should they not have humbly requested the parliament, that before they were taxed at all, their jealousies might be removed by an act drawn up in such a manner as to set bounds to their taxes, in proportion to the bounds which are set to their commercial privileges? And would not our lawgivers have granted them so reasonable a request? But, to rise absolutely against all taxation by act of parliament, merely because it is taxation by the legislative power of Great Britain; to destroy the property of our fellow subjects, by raising riotous mobs against them; and to take up arms against the sovereign to defend such proceedings, argues, in my judgment, a temper which you may call patriotism, but looks too much like the sin forbidden in Rom. xiii, 2. Lastly. If pleading that our superiors may abuse their power over us, were a sufficient reason to shake off the yoke of lawful authority; all apprentices (though ever so well used) might directly emancipate themselves; for they might adopt your argument, and say, My master, indeed, uses me well; but "he is under every possible temptation to starve me;" since every meal which he will save in denying me proper food, will be a meal saved for himself or his own children; and therefore I will cut and carve for myself, or I will acknowledge him as a master no more.

I shall be less prolix in my answer to the rest of your arguments.— You appeal to the Irish, who are taxed by their own parliament.* But their case is very different from that of the colonists; for Ireland was annexed to the dominions of the king of England, not as a colony or a kingdom naturally and originally subjected to England, but as a sister kingdom; and as such, she has enjoyed the supreme power of making her own laws, and (in part) of coining her own money. This was the case with Scotland also; and therefore the Scots were allowed to send a number of representatives to both houses of parliament, when the two kingdoms were united into one. Not so the colonies. They never were on a level with England; they never had supreme dominion; they were always the subjects of the king and parliament of England, who granted them the territories they enjoy; and therefore, for them to demand, in opposition to their charters, rights superior to those of the Britons, who settle abroad under the protection of Great Britain; and for them to claim the prerogatives of sister kingdoms, is as great a stretch of lawless liberty, as for chartered corporations in England, or for the English settled in Minorca, Jamaica, Gibraltar, Bengal, &c, to claim the prerogatives of supreme governments, and the privileges of the kingdoms which were joined by mutual agreement to the crown of England.

You likewise appeal to the palatinate of Chester, whose inhabitants pleaded, "that the English parliament had no right to tax them; that they had a parliament of their own," &c. But, granting that the parliament of that palatinate was once as independent on the English parliament as the palatinate in Germany, can you, without absurdity, infer from thence, that the colonists are so? Permit me to make you sensible of the inconclusiveness of your argument, by bringing it to light, thus: "The palatinate of Chester was formerly independent on the parliament of England: they could produce grants or charters to demonstrate, that they had a parliament of their own, and the prerogative of making their N. B. This was written in the latter end of the year 1775, or in the beginning of the year 1776.

own laws; and therefore the colonies, which have no such grants and charters; the colonies which have always been subject to the English parliament; the colonies, whose grants directly or indirectly mention subjection to the English parliament, shall not be subject to the English parliament." If Mr. W. had advanced such an argument as this, you might have as reasonably complained that he deals in "childish quirks," as you now do without reason; for common sense dictates, that it is as absurd to conclude, that the peculiar privileges enjoyed by the palatinate of Chester ought to be granted to all the colonies, as it is to infer that the peculiar privileges of the house of commons belong to every corporation in the kingdom.

To this refutation of your arguments permit me to add a remark upon your answer to Mr. W.'s most striking plea. You are sensible of the advantage which he has over you, where he appeals to the express terms of the charters granted to the colonists. You know that honest men dare not go from their bargain; and that a charter is nothing but a solemn bargain committed to writing, whereby the sovereign makes such and such grants to such subjects, upon such and such terms: and you know, that if the subjects accept the grants, they agree to the terms on which these grants are made. Mr. W. says, "Remember your last charter, that of Pennsylvania, says, in express terms, you are liable to taxation." Here, sir, you seem embarrassed; and, to get off as well as you can, you tell us that the clause of the charter which Mr. W. appeals to, "was never understood to mean a power of internal taxation for the purpose of raising a revenue; but merely the laying on of such duties as might be necessary solely for the regulation of trade." But your mistake was lately demonstrated before the house of lords, by the testimony of Governor Penn. Lord Denbigh asked him at the bar of the house, if he was well acquainted with the charter of Pennsylvania? He replied, "that he had read the charter, and was well acquainted with the contents." Lord Denbigh asked, "if he did not know there was a clause which specifically subjected the colony to taxation by the British legislature?" and he answered, "He was well apprized there was such a clause." Now, sir, as you are so evidently mistaken in your account of the charter of Pennsylvania, you will permit me to think, that you give us as fabulous an account of the charter of Massachusett's Bay, when you say, you are credibly informed that the exemption from taxes for seven years, which was granted to the colonists of that province, “had no reference to what we commonly mean by taxes, but to" something, which you call "quit-rents." An odd criticism this, which I should imitate, if I insinuated, that when the apostle charges us to pay custom, he does not mean, that we should pay what we commonly understand by custom; but only that tenants should pay their rent. From this specimen, it is easy to determine who have most reason to complain of "mutilated charters," the patriots or the parliament.

