OBSERVATIONS

ON PASSAGES IN

"AN INQUIRY

INTO

THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE DISPUTES

BETWEEN

THE BRITISH COLONIES IN AMERICA

AND

THEIR MOTHER COUNTRY.

LONDON, 1769."*

Extract. "SUPREME power and authority must not, cannot, reside equally everywhere throughout an empire."

Observation. Writers on this subject often confuse themselves with the idea, that all the King's dominions make one state, which they do not, nor ever did since the conquest. Our kings have ever had dominions not subject to the English Parliament. At first the provinces of France, of which Jersey and Guernsey remain, always governed by their own laws, appealing to the King in Council only, and not to our courts or the House of Lords. Scotland was in the same situation before the union. It had the same King, but a separate Parliament, and the Parliament of England had no jurisdiction over it. Ireland the same in truth, though the British Parliament has usurped a dominion over it. The colonies were originally settled in the idea of such extrinsic dominions of the King, and of the King only. Hanover is now such a dominion.

See above, pp. 206, 211, 215.- EDITOR.

"If each Assembly, in this case, were absolute, they would, it is evident, form not one only, but so many different governments, perfectly independent of one

another."

This is the only clear idea of their real present condition. Their only bond of union is the King.

"Now that of Great Britain being exactly the kind of government I have been speaking of, the absolute impossibility of vesting the American Assemblies with an authority in all respects equal to that of the mother country, without actually dismembering the British empire, must naturally occur to every one."

It would not be dismembering it, if it never was united, as, in truth, it never yet has been. Breaking the present union between England and Scotland would be dismembering the empire; but no such union has yet been formed between Britain and the colonies.

"Where divers remote and distant countries are united under one government, an equal and fair representation becomes almost impracticable, or, at least, extremely inconvenient."

Here appears the excellency of the invention of colony government, by separate, independent legislatures. By this means, the remotest parts of a great empire may be as well governed as the centre; misrule, oppressions of proconsuls, and discontents and rebellions thence arising, prevented. By this means the power of a king may be extended without inconvenience over territories of any dimensions, how great soever. America was thus happily governed in all its different and remote settlements, by the crown and their own Assemblies, till the new politics took place, of governing it by one Parliamen, which have not succeeded and never will.

"Should we carry our supposition much farther, the inconveniences attending such long journeys would be very great, although not interrupted by water."

Water, so far from being an obstruction, is a means of facilitating such assemblies from distant countries. A voyage of three thousand miles by sea is more easily performed, than a journey of one thousand by land.

It is, in my opinion, by no means impracticable to bring representatives conveniently from America to Britain; but I think the present mode of letting them govern themselves by their own Assemblies much preferable. They will always be better governed; and the Parliament has business enough here with its own internal concerns.

"Whether they should not be allowed such a form of government, as will best secure to them their just rights and natural liberties."

They have it already. All the difficulties have arisen from the British Parliament attempting to deprive them of it.

"Is it not, let me ask, most egregious folly so loudly to condemn the Stuart family, who would have governed England without a Parliament, when at the same time we would, almost all of us, govern America upon principles not at all more justifiable?"

Very just. Only that the arbitrary government of a single person is more eligible, than the arbitrary government of a body of men. A single man may be afraid or ashamed of doing injustice; a body is never either one or the other, if it is strong enough. It cannot apprehend assassination, and by dividing the shame among them, it is so little apiece that no one minds it.

"And consistently with our rights of sovereignty over them."

I am surprised that a writer, who, in other respects, appears often very reasonable, should talk of our sovereignty over the colonies! As if every individual in England was a part of a sovereign over America! The King is the sovereign of all.

The Americans think, that, while they can retain the right of disposing of their own money, they shall thereby secure all their other rights. They have, therefore, not yet disputed your other pretensions.

"That England has an undeniable right to consider America as a part of her dominions is a fact, I presume, which can never be questioned."

You do, indeed, presume too much. America is not part of the dominions of England, but of the King's dominion. England is a dominion itself, and has no dominions.

"I will only observe at present, that it was England, in some sense, which at first gave them being."

In some sense! In what sense? They were not planted at her expense. As to defence, all parts of the King's dominion have mutually always contributed to the defence one of the other. The man in America, who contributes sixpence towards an armament against the common enemy, contributes as much to the common protection as if he lived in England.

They have always been ready to contribute, but by voluntary grants according to their rights; nor has any Englishman yet had the effrontery to deny this truth.

"If they are at liberty to choose what sums to raise, as well as the manner of raising them, it is scarcely to be doubted, that their allowance will be found extremely short. And it is evident they may, upon this footing, absolutely refuse to pay any taxes at all. And, if so, it would be much better for England, if it were consistent with her safety, to disclaim all further connexion

with them, than to continue her protection to them wholly at her own expense."

Why is it to be doubted, that they will not grant what they ought to grant? No complaint was ever yet made of their refusal or deficiency. He says, if they are not without reserve obliged to comply with the requisitions of the ministry, they may absolutely refuse to pay any taxes at all. Let him apply this to the British Parliament, and the reasoning will equally prove, that the Commons ought likewise to comply absolutely with the requisitions of the ministry. Yet I have seen lately the ministry demand four shillings in the pound, and the Parliament grant but three. But Parliaments and provincial Assemblies may always be safely trusted with this power of refusing or granting in part. Ministers will often demand too much. But Assemblies, being acquainted properly with the occasion, will always grant what is necessary. As protection is, as I said before, mutual and equal in proportion to every man's property, the colonies have been drawn into all British wars, and have annoyed the enemies of Britain as much in proportion as any other subjects of the King, equal in numbers and property. Therefore, this account has always balanced itself.

"It may further be observed, that their proceedings are not quite so rapid and precipitate, as those of the Privy Council; so that, should it be found necessary, they will have more time to petition or make remonstrances. For this privilege, the least which a subject can enjoy, is not to be denied them."

Late experience has fully shown, that American petitions and remonstrances are little regarded in Britain. The privilege of petitioning has been attempted to be wrested from them. The Assemblies' uniting to petition has been called a flagitious attempt, in the