alone, being no law at all according to the British Constitution. But a proportionable money-bill, as the stamp act,- -a bill passed by the complete legislative power of Great Britain, is every way binding in all the dominions of Great Britain. Whoever resists such a law, breaks off with the legislative power, affects independence, and commences a petty sovereign.

I have said that a rightful "Sovereign has a right to live by his noble business ;" and because I have observed, that in England the Sovereign (i. e., the legislative, and protective power) is the King and his Parlament, you suppose I have poured shame upon the cause I defend. "So, &c., (say you, page 25,) a Member of Parliament, instead of vacating his seat, ought to have a Palace provided for him, upon his beteaming a member of the Legislature." No, Sir; your ference has no connexion with my doctrine. If you had said, that every Member of Parliament, while he tends the Parliament, has a right to a public maintenance suitable to his share in the Legislature; you Fould have said what I mean, and what no unprejudiced person will deny. If the King and Parliament ordered that all the attending members shall be honourably entertained during the Session, at the expence of the pub. lie; and that a proper sum shall be annually raised to discharge this expence; what Briton would be so niggardly, ungrateful and unjust, as to find fault with such a statute? Was our Lord mistaken when he said, "The labourer is worthy of his hire?' If the Speaker, who is the principal member of the House of Commons, enjoys, Speaker, an income of some thousand pounds a year, does he not live by his business ?" Might not all the other members do the same in due proportion? When they exempt themselves and their friends, from paying the tax which we call postage, do they not show that the Legislature have pecuniary rights which other Britons have not? And if their generosity prevents their using those self-evident rights, should we not extol their disinlerestedness, rather than pour contempt upon their rea

you tell us, The Colonists are on a level with Britons i general; in another that They were never on a level wit England." This last sentence I spake of the Colonies as independent legislatures, and not of the Colonists And both sentences in their place are perfectly consistent For, although not one of the Colonies was ever on a level with England (an Independent Kingdom) with respect to supreme dominion; yet all the Colonists are on a level with Britons in general, with respect to several particulars enumerated just before, as appears by the whole argument, which, (Vind. p. 23,) runs thus: "The, Mother-country and the Parliament-house are as open to them [the Colonists] as to any free-born Englishman : They may purchase freeholds, they may be made burgesses of corporate towns, they may be chosen Members of the House of Commons, and some of them, if I mistake not, sit already there. The Colonists are then on a level, not only with [absent] Britons in general, but with all our members of Parliament who are abroad." Had you, Sir, quoted my words in this manner, your readers would have seen, that there is something in my letters beside contradiction and sophistry; but it is more easy to shuffle the cards, than to win the game.

Permit me, Sir, to produce another instance of your polemical skill: You say, p. 24, “Your reasoning upon the quotation I made from the very learned Judge Blackstone is equally conclusive, &c. In a free state (says Judge Blackstone) every man who is supposed a Free Agent, ought to be in some measure his own governor ; and therefore a branch, at least, of the legislative power should reside in the whole body of the people. You reply-Your scheme drives at putting the legislative power into every body's hands." No, Sir, this is not my reply, but only a just inference which I naturally drew from my solid answer. My reply, (Vind. p. 16,) runs thus: "But who are the whole body o. the people? According to Judge Blackstone, every Free Agent. Then the argument proves too much; for are not women free agents? Yea, and poor, as well as rich, men ?" This, and this only, I advance as a reply to Judge

Blackstone's argument. I cannot therefore help being surprised at your mistake.-You keep my real answer to your argument out of sight: You render me ridicu. lous by producing as my answer, what is not my answer at all; and, before you conclude, you make me amends for this piece of patriotic liberty, by calling me, "one of the most unmeaning and unfair controvertists." The reader's patience would fail were I minutely to describe the logical stratagems of this sort, by which you support your cause, which I confess stands in need of all manner of props.

However, in your Second Letter, you come to the question, which is, Whether the Colonists, as good men, good Christians, or good subjects, are bound to pay moderate proportionable taxes, for the benefit of the whole British Empire; when such taxes are legally laid upon them by the supieme protective power, that is, by the three branches of the British Legislature.

