a title of independence, and in every 'refpect equal to the royal title by which the crown is held.

ry

And as thefe freehold eftates are of a very particular nature with refpect to their origin, 1ð they are conveyed in a very particular manner. They cannot be taken by a whit of fieri facias. And if they are feized by a writ of elegit, one moiety only of the éftaté ean be applied, for payment of the debt and cofts on which the judgment is founded, the other molety mult remain for his fupport and maintenance.' The freehold defcends to the heir, discharged of all debts, or specialties. It to

1

Now, we have feen what an English fréehold is. Are there any fuch eftates in America? I am certain there are not. There can be no manors in that part of the world, for we can fhow the origin of their te nures. Their properties, pretended legislative authority, and the existence of what they call freeholds can be traced from prerogative. Are our freeholds owing to human beneficence? No; We can name feveral perfons who oppreffed us; but the, Americans can point out none who have conferred upon us our eftates, or any privileges whatever. 'Is there an eftate in America which may not be taken by the fame writ that takes in execution a negro or a horfe? The whole courfe of chancery 'proves that their eftaté sare only commercial chattels, fubject to the difpofition of the last will of the owner, and chargeable with all the debts of the deceafed proprietor. And left any doubt fhould arife about the propriety of thefe decrees in equity, equalizing a foreign plantation to a perfonal eftate, there was a ftatute made in the fifth year of the precedingereign declarative of the common law in thisrefpects and flatuting that foreign plantations fhould only be regarded in the light of perfonal eftates.

After

After that law, what man in his right fenfes can dignify thofe eftates with the name of freeholds?

"The American estates are deftitute of the principal charactereftic of a freehold. They are derived from royal grants for the improvement of commerce. The pretended American freeholders are not original members of any court, by virtue of their freeholds. They have no manors, nor manor-courts in America, and confequently no courts to which the pretended American freeholders repair, by virtue of their freeholds, and in confequence of a title paramount to all human laws. Why then should they pretend to equalize their fuppofed freeholders with ours? An abfolute ignorance of law and common-fenfe could only give birth to fuch injudicious conduct. Our freeholders have a fhare in the legislation; because by cuftoms as ancient as thofe that establish government, they are entitled to rule in a certain diftrict of the kingdom. Can the Americans boaft of the existence of any fuch customs among them, or of eftates and judicative authority derived out of thefe cuftoms? Why then fhould they pretend to be freeholders, and as fuch only fubject to the legislation of their own election?

"The Americans will, perhaps, reply that they ferve on Juries when called by the King's writ into the fupreme court of their refpective provinces. But this happens not as with us by the excellency of tenures, whofe origin is unknown, but is owing to the grace of thofe princes who, without the authority of law, granted them that conflitution. Are tenures flowing from the prince equal to tenures held independent of the crown? furely not. The Americans have no rights but from royal grants; and of confequence thofe rights must not be extended beyond their natural meaning, or interpreted to the prejudice of

thofe

thofe who, by an inherent right, independent of the crown, govern the whole kingdom. The privileges of perfons claiming under fo high a tenure, cannot be impaired by deeds from the crown, and confequently the government of our parliament muft reach over all the English dominions, as if no fuch grants had been made, and no eftates derived out of them.”

A writer on the other fide fays, "The question, if properly understood, is not concerning a three-penný Hamp, but liberty. Not that liberty which is the tool of contending parties, the key to power, or the reviler of a minister's cradle; but that true and genuine liberty which expands and ennobles the heart of the pooreft freeholder, and prevents his property from being touched, but by the permiffion of those who by the conftitution are his reprefentatives in parliament.

.

"The infatuation of fome people here, while they endeavour by the moft frivolous arguments, to eftablish a right to tax America, in direct violation of this animating principle of their conftitution, is to the laft degree deplorable. It fhall be my endeavours to fhew here in a few words, how fuch a right would be directly fubverfive of our conftitution, and therefore of our liberties. And here I fhall not enter into the question whether America be in the manor of EastGreenwich, (a frivolous equivocation derived from the cafual ufe of this expreffion in the Maffachufett's Charter of King Charles the fecond) nor yet whether American corn be indegeftible or unpalatable, (though I confefs. I think it exceedingly palatable) because these do not feem to me to be quite pertinent to the difpute, and are indeed unworthy refutation or animadverfion. The lands in America are as much freehold and derive that tenure from the fame hand, as are the lands of England; and the holders of them, on the fame tenure,

are

T

are as much freeholders as thofe of England. Now it must beknown to every one, that, at this day, there is not a freeholder in England who does not give his vote for a reprefentative in the affembly of the commons of England, who from thence derive their name, and their fole right of taxing the property of the people. Nor is there any freeholder in the nation fo ignorant of his right, and of the foundation of his liberty, that, he would not complain of a violation of it if he was deprived of the privilege of voting for fuch a reprefentative; yet we are fubjecting the American freeholders to that very grievance, of which we ourfelves would complain as deftructive of our freedom: we are fubjecting them to be taxed by reprefentatives, in the election of whom they have not one voice. They are freeholders as we are, they chufe reprefentatives to tax them as we do; and it feems inconfiftent with the nature of the British conftitution, and fubverfive of the freedom of the common people, that the property of a freeholder fhould be taxed by any-reprefentatives but thofe for which he votes, and thereby empowers to tax him. Let the cafe, for a moment, be our own, and fuppofe ourselves liable to be taxed by reprefentatives chofen by the freeholders of America; fhould we hesitate an inftant in declaring it an abfolute violation of our liberty, and a flavish impofition? Therefore, the right of taxing the American freeholders, which fome, would establish here, muft needs feem as unconftitutional and arbitrary with refpect to the Americans. With what juftice then canwe thus attempt to violate the liberty of the Americans? Is not this the height of infatuation?

Having thus proved, upon fair and unqueftionable principles, that we can have no right to tax

the

the freeholders in America, I fhall add a word or two upon what is termed a rebellion in America. The only occurrences there, which can have given thedeast ground for fuch a charge, are the tumultuous proceedings of the mob, and the refolves of the affemblies. With regard to the former, I would only beg.leave to afk, whether it is ufual to call the riotous actions of a mob rebellion ? Were the weavers, when they affembled together, furrounded the parliament-houfe, offered moft dangerous violence to the coach of a noble peer, and, if I mistake not, did him a personal injury, attempted to pull down his houfe, and affaulted, his majefty's guards with ftones, fo as to occafion the death of fome of them, were they called nebels.or rioters,? Has the American mob been more outrageous? And are they, and the whole colonifts of America, who never were guilty

of

any. fuch riots, to be branded with the most odious and detefted name of rebels.? Let us now confider how far the refolves of the American affemblies can be called rebellious. I have already proved, that England can have no right to tax America...The ftamp-act feemed to them therefore unconftitutional, and a direct violation of the rights of the American affemblies, who are the true and only reprefentatives of the freeholders, and have the fole conftitutional right of taxing their property. The affemblies, by their refolves, immediately afferted their rights, and remonftrated against this infringement of them, with a fpirit and freedom which was well worthy the free reprefentatives of a free people: and can this be termed rebellion? In France, in Germany, in. Afia, it might have been efteemed fuch; and is it. not a melancholy proof, that this country is degenerating into their fervile ftate and abject fentiments, when

the