« הקודםהמשך »
and according to the usual sayings of the learned in the law, the laws of England are bounded within the four seas, and do not reach America.
2dly, Concerning the plea of the Congress, that by migrating to America they forfeited none of the rights of English subjects, our Author writes, “That they who form a settlement by a lawful Charter, having committed no crime, forfeit no privileges, will be readily confessed; but what they do not forfeit by any judicial sentence, they may lose by natural effects. As man can be but in one place at once, he cannot have the advantages of multiplied residence. He that will enjoy the brightness of sunshine, muft quit the coolness of the shade. He who goes voluntarily to America, cannot complain of losing what he leaves in Europe. He perhaps had a right to vote for a knight or burgess : by crosting the Atlantick he has not rullified his right ; for he has made its exertion no longer polible. By his own choice he has left a country where he had a vote and little property, for another, where he has great property, but no vote. But as this preference was deliberate and unconstrained, he is still concerned in the government of himself; he has reduced him. self from a vorer to one of the innumerable multitude that have no vote. He has truly ceded his right, but he still is governed by his own consent; because he has consented to throw his atom of interest into the general mass of the community. Of the consequences of his own act he has no cause to complain ; he has chosen, or intended to chuse, the greater good; he is represented, as himself desired, in the general representacion.'
It is here in effect admitted, that a Colonil deprived of a repres sentation is deprived of one of the rights belonging to Englishmen, or at least to English freeholders; but it is also pretended, that by emigration he has voluntarily relinquished that right, contrary to the expectation of the emigrants themlelves, and to the trongest assusances given in their several charters. Our Author should have remembered that though a Colonilt by going to America, inight cease to be a freeholder of a particular county in England, yet he acquired by this transition another freehold in a particular district of America, and if after removing to that continent his person and his new freehold were still to continue subject to the laws and taxes of parliament, every circumstance which rendered it expedient or defirable for him to be represented while he was an English free. holder, must make it expedient and desirable that he mould enjoy a similar representation as a freeholder of America; and to deprive him of it, is to strip him of the most important privilege that belongs to the subjects of a free government. So far, however, were the Colonists from expecting to suffer any abridgment of the rights of Englishmen, that as Governor Hutchinson has mentioned in his history of the Massachusetts Bay, " The first planters of the Massachusetts Colony removed to America, expecting there to enjoy civil and religious liberty in a GREATER DEGREE than their fellow-subjects at that time enjoyed it in England.” . · 3dly, 'The reason(says our Author) why we place any confidence in our representatives is, that they must tare in the good or evil which their counsels Tall produce. Their Mare is indecd commonly conse
quential quential and remote ; but it is not often posible that any immediate advantage can be extended to such numbers as may prevail against it. We are therefore as secure against intentional depravations of government as human wisdom can make us, and upon this security the Americans may venture to repose.'
Of the objection to which this is intended for a reply, we gave an account in our Review for December last, p. 477. and certainly it has not been invalidated by any thing delivered in this performánce; it would, therefore, have been more judicious in our Au. thor had he entirely overlooked the objection.
4thly, · It is urged (says our Author,) that when Wales, Dur. ham, and Chester, were divested of their particular privilèges or ancient government, and reduced to the state of English counties, they had representatives assigned them. .
" To those from whom something had been taken, something in return might properly be given. To the Americans their Charters are left as they were, except that of which their sedition has deprived them. If they were to be represented in parliament, something would be granted, though nothing is withdrawn.'
Having no room to enter upon the subject of American Charters, ór of the fedition for which one of them is faid to have been taken away (though never legally forfeited), we shall only observe, that nothing was given to the people of Wales, Durham, and Chester, when they were brought io che state of English counties, but the privileges of English subjects, which were by parliament itself un. derstood necessarily to include that of being represented.-To the same privileges of English subjects the Coloništs were entitled by birth right, and therefore in asking a representation, they do not ask the grant of a new favour.
5thiyo. It might be hoped (proceeds our Author) that no Englith. man could be found, whom the menaces of our own, Colonists, just sescued from the French, would not move to indignation, like that of the Scythians, who, returning from war, found themselves excluded from their own houses by their slaves.'