Having so long pleaded the cause of my sovereign and my country, I may be allowed to bestow a few paragraphs upon my friend. You say to him, "It is fallacious to the last degree, and unworthy of a man of integrity and candour to insinuate, as you are pleased to do, that the people have ceded to the king and parliament the power of disposing, without their consent, of both their lives, liberties, and properties." I

shall make no remark, reverend sir, on the Christian courtesy of this address. We, who pass for abject slaves, expect such liberal hints from you patriots; and to tell you the truth, we think it an honour to share them with our king, and our legislature. But may not I ask a few questions, which will throw some light upon Mr. W.'s remark? When did all the freeholders, who have estates from fifty to ninety-nine pounds a year, consent to be deprived of the liberty to carry a gun, and to shoot a hare on their own land? When did all the Quakers consent to pay tithes, for the non-payment of which their property is forcibly taken from them according to act of parliament, to the amount of several thousand pounds a year? When did all the clergy, who lately petitioned the parliament for the repeal of the thirty-nine articles, consent that the act which orders subscription to these articles, should continue in force? When did all the freeholders in Middlesex consent to be additionally taxed, in order to enforce the taxation of the colonists? When did all our blustering gentlemen consent to be sent to the house of correction, or to pay five shillings every time they demean themselves by profane cursing or swearing? When did all the dissenters consent to the law which obliges them to conform to the Church of England, if they will have places under the government? And, to sum up all in one question, When did one half of the lords, who distinguish themselves by their violent opposition to the measures of the government, consent that their liberty, estate, title, and life should be forfeited, if they should assist their fellow patriots who take up arms against the king and parliament? If you give me a satisfactory answer to these queries, I will give you leave to reflect on my friend's integrity for his assertion. But remember, sir,

that if you flee to the back door of an implicit consent to make your escape, Mr. Wesley, like an honest man, will meet you face to face; and stopping you in the name of consistency, he will demonstrate that, according to your evasive doctrine, you yourself have taxed the colonists, "committed robbery," and "stabbed our vitals."

You try another method to overthrow Mr. Wesley's arguments. You object, that five years ago he did not defend the measures taken with regard to America; because he "doubted" whether they were at all defensible; and you have been informed that he has since represented the Americans as "an oppressed, injured people ;" and has warmly expressed his fears with respect to the danger of our liberties. But who could blame Mr. Wesley then; and who can blame him now? Is not a good man bound by his conscience to judge without partiality, according to the best information he has? When Mr. W. heard the clamours of the patriots, so called, who inveighed against the sovereign for breach of charter, he really thought that they had truth, and the charters of the colonists on their side; and therefore he considered the claims of the government upon the colonists as subversive of charter, and consequently as faithless, injurious, and oppressive. Nor is it surprising that, upon such wrong information, he should have thought our liberties in danger; for if the sovereign had really violated the charters of the colonies, he might next have attempted to violate the great charter of England. But when Mr. W. was better informed; when he found that the charters of the colonies were as much for the sovereign as the patriots bad insinuated they were against him, Mr. W. would not have acted as

a conscientious man if he had not altered his mind, according to this important and decisive information.

But supposing I mistake the reason which has determined Mr. W. to defend the claims of Great Britain; and supposing you have been rightly informed concerning the change of his political sentiments; what can you infer from thence, but that he once leaned too much toward your overdoing patriotism? He once "doubted" the equity of the sovereign's claims. His strong patriotism gave a hasty preponderance to his doubts; but his candour having proceeded to a close examination of the question, light has sprung up; conviction has followed; and he has laid before the public the result of his second thoughts, and the arguments which have scattered his doubts. For my part, far from thinking the worse of a rational conviction, because it follows a doubt, and has met with some opposition in a good man's mind, I am inclined to pay it a greater regard. And if my friend's warm patriotism has been forced to yield to the strength of the arguments contained in his Calm Address, I am thereby encouraged to hope that your warm patriotism, sir, will not be less candid than his; and that you will yield to the arguments contained in this calm Vindication. Should this be the case, the public will see in you both, that reason and conscience can, at last, perfectly balance patriotism and loyalty in the breast of a good man.

