he has loft the privilege of dreffing them: -and why becaufe by an arbitrary edict it is declared that British fubjects fhall be allowed this privilege in no other part of the empire but England; and therefore whoever goes to America, fhall lofe the privilege of dreifing his victuals; unless by fome unthought-of contrivance, he finds a method of being in both places at one and the fame time. For heaven's fake! where is the reafon, juftice or propriety of this-If the Americans had gone to live in a country, fubject to another king, and different fyftem of government,-there indeed they must have of the power of exercifing their former privileges;-because it is then become impoffible from the circumRances of place and fituation, that they could exercise them. But while they continue fubjects of the fame empire, and have gone only to another part of it, where they are ftil! (as you allow) intitled to their former privileges, but only defire to be admitted to exercise them as their circumftances and the distance of their fituation will allow, they cannot be faid to lose them by any "natural effect."-Because there is a poffibility of their thus enjoying and exercifing them, if the tyrannical principles of thofe in another part of the fame empire, will grant them this favour.

But to put this matter if poffible in a clearerlight, permit me to draw this parallel :-Suppofe a man having a freehold in Middiefex, (and therefore a right to return his representative to parliament) retires to a remote part of Great-Britain from which he cannot come to give his fuffrage at an election for Middlefex; and therefore, rather than lofe the exercife of this right, he obtains a freehold in the county, to which he retired; he therefore claims a right to return his reprefentative from the county in which he lives;-No, fay the rest of Great-Britain, we will not allow this!-though you are ftill our fellow-fubject, and though you have retired only to another part of the kingdom, though you have done this in common with millions of other of your fellow-fubjects and countrymen, who refide along with you; though that part of the country is large and extenfive, and was before unpopulated; and laftly, tho' your motives and inducement for going there was to improve and cultivate it for the general good of the kingdom; yet, you fhall not, nor any of those who live in the fame county be allowed to exercife that privilege-Why?-because we do not choose to allow the people of that

county, the enjoyment of that right; and therefore by your going there, you have

that right, or privilege" by a natural effect."-Had you ftaid in Middlefex, you might have enjoyed the right, but by leaving it, the right is left.—In vain then does the oppretted inhabitant argue the impoffibility of his going from the place he refides in ;-the Jeverity of the ufage;-the privileges to which his fellow Jubjects are intitled;-that, though he left one part of the kingdom, and thereby loft the opportunity of exercising this right there, yet he ftill continues in another part of it, and "furely (fays he) ye may allow me the power of exercising it here.-It is a right to which I am by nature intitled ;-to which I am particularly intitled as a fubject of GreatBritain; and in the name of juffice, if I cannot make ufe of it in one county, why may I not make use of it in another? -will you take fuch an arbitrary advantage of my fituation, and of the fituation of all thofe in the fame county with me, as to fay, we shall not enjoy the privileges of British fubjects in one part of the country, because we have removed (and by your encouragement) to another."

This is in fact the prefent cafe of the colonists; and therefore it appears that the only means by which they are deprived of the enjoyment of this right, is the arbitrary will and power of their mother country,-the right of reprefentation you allow them to have; but the exercife of it you fay they lofe" by a natural effect," permit me to fay, if they lofe it, they lofe it by an effect cruel, unnatural and unjust; for they have the poffibility of exercifing it, if their mother country was not bafe, ungenerous and cruel enough to prevent them.

And here I muft obferve a diftinction between lofing this right, and lofing the exercise of it. Their title to this right, or in other words the right itself can never be loft or forfeited, because it is not only a conflitutional but a natural right, which they inherit by their birth, and to which they are intitled whilft they live. But the exercife of it may be loft, prevented, neglected, or illegally taken away. A man who has a freehold, but is prevented by fick nefs from attending to give his vote, has a right to vote for his reprefentative, though the exercise of it is taken away, (to ufe your own expreffion,) by “ a natural effect." The colonists have loft the power of exercifmg this right, as far as they or their anceftors might be feverally intitled to it, in other parts of the empire; but they have

not

not loft their right (and therefore should not be deprived of the power) of exercifing it among themselves, in their own country, according to their fituation and circumftances; for while the right and the poffibility of exercising it continues, why fhould it be prevented or denied? why should any advantage be taken to make them become faves?

