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 strelcb 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 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,

that the peculiar privileges of the House of Comi belong to every corporation in the kingdom.

To this refutation of your arguments, permit m add a remark upon your answer to Mr. W.'s most st ing plea. You are sensible of the advantage which has over you, where he appeals to the express term the charters granted to the Colonists. You know, honest men dare not go from their bargain; and tha charter is nothing but a solemn bargain committed writing, whereby the Sovereign makes such and su grants to such subjects, upon such and such term And you know, that if the subjects accept the grant they agree to the terms on which these grants are mad Mr. W. says, "Remember your last charter, that Pennsylvania, says, in express terms, you are liable 1 taxation."-Here, Sir, you seem embarrassed; and, t get off as well as you can, you tell us that the clause c the charter which Mr. W. appeals to," was never under stood to mean a power of internal taxation for the pur pose of raising a revenue; but merely the laying on o 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 apprised 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 parlia. ment the power of disposing, without their consent, of both their lives, liberties, and properties." I shall make no remark, Rev. 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 3 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 ob

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 apprised 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 parlia. ment the power of disposing, without their consent, of both their lives, liberties, and properties." I shall make no remark, Rev. 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 ob