With respect to me, sir, I had not deeply entered into the merits of the cause either way, before I saw Mr. W.'s Address, and your answer to it. I contented myself to wish and pray for peace in general, without inquiring who was right and who wrong. But after an attentive perusal of your publications, I was fully convinced that Mr. W.'s doctrine of government and taxation is rational, Scriptural, and constitutional; and that yours, sir, draws after it a chain of the most absurd consequences, has a tendency to promote licentiousness, and is subversive of all the Scripture precepts which I have quoted in my first letter: and therefore my reverence for God's word, my duty to the king, and regard for my friend, my love to injured truth, and the consciousness of the sweet liberty which I enjoy under the government, call for this little tribute of my pen. And I pay it so much the more cheerfully, as few men in the kingdom have had a better opportunity of trying which is the most eligible, a republican government, or the mild-tempered monarchy of England. I lived more than twenty years the subject of two of the mildest republics in Europe: I have been for above that number of years the subject of your sovereign: and from sweet experience, I can set my seal to this clause of the king's speech, at the opening of this session of parliament: "To be a subject of Great Britain, with all its conse. quences, is to be the happiest subject of any civil government in the world." That you, sir, and all my dissatisfied fellow subjects, may be as sensible of this truth as myself; and that we may all be daily more thankful to God, to the king, and to the parliament, for the religious and civil liberty which we enjoy, is the cordial wish of, reverend sir, your affectionate fellow labourer in the Gospel,

J. FLETCHER.

LETTER III.

Observations on the origin of power-on the high republican spirit-on the manner in which Cromwell overthrew both Church and state with this dreadful engine-on the republican enthusiasm of many of the first Protestants on the articles of religion by which the latter reformers struck at that enthusiasm-on tyranny-on slavery and on the peculiar liberty of the subjects of Great Britain-The author's wishes with respect to a speedy reconciliation with the colonists-the happy consequences of such a reconciliation.

REV. SIR,-My wishes for your happiness, and my concern for the public peace, prompt me to try all the means in my power to remove your prejudices, and to stop the ferment raised by your mistakes. Having therefore addressed you as a man, a Christian, and a Briton, I shall now expostulate with you as a Protestant, and a friend to liberty.

The distinguishing character of a Protestant is to rest his doctrine upon reason and Scripture. But upon which of these foundations, sir, do you rest your doctrine of power? You insinuate that the power of kings ascends from the people: you blame your opponent for having intimated, that it descends from God; and you recommend a levelling scheme of equal representation, founded upon a natural, equal right of sharing in the legislative power; a scheme this, which presupposes that one man in society has naturally as much right to make and repeal laws as another. Whence it evidently follows, that subjects have a right to rise against their sovereign whenever they think proper to make (in connection with their neighbours) a decree or law of insurrection; and that every individual, in conjunction with other individuals, has a supreme right to dispose of property and royal honours, whether it be by equalizing ranks and fortunes, or by putting down one king and setting up another.

I own to you, sir, that although this scheme would give me a significancy in life which I never dreamed of, I dare not embrace it. The vanity of considering myself as a member of the body, which your doctrine represents as the supreme lawgiver, the judge of legislators, andthe maker of kings; this flattering vanity, I say, cannot induce me to. renounce the dictates of reason, and the declarations of Scripture.

Reason informs me that the first man was endued with a power to protect and rule mankind: that all men are born in a state of civil society, because no child was ever his own father, his own mother, his own nurse, or his own protector; and that, of consequence, all men were under as strong an obligation of submitting to the first man, (in all things agreeable to God's supreme dominion,) as the first man was of submitting to God. If Adam had not sinned and died, to this day he would have been, under God, the monarch of all the earth; and all kings would have been bound to acknowledge his supreme authority. This Divine right of dominion Adam received from God. At his death he left it behind him; and even before his death it began to subdivide itself into every branch of family government, and national administration. Hence it is, that "the powers that be," are said to be "ordained of God;" and that magistrates and governors are called gods in the Old and New Testa