We have heard of a chimney-sweeper who fancied himself asfoci. áted in the sovereignty of America, and often aked" are not the Americans our fubjeéts.g" But Doctor - fuffers his fancy to ramble farther than that of the chimney-sweeper; for before he can have the same cause of indignation as the Scythians, he must fancy the Colonists are not only his subjects but his faves, and thac their claim to the benefit of their own houses, is a forcible entry and oufler committed in his own.
Othly, Though we were before told by our Author, that the Coloniils have never denied the legisative authority of parliament, we afterwards find him asserting that they' now question the validity of every act of legislation. They consider themselves as emancipated from obedience, and as being no longer the subje&ts of the British crown.' We are willing to overlook the contradiction between this and our Author's former assertion; but to preserve bis veracity from an impeachment even by the former imputation of ignorance seems hardly practicable ; for negative ignorance will not justify positive falsehood ; on the contrary, when a writer Ateps forth
and deliberately charges three millions of people with having renounced their allegiance to the British crown, it is not fulficient that he does not know that his charge is not true; for it is necessary that he should know it to be true,- But it is on the contrary no. torious, that however the authority of parliament may have been disputed, the sovereignty of the crown or of the person of the king has not been denied or even questioned in a fingle instance, verbally or in writing, by the wildeji for of liberty in any British American Colony.
7thly, Our Author looking forward to the conquest of the Colo. nies, says, ' When they are reduced to obedience, may that obedience be secured by ftriéter laws and stronger obligations!' and he afterwards adds the following observation, which seems intended to promote confiscations, and other attendant punishments, though not as we charitably hope with an expectation of receiving any valuable American forfeiture as the reward of his present performance. 'Nothing (adds he) can be more noxious to society than that erroneous clemency which, when a rebellion is suppressed, exacts no forfeiture, and establishes no security, but leaves the rebels in their former ftate.'
Towards the close of this answer, our Author consents to interrupt for a while this dream of conquest, settlement, and supremacy,' and to reflect, that we may poffibly be checked in our career of re. duction: may be reduced to peace on equal terms, or driven from the weftern continent, and forbidden to violate a second time the happy borders of the land of liberty,'--Should this ever happen, we thall have abundant cause to reprobate chole measures and principles for which our Author is a zealous, if not a successful advocate." B Art. 16. Common Sense; in Nine Conferences, between a
Brigith Merchant, and a candid Merchant of America, in their private Capacities as Friends; tracing the several Causes of the present Contests between the Mother Country and her American Subjects; the Fallacy of their Prepossessions ; and the Ingratitude and Danger of them; the reciprocal Benefits of National Friendfhip; and the Moral Obligations of Individuals which enforce it: with various Anecdotes and Reasons drawn from Facts, tending to conciliate all Differences, and to etiablith a permanent Union, for the common Happiness and Glory of the British Empire. 100. 2 S. Dodley.
With a very tiresome exertion of our patience, we have perused one hundred and twenty-seven quarto pages, (closely printed) without finding a fingle new fact or argument of any importance.in the dispute which is here so diffusely agitated. We admire indeed the persevering industry of the Author of this “ Common Senje," but it seems nécessary that his sentiments should be a little less com. mon, to interest any other than patient Reviewers to give them a reading. The • Candid Merchant of America,' who is here employed to support nine tedious conferences, and to be converted from his opinions, and sent home to convert his countrymen, appears to have been a greater booby than even the letter writer who was brought forward some time since by a Reverend Dean. This kind of disputation is eally managed, and always berminates according . ..S 3
to the predestination of the manager. But in the present instance, the farce is so unentertaining, that it seems very unlikely to engage the public attention, unless the Author should employ a turner to give extension, figure, and subttance to his American and British puppets, and afterwards send them to rehearse their Nine Conferences at the Little Theatre in James-Street, --and even there they may perhaps prove soporiferous. Art. 17. Remarks on the New Elay of the Pensylvanian Farmer,
and on the Resolves and Inftructions prefixed to that Essay ; by the Author of the Right' of the British Legislature Vindicated. 8vo. Is. Becket.
The Author of these Remarks appears to possess considerable abi. lities for literary controversy, and has employed them dextrously, · (though sometimes very illiberally) in opposition to the Farmer's
Effay. That Eslay having been hastily written, contains some inaccuracies of which our Author avails himself,- besides which, he appears sometimes to evade the force of the Farmer's arguments, and at others to mistake or misrepresent their true meaning; and we not unfrequently find him reasoning from erroneous pofitions, such for instance, as that the first American Colonifts settled on lands previously belonging to the British fate, which we slightly controveried in our Review for January last, and could casily refute by the most decilive facts and authorities.