As to your objection in paragraph 3d, that " many freemen, who have a right to vote, are bound by laws to which they do not confent, because the perfon whom they wifhed fhould reprefent them, may not be the perfon elected; it is an objection fo fuerile, that I am really aftonished at your making use of it. Can any man do more than give his fuffrage? Can he afk more? Can it be expected that every man fhould have a power of choofing a diftin&t representative for himself? or must there be a PARLIAMENT compofed of the innumerable multitude" who have votes, or of thofe who have not votes, or of both? Can the right of reprefentation be no other ways regulated or fupported, but by fome fuch method as this?-Good God! what abfurdity! fuffer me to afk; where any matter is determined by a majority, must not the reft be thereby bound?-In point of reprefentation, thofe who failed in the eletion of their candidate, yet exercifed their privileges of election, in as full a manner as those who compofed the majority upon fuch election; and the rule in fuch cafes is, and must be

"Ubi major pars eft, ibi eft totum." "The only way (fays a certain law writer) of determining the act of many, is by the major part, or a majority, as the major part of members of parliament enact laws, and the major part of electors chufe the members of parliament; and the act of the major part of any corpo ration, is accounted the act of the whole corporation."-And as to your further obfervation, that those who have not votes, must be bound by laws without their confent, it is equally as frivolous as the former.-To let every man vote on fuch occafions would be impoffible; a mode therefore must be afcertained; but yet a mode which fhall not directly preclude any man. When the conftitution makes a freehold a neceflary qualification for a voter; it does not prohibit any particular man from becoming a freeholder, as foon as he pleases, and therefore does not abfolutely or arbitrarily deny the right of reprefentation to any man.Hence the general idea is, that every member of the community is reprefented

and accordingly we find it declared by both houfes of parliament in England, that in the high court of parliament, all the whole body of the realm, and every particular member thereof, either in perfon, or by reprefentation (upon their own free elections) are by the laws of this realm, deemed to be perfonally prefent." I Jac. cap. 1.

In your fixth paragraph you fay the colonifis "have not by abandoning their right in one legiflature, acquired a right to confiitute another." But to this I anfwer, that they never abandoned their right-they removed by the encouragement of Great Britain to an uninhabited part of the empire,-they quitted that part where they had the undisputed power of exercising their rights, and justice demands that according to their circumftances, they fhould be permitted to exercife these rights in the place to which they have gone, as they did in that from which they came; efpecially as they are rights to which they are abfolutely intitled as men and British fubjects;-rights, their title to which nothing can deprive them of, and therefore of the exercise of which they should not be deprived.

As to your famous question, "how has any man confented to thofe laws, which were made before he was born?"-I thall partly anfwer you in the words of the learned Hooker. "Since men naturally have no full and perfect power to command a whole politic multitude of men; therefore utterly without our conjent, we could in fuch fort beat no man's commandment living. And to be commanded we do confent, when that fociety whereof we are a part hath at any time before confented, without revoking the fame after by the like univerfal agreement; wherefore as any man's deed paft is good as long as himself continueth, fo the acts of a public fociety of men, done five hundred years fince, ftandeth as theirs who at prefent are of the same societies, because corporations are immortal; we were then alive in our predeceffors, and they in their fucceffors do ftill live, &c."-Ecclef. Polity, book ift.Befides, under the British conflitution efpecially, our confent to those laws which were made before we were born is more particularly apparent, fince by our reprefentatives confenting to the continuance of thofe laws, we must be allowed to confent to them ourselves; and when this confent does not continue, we frequently find thofe laws repealed or altered, which they, (or we by them) difapprove of.

