them legal protection, they were abfolved from all duty of obedience to her. That their charters only bound them to the common duty of fubjects, to the fovereign, as the fupreme head of the empire, but did not oblige them to fubmit to the dictates of the legiflature, in which they had no fhare. That it was unreasonable that the people of Britain fhould pretend to exércife rights over their brethren in America,. which they themfelves declare to be oppreffive and illegal at home, when claimed by others among

them.

It was further urged that it could not reasonably be imagined that when the people of Great Britain contended with the crown, for the fake of their own rights, that they confidered it might be lawful for the fovereign to ufurp a power over others, which they denied could be lawfully exercifed over themfelves. And that however binding their charters might have been, yet as they had been deprived of them by an arbitrary exertion of government, which the people at home would not fuffer, they ought to be ftill confidered as entitled to them, and the benefits. arifing from them; that as their charters gave them full privilege to make their own laws, provided they did not make anv contrary to the fundamental principles of the English conftitution, and as they had not

been

ings, &c. aforefaid, engroffed, written, or printed, in any other than the English language, double the amount of the refpective duties before charged thereon ;- On clerks fees, or apprentices not exceeding gol. a duty of 6d. for every 20s. fo paid, and is. on every 20s. exceeding sol. The penalties in cafe of non-observance of this act, are heavy and grievous like the act itself. All perfons who fhould fign, write, or fell any thing that was liable to be stamped, before being stamped, was to be fined rol. and no inftrument could be admitted in evidence, in any caufe, unlefs ftamped. It was made death to counterfeit a stamp. Inrolling any deed unftampt, the fine 201. Counsellors or others, neglecting to file or record in due time, any matter for which duty is payable, the forfeit gol,

been charged with any fuch misdemeanours, they were undoubtedly entitled to their original chartered rights, of which the bill, then in agitation, was a manifeft perversion. It was added that it was the birth right of Englishmen, and their dependants, not to be taxed by any except their reprefentatives; but that the colonies were fo far from being reprefented in the parliament of Great Britain, that they were not virtually reprefented, as the meaneft inhabitants of the mother country were. That the people of Ireland, were more virtually reprefented in the parliament of Great Britain, than it was poffible for the colonies to be; that many Irish gentlemen and peers poffeffed eftates in England, and Englishmen in Ireland, fo that there were numbers of Irish noblemen and gentlemen, in both houses of parliament, and the parliament of Britain never claimed a fight to tax the people of Ireland, in confequence of this virtual reprefentation.

It was objected that the mother country had given great affiftance to the colonies, expended great fums of money in protecting them, and that it was reafonable to tax them for the fake of being reimbursed for that expence. To this it was answered, that Britain either affifted the colonies from principles of humanity, or with a view of being repaid; if from principles of humanity and brotherly affection, their liberty was too dear a price for fuch a favour; and provided they expected to be repaid, they ought firft to fettle accompts, and fee how much the balance was that was due to Great Britain. That as the colonies had frequently affifted the mother country, and fuffered great lofs by giving Britain an exclufive trade, by which they were prevented from felling their goods to others at a much higher price than they could fell them to her, and were obliged to buy from her what

they could have purchased much cheaper from others, it was prefumed that, upon a fair reckoning, the accompts would appear nearly even, and there would be little to pay. On the fide of government, it was urged, that the colonies had fubmitted to laws made by the mother country for their internal government, and that the British parliament had now a prefcriptive right of legislation. It was anfwered that this could no more be brought as a precedent against the colonies, than against England, which tamely fubmitted to the arbitrary dictates of King Henry, and the authority of the ftar-chamber; the tyranny of many being as grievous as that of a fingle perfon. That if freedom was due to thofe who had fenfe enough to value it, and courage to expofe themselves to every danger and fatigue to acquire it, the defcendants of thofe who had fuffered fo much in the wilds of America, from dreadful enemies, were better entitled to it, than their brethren in Great Britain. But it was urged against the arguments drawn from their charters, that all the corporations in England might plead the privileges of their charters, to be exempted from parliamentary laxation. But this, of all other arguments, was the most frivolous and infignificant. The corporations in England fend members to parliament, and are reprefented, and many of them received their charters for that very purpofe; they therefore make their own laws, which makes the cafes very unlike to one another.

There is one argument which the writer of the hiftorical part of the Annual Register offers against the claim of the Americans, to be reprefented in the British parliament, which at first view has more force than feveral others, and it is founded upon their keeping of flaves. He imagines it would not be fafe

to

to truft men with making of laws, who have been accustomed to have an unlimited right over the lives and liberties of others. This is undoubtedly true; but 1 am afraid that this will exclude a great number in England from being reprefented in the British parliament." If there is any truth at all in the ftories of the flave trade, there are not a few in Britain that are concerned in it, to their difgrace; and whatever colonies continue in the practice they will not long enjoy their liberty. But the colonies do not defire to be reprefented in the British parliament; they only want to have their own reprefentatives at home, and to make laws for themselves, as we do in England. It would be unreasonable for them to expect to be represented in the parliament of England. But this is not any part of the controverfy. The above writer feems to hint that Britain should claim a right to make laws to the Americans, because they are unfit to make laws to themselves, for want of feelings of humanity; and that this entitles Britain to an abfolute right of empire over the colonies. If this argument were fairly analyfed, it would be found to go a great length, and much farther than the writer seems to intend; for it fuppofes that all the colonies are alike in this refpect, which is contrary to fact, and alfo that the parliament of England ought to have abfolute empire over a people whom they encourage in a trade that makes them fubject to flavery. It is very manifeft that if those whom he has confined to the abfolute empire of the British legislature, were to come to England, they could not be denied a fhare in the government of this country, provided they had property to qualify them; and fuppofe they employed thoufands in the flave trade, it would be no objection to their fitting in par liament. But it is a point to be foberly confidered, whether

whether Great Britain is not as guilty as Virginia in this particular; for amongst all the laws for regulating the trade of the colonies, the British parliament has not yet made a law against this most infamous traffic. It is no uncommon thing to fee a British member of parliament have his Niger fave following him, which plainly fhews that this practice, is not peculiar to America. The first fettlers who went to America, knew nothing of this bufinefs. It began in fome other place where it does not difqualify men from being reprefented.

The miniftry at this time, whatever their intentions were, acted very impolitically: They acted with a great degree of pofitiveness, yet wavered in pursuing their meafures. They would neither give up their plans, nor would they pursue them with firmnefs: their whole defigns were known over all America, before ever they were able to execute them.

While our miniftry and parliament were deliberating concerning the methods to purfue the flamp-act, the leaders among the American colonies had time to paint it, in the most formidable point of light, to the lower ranks of people, and to kindle a flame in their tempers against it, that neither the art nor power of the King's minifters were afterwards able to quench. Wherever the news of this impolitic and oppreffive law reached, it spread difcontent like a conflagration, and blazed from one colony to another. The tem pers of all the colonies being alike affected, it was eafy to ftir up the fame averfion in them all, against a law which was against their intereft, and had much the appearance of oppreffion. One thing with which the miniftry then, and fince have deceived themselves, is, that they were perfuaded that the averfion to this law was not univerfal: It was alledged that only a few

of