After due consideration, we find 'no cause to retract the approba. tion expressed in a former Review , of obe Esay, which is the subject of our Author's Remarks;- at the same time we freely acknowledge that his performance is inferior to but few of those which have been lately written on that kde of the question.
We muit excepc however that part of our Author's Remarks where, with a view to prove that taxes are not free gifts, he injudiciously cites a number of facts from Cotton's abridgment of the Records, which clearly prove as he himself declares, “ That par. Jiamentary grants for many centuries, (not being necessary to the support of government by reason of the great extent of the Royal domains,) were mere voluntary gratuities." These premises, which are certainly true, and which he has taken pains to prove, in our opinion, warrant conclusions directly opposite to those that he endeavours to draw from them,- for no succeeding improvidence in the crown can have altered the nature of those parliamentary grants which having been, to use his own words, ' mere voluntary gratuities,' must have been free gifts, and must have continued to be so to the present time.-To this part of his answer, the lines which he has applied to the Farmer's Efray, seem applicable, viz.
“ His argumenes directly tend
" Againti che cause he would defend." Art. 18. The Anna's of Adminiftration : containing the genuine
History of Georgiana the Queen Mother and Prince Coloninus her Son. A Biographical Fragment. Written about the Year 1575. Inscribed by the Proprietor of the Authentic Papers, to Edmund Burke Esq; 8vo. 1 s. Bew. 1775..
* December 1774. p. 390.
This is intended as an allegoric explanation of the origin and progress of our American disputes : the allegory, however, is poorly conducted, and highly deficient in sentiment and imagination. B. Art. 19. A Dialogue between a Southern Delegate and bis Spouse
on his Recurn from the Grand Continental Congress. A Frag. ment. Inscribed to the married Ladies of America, &c. 8vo.
No printer's or publisher's name appears to this performance, and justice requires us to dismiss it as beneath all criticism. " Art. 20. The Association, &c. of the Delegates of the Colonies
at the Grand Congress, held at Philadelphia September 1, 1774, versified and adapted to Music ; calculated for grave and gay Dispositions, with a short Introduction. By Bob Jingle, Poet Laureat to the Congress.
This is an attempt to ridicule the association, &c. of the late Congress, and like the former article appears without the name of any printer or publisher. If we are not miltaken, they are importations from America.
B. Art. 21. The Speech of John Wilkes, Esq; Lord. Mayor of the
City of London, in the House of Commons, February the 8th 177 i, relative to a Motion made by Lord North on the American Taxation Bills. Fol. 3 d. E. Johnson.
This Speech appears to have been more accurately taken and more correctly printed, chan commonly happens to such extemporaneous effufions. Art. 22. What think ye of the Congress now? Or, an Enquiry how far the Americans are bound to abide by and execute the Decisions of the late Continental Congress. With a Plan by Samuel Galloway, Esq; for a proposed Union between Great Britain and the Colonies. To which is added, an Alarm to the Legislature of the Province of New York, occafioned by the present Political Disturbances. Addressed to the Representatives in General Assembly convened. New York. 8vo. is. 6 d. Reprinted for Richardson and Urquhart, 1775.
This production like several others which have been formerly noticed by us, (all manufactured in the same place) is intended to dissuade the people of New York from concurring with their filter Colonies in adhering to the association, &c. of the Congress. “The Alarm to the legislature of that Province represents the mcasures of the Con. gress as an infringement of the legal authority of the assembly there, and deserving of its resentment. The following extract will show our Author's opinion of measures which ought to be pursued by the legislature of the Province of New York, viz.
Let it then be the business of this feffion, after providing for the immediate exigencies of this province, to do what ought to be done by every province on the continent; that is, to prepare and transmit proper addresses to the King, Lords, and Commons of Great Britain ; decently itating your whole claims, and dutifully requesting that they may speedily be confirmed to you. Addresses from your body will be received and regarded ; which is a greater honour than could have been allowed to addresses from the Congress.
' In your addresses, declare that you act' in behalf of a loyal province, which you constitutionally represent, and that you have