I

In paragraph the fixth, you also confider the colonifts as the "defcendants of men who either had no votes, or reAgned them by emigration." I affert, that by removing from any one part to another part of the Jame empire, they could never refign this privilege.-The right of election is a right they carried with them, and which as long as they continue men they have a title to claim, and as long as they continue British fubjects, a right to enjoy; and therefore cannot lofe, or be deprived of it, but by fome unnatural e fed-Indeed the coloniis, as the defcendants of British ancestors, are the defcendants of men, who either bad votes or bad not. But yet they are the defcendants of men, who were always understood by our conftitution, to be legally reprefented: and who were not Found by any laws to which their confent was not obtained, either in a direct manner, or by implication, as I before mentioned. But in this point of taxation, the confent of the coloniits is not given in any manner whatever.

You obferve, paragraph the Seventh, that the charter of Pennfylvania has a clause, admitting in exprefs terms taxation by parliament."-And you fay, that "if fuch a clause be not inferted in other charters, it must be omitted as not neceffary." Permit me to afk, is it not more reasonable to imagine this claufe was inferted in the one charter as necessary, than omitted in the others as not neceffary; efpecially when it is a claufe, intending to deprive a fet of people of a natural and particular right ?—else, why was it inferted in any charter ?—To fay a clause inferted in one charter, is omitted in others as unnecessary, is a ftrange fort of argument, unknown in our laws in cafes of important confequences.-Indeed it is true, all countries which are fubject to laws, may be liable to taxes; but all countries are not, nor fhould any of them be, fubject to laws, or liable to taxes made or impofed on them without their consent.

As to your comparison between the American colonists and "the multitudes in England who have no votes ;" and yet who certainly have not "a right to erect a parliament for themselves," it is to the highest degree abfurd.-It is comparing the circumstances of men who are denied the liberty of exercising their rights, with those who are allowed, or by the nature of our conftitution fuppofed to exercise them. For as I before obferved, there is no man in England, who though he is not qualified to vote, is not supposed to be

qualified, because he is not prevented from qualifying himself when he pleases; and therefore the confent of every individual, is fuppofed to be given to those laws by which he is bound, Vid. p. 787. But the cafe of America is totally different, their confent is not given, or fuppofed to be given, either in a manner exprefs or implied; and therefore they only are the multitude, who under the British empire "bave not votes."-Wherefore the Englifh parliament, has not "the same right to tax them, as to tax any other English fubjects," as you are pleased to affert; fince all other English fubjects are immediately reprefented, or supposed to be fo, and are taxed either with their exprefs or implied confent.

Now, Sir, I come back to the Second paragraph of your addrefs, wherein you affert, that the claim of the colonists to the common privileges of British fubjects of being taxed only by their conjent, proves too much"-for if they have a right to be represented in refpect to this, they have an equal right to claim a reprefentation, and confent to any other law which may be imposed on them; notwithstanding which, you fay they have always admitted ftatutes, for the punishment of offences, &c. and therefore the reception of any law "draws after it by a chain which cannot be broken, the neceffity of admitting taxation."-But furely if there can be ang chain by which all this is drawn on, it muft be by that chain of favery in which tyrants with to bind their subjects;-a chain, which however frong England may attempt to forge it, will I hope never prove impoffible to be broken.—I grant indeed, that by the fame rule they fubmit to be bound by one law, that they may be bound by another. But any force this law can have on them, muit arise from such their submission, and their confent thereto is (to use your own words) "purely paffive."-However, if they have heretofore fuffered much, muft they therefore be expected to fuffer more? or if they admitted that which was convenient, though given them in an unconftitutional manner, muft they admit that which is favish, tyrannical and oppreffive to the laft degree? or if they have before groaned under the weight of their grievances, rather than make any difturbance or complaint, muft they therefore fuffer themselves to be loaded with more, till they are crushed to atoms under the lavish burthen-But further, the nature of this right of representation is such, that it cannot be forfeited or loft, either

by

by fubmitting for a while to laws made in another manner, or by non-ufage, or by want of claim. The title to it may have been let to lie dormant, yet the claim is good, whenever it is made; for as our law fays in other cafes, "Dormit aliquando jus, moritur nunquam"