In my Vindication of the Calm Address, I have produced the arguments which induce me to believe, that the doctrine of such taxation is rational, scriptural, and constitutional: And in your Reply you attempt to prove, that it is contrary to reason, scripture, and the Constitution. Let us see how your attempt is carried on, and,

FIRST, How you disprove the reasonableness of the taxation I contend for.

Page 27, You say, that you do not deny "the necessity and propriety of subjects paying taxes." But in not denying this, Sir, do you not indirectly give up the point? Do you not grant that, as the Colonists are not protected by the King alone, but by the whole legislative power of Great Britain, they are not under the jurisdiction of the King alone, but of all the British Legisla. ture? Now if they are not the subjects of the King, as unconnected with the British parliament; but as constitutionally connected with that high court, which supplies him with proper subsidies to protect his American dominions; it is evident that they owe taxes to the

But whic
Has it bee 27

knowledge "the necessity of subjects paying taxes
the supreme power which protects them.
tax have they, of late, consented to pay?
a tax upon tea, or upon stamped paper?

Should you reply, that they have offered to pay taxe to the King and their provincial assemblies, I replyTM* that this is not paying capital tribute, to whom capita tribute is due: For capital tribute is due to the capital protective power; and the capital power that protects the Colonists, is not the King and the regency of Hanover, nor the King and the Irish Parliament, much less: the King and a provincial assembly; but the King and the British Parliament. Had the Americans got their wealth under the protection of the Irish; had the Han- 2: overian fleets kept off the Spanish ships from the American coasts; or had squadrons of American men of war 2 beat off the French fleets; I would not hesitate a moment to affirm, that the Colonists ought to pay proportionable taxes to the King and the Irish Parliament; to the Elector and regency of Hanover; or to the King of British America and the American assemblies. But when all this has been done for the Colonists by the King, and the British Parliament, I confess to you, Sir, that setting aside the consideration of the love and duty, which Colonies owe to their Mother-country, I cannot see what law of gratitude, equity, and justice the Colonists can plead to refuse paying the King and the British Parliament moderate and proportionable taxes.

Page 36, You indirectly appeal to the case of " the patriots of Charles's days," who refused to pay the tax called ship-money: But their cause was far better than that of the Americans. The ship-money was demanded by the King alone; but the King alone is not the supreme legislative power that protects the subjects of Great Britain, because he can make no laws, and of consequence raise no taxes, without the concurrence of the Parliament. The patriots of the last century were not then absolutely bound either by the law of God, or the law of the land, to pay a tax, which had not the sanction of the legislative power; a money-bill passed by the King

མོ

1

alone, being no law at all according to the British Constitution. But a proportionable money-bill, as the stamp act, -a bill passed by the complete legislative power of Great Britain, is every way binding in all the dominions of Great Britain. Whoever resists such a law, breaks off with the legislative power, affects independence, and commences a petty sovereign.

I have said that a rightful "Sovereign has a right to live by his noble business;" and because I have observed, that in England the Sovereign (i. e., the legis lative, and protective power) is the King and his Parliament, you suppose I have poured shame upon the cause I defend. "So, &c., (say you, page 25,) a Member of Parliament, instead of vacating his seat, ought to have a Palace provided for him, upon his becoming a member of the Legislature." No, Sir; your inference has no connexion with my doctrine. If you had said, that every Member of Parliament, while he attends the Parliament, has a right to a public maintenance suitable to his share in the Legislature; you would have said what I mean, and what no unprejudiced person will deny. If the King and Parliament ordered that all the attending members shall be honourably entertained during the Session, at the expence of the pub. lic; and that a proper sum shall be annually raised to discharge this expence; what Briton would be so nig. gardly, ungrateful and unjust, as to find fault with such a statute? Was our Lord mistaken when he said, "The labourer is worthy of his hire?' If the Speaker, who is the principal member of the House of Commons, enjoys, as Speaker, an income of some thousand pounds a year, does he not "live by his business ?" Might not all the other members do the same in due proportion? When they exempt themselves and their friends, from paying the tax which we call postage, do they not show that the Legislature have pecuniary rights which other Britons have not? And if their generosity prevents their using those self-evident rights, should we not extol their disinterestedness, rather than pour contempt upon their rea