yond the settlements of other European nations. To what can this be afcribed? Not to the climate; for they are of all climates. Not to the people; for they are a mixture of all nations. It muft therefore be refolved fingly into the degree of British liberty which they brought from home, and which pervaded more or less their feveral conftitutions. It has been repeated to us, I know not how often, by the mercenary short-fighted writers in favour of fubmiffion to, or re-union with Great-Britain, that we have thriven very much in past times by our dependence on the mother-country, and therefore we should be loth to part. These writers forget that the very complaint is, that she will not fuffer us to enjoy our ancient rights. Can any past experience fhew that we shall thrive under new impofitions? I fhould be glad any fuch reafoners would attempt to prove that we have thriven by our dependence, and not by the degree of independence which we have hitherto enjoyed. If we have thriven by our dependence, I conceive it is a neceffary confequence that thofe provinces must have thriven moft which have been moft dependent. But the contrary is felf-evident. Thofe which have hitherto enjoyed the freeft form of government, though greatly inferior in foil and climate, have yet outstripped the others in number of people and value of land, merely because the last were more under the influence of appointments and authority from home.

W hen

When this is the undeniable state of things, can any person of a liberal mind with that thefe great and growing countries fhould be brought back to a state of fubjection to a diftant power? And can any man deny, that if they had yielded to the claims of the British parliament, they would have been no better than a parcel of tributary ftates, ruled by lordly tyrants, and exhausted by unfeeling pensioners, under the commiffion of one too diftant to hear the cry of oppreffion, and furrounded by those who had an intereft in deceiving him. It ought, therefore, in my opinion, to meet with the cordial approbation of every impartial perfon, as I am confident it will of pofterity, that they have united for common defence, and resolved that they will be both free and independent, because they cannot be the one without the other.

As this measure, long forefeen, has now taken place, I fhall beg leave to fay a few things upon it in which I mean to fhow, 1. That it was neceffary. 2. That it will be honourable and profitable. And, 3. That, in all probability, it will be no injury, but a real advantage, to the Island of Great-Britain.

1. It had become abfolutely neceffary. All reconciliation, but upon the footing of abfolute unconditional fubmiffion, had been pofitively refused by Great-Britain. Unlefs, therefore, the colonies had refolved to continue in a loose and broken state, with the name of a government

which they had taken arms to oppofe, the ftep which they have now taken could not have been avoided. Befides, things had proceeded so far, and fuch measures had been taken on both fides, that it had become impoffible to lay down a scheme by which-they should be sure of our dependence, and we, at the fame time, fecured in our liberties. While things continued in their ancient ftate, there was perhaps a power on the part of each, of which they were hardly conscious, or were afraid and unwilling to exert. But after the encroachments had been made and refifted, to expect any thing else than a continual attempt to extend authority on the one hand, and to guard against it on the other, is to discover very little knowledge of human nature. In fuch a fituation, though every claim of America fhould be yielded, fhe would foon be either in a state of continual confufion, or abfolute fubmiffion. The king of England, living in his English dominions, would not, and indeed durft not, affent to any act of an American legislature, that was, or was fuppofed to be hurtful to his English subjects. This is not founded on conjecture, but experi

ence.

There is not (at least Dean Swift affirms it) any dependence of Ireland upon England, except an act of the Irish parliament, that the king of England shall be the king of Ireland. This laft has a teparate independent legiflature, and in every thing elfe, but the above circumftance, feems to be perfectly free; yet if any man should S

affert,

affert, that the one kingdom is not truly fubject to the other, he would, in my opinion, know very little of the state and hiftory of either.

2. A state of independency will be both honourable and profitable to this country. I pafs over many advantages in the way of commerce, as well as in other refpects, that must neceffarily accrue from it, that I may dwell a little on the great and leading benefit, which is the foundation of all the reft. We fhall have the opportunity of forming plans of government upon the most rational, just, and equal principles. I confefs I have always looked upon this with a kind of enthufiaftic fatisfaction. The cafe never happened before fince the world began. All the governments we have read of in former ages were settled by caprice or accident, by the influence of prevailing parties or particular perfons, or prefcribed by a conqueror. Important improvements indeed have been forced upon fome conftitutions by the fpirit of daring men, fupported by fuccefsful infurrections. But to fee government, in large and populous countries, fettled from its foundation, by deliberate counfel, and directed immediately to the public good of the prefent and future generations, while the people are waiting for the decifion with full confidence in the wisdom and impartiality of those to whom they have committed the important truft, is certainly altogether new. We learn indeed from hif story that small tribes and feeble, new fettlements,

did fometimes employ one man of eminent wifdom, to prepare a fyftem of laws for them. Even this was a wife measure, and attended with happy effects. But, how vaft the difference, when we have the experience of all paft ages, the history of human fociety, and the well-known caufes of profperity and mifery in other governments, to affift us in the choice?

The profpect of this happy circumstance, and the poffibility of lofing it, and fuffering the feafon to pass over, has filled me with anxiety for fome time. So far as we have hitherto proceeded, there has been great unanimity and public fpirit. The inhabitants of every province, and perfons of all denominations, have vied with each other in zeal for the common intereft. But, was I it not to be feared that fome men would acquire over-bearing influence? That human weakness and human paffions would discover themselves, and prevent the finishing of what had been fo happily begun? In the time of the civil wars in England, had they fettled a regular form of government as foon as the parliament had obtained an evident fuperiority, their liberties would never have been fhaken, and the Revolution would have been unneceffary. But by delaying the thing fo long, they were broken into parties and bewildered in their views, and at laft tamely fubmitted, without refiftance, to that very tyranny against which they had fought with fo much glory and fuccefs. For this reason I think that