One part of mankind can have no right to make flaves of the other, longer than they choose to continue fo. And fo inherent is this right in mankind, and fo firmly rooted in the law of nature, that the fubjects of the most defpotic prince, have an equal right to claim the exercife of it, with thofe of Great Britain.-It is true in France and other arbitrary ftates, the people feemingly furrender this right, they are bound by laws to which they give no express confent. Perhaps used to this kind of government, they think it better to continue under it, than involve themselves in the miferies of a civil war, by attempting to become free. But yet their natural right to freedom is not therefore gone; and did they once breathe that noble fpirit of liberty, to animate them in its caufe, they have a right to bake off the yoke, to lay claim to this great and natural privilege-and no power upon earth can jufly prevent them from using it. To argue that they have been bound by laws without their confent, and therefore must be bound fo ftill;that they have fubmitted to the arbitrary will of a tyrant, and therefore mult do Jo ftill;-they have continued fubjects to a form of government, under which they were deprived of the exercife of their natural rights, and therefore must remain deprived of them ;-is to me an argument inconfiftent and abfurd.-That which is evil, is not in a cafe of this nature, to be made immutable by time or usage; for agreeable to another maxim in our laws, «Quod initio vitiofum eft, tračtu tempo

ris non convalefeet." The colonifts therefore, though in fome cafes they may have tacitly confented to fome infringments on their rights, and borne fuch infringements 'till they became intolerable, did not, however, lofe or forfeit their title to this right of reprefentation, and therefore as foon as they laid claim to it, it ought to be allowed.

But I fhall fuppofe for a moment, that at the firft eftablishment of the colonies, every right to which the colonifts were intitled as British fubjects, was by them fuffered to be taken away by charter, and they agreed to become faves. Yet, in refpect of this natural right of reprefentation, how far does this confent of

theirs, bind their defcendants ?—I anfwer, in no manner whatever-this is a right, which though the exercise of it is claimed by British fubj.&ts, as particularly fecured to them by the nature of their conftitution, is yet poffeffed by them as men; they therefore claim the right as MEN, and the free exercife of it as British fubjects. It is a right common to every man, tho' the exercise of it is not ; —a right which every man inherits, and to which he becomes intitled when he firft draws breath.-This right therefore, as a natural right, no man can part with or furrender longer than his life, nor Arily fpeaking, longer than his pleasure;

he cannot deprive his posterity of it, for they become abfolutely intitled to it as foon as born. And therefore, though he might give away this right in feme manner refpecting himself, his gift can by no means bind his pofterity; for what belongs to his pofterity by their exiflence, is not his to give away; therefore though a man may confent to be a fave himself, his confent to make flaves of his poflerity is ineffectual.-Hence let the original contract be what it may, this important right, to which the colonists are naturally intitled as men, they may juftly claim for themselves.

Upon the whole it appears, that this claim of the colonies to the right of representation, is founded upon two principles. First, they claim it particularly as British fubjects; and then, generally as men.-They claim it as their conflitutional right, and as their natural right alfo.

་་ na

As to this or any other privilege they are intitled to as British fubjects, you allow they did not forfeit them by emigration, paragraph sth. As to the pretence of their lofing them, by a tural effect," because they quitted their mother country, and became colonists, it is as abfurd as to fay, one half of Great Britain fhall enjoy the right of reprefentation, and the other half be deprived of it. For it would be as just to fay, that one part of England fhall be taxed with its confent, and the other part without it, as to fay the people of England fhall enjoy the right of reprefentation, whilft thofe of America fhall be deprived of it; the one being as much a part of the British empire as the other-and as the colonists are not said to become in a kfs degree subject to Great-Britain, than they were before emigration, why should they become in a lefs degree free, or be lefs intitled to the privileges of British fubjects ?-why fhould they be deprived of those rights they inherit from their

free