of this beneficent plan may be well illustrated by the following supposed incident. A robber meets a traveller upon the highway, and, with a pistol at his breast, demands his money from him on pain of death. The honest man remonstrates against the injustice and cruelty of taking away, by force, what he has earned by hard labour and the sweat of his brow, and what he is in fact very little able to spare. "Well, replies the ruffian, as I am a man of honour and generosity, and you are my fellow

* It is pretty generally allowed, by all parties, that the war was commenced by the British soldiery, though there are a few so blindly partial as to question it, and pretend the contrary. Among a great variety, the following considerations will suffice to put the matter beyond a doubt. The Regulars charge the Provincials with firing first; the Provincials charge the Regulars with the same. The former support their charge by simple affirmation; the latter by many solid affidavits; among which are a few from officers and soldiers of the other party, who were taken prisoners. It would be cruel and unjust to suppose the Provincials had either forged or extorted these, because it would imply a degree of treachery of which there is no reason to suspect them capable; but it cannot be supposed, because there has been an exchange of prisoners, and the imposture, if there was any, would have been detected and exposed, which has not been done. Moreover, when contending parties assert different things, the only way to discover where the truth lies, is to examine on which side the circumstances afford the greatest probability. In the first skirmish there were several hundreds of the Regulars, and only thirty Provincials. Is it probable that thirty Provincials should first fire upon some hundreds of Regulars? Would not this be an instance of madness and desperate bravery hardly to be supposed? Is it not much more probable that the Regulars first fired upon them, and that they gave way and dispersed before such a formidable body, without firing at all, as is represented by our party?

I mention these circumstances only to show how the fact really stands, not that I think the Provincials would have been blamoable in attacking them first; for, as they came out (according to their own account) with design to seize two of the inhabitants, and. to destroy the magazines of provisions, &c., belonging to the people of Massachusetts, these, I contend, had a perfect right to defend their property, to repel the lawless destroyers by every necessary method, and to resist arms by arms.