be repealed, unless six certain amendments were made therein." * Whereas, in fact, there were nineteen of them; and several of those must have been good laws, for even the proprietaries did not object to them. Of the eleven that they opposed, only six were repealed; so that it seems these good gentlemen may themselves be sometimes as wrong in opposing, as the assembly in enacting laws. But the words "fundamentally wrong and unjust" are the great fund of triumph to the proprietaries and their partisans. These their subsequent governors have unmercifully dinned in the ears of the assembly on all occasions ever since; for they make a part of near a dozen of their messages. They have rung the changes on those words, till they have worked them up to say that the law was fundamentally wrong and unjust in six several articles; (Governor's Message, May 17th, 1764,) instead of "ought to be repealed, unless six alterations or amendments could be made therein." A law unjust in six several articles must be an unjust law indeed. Let us therefore, once for all, examine this unjust law, article by article, in order to see whether our assemblies have been such villains as they have been represented.

The first particular in which their lordships proposed the act should be amended was, "That the real estates to be taxed be defined with precision; so as not to include the unsurveyed waste land belonging to the proprietaries." This was, at most, but an obscurity to be cleared up; and, though the law might well appear to their lordships uncertain in that particular, with us, who better know our own customs, and that the proprietaries' waste unsurveyed land was never here

* The act is entitled, "An Act for granting to his Majesty the sum of one hundred thousand pounds; striking the same in bills of credit, and sinking the bills by a tax on all estates real and personal."

considered among estates real, subject to taxation; there was not the least doubt or supposition, that such lands were included in the words "all estates real and personal." The agents, therefore,* knowing that the assembly had no intention to tax those lands, might well suppose they would readily agree to remove the obscurity.

Before we go farther, let it be observed, that the main design of the proprietaries in opposing this act was, to prevent their estates being taxed at all. But, as they knew that the doctrine of the proprietary exemption, which they had endeavoured to enforce here, could not be supported there, they bent their whole strength against the act on other principles to procure its repeal; pretending great willingness to submit to an equitable tax, but that the assembly (out of mere malice, because they had conscientiously quitted Quakerism for the church,) were wickedly determined to ruin them, to tax all their unsurveyed wilderness lands, and at the highest rates; and by that means exempt themselves and the people, and throw the whole burden of the war on the proprietary family.

How foreign these charges were from the truth, need not be told to any man in Pennsylvania. And, as the proprietors knew, that the hundred thousand pounds of paper money, struck for the defence of their enormous estates, with others, was actually issued, spread through the country, and in the hands of thousands of poor people, who had given their labor for it, how base, cruel, and inhuman it was to endeavour, by a repeal of the act, to strike the money dead in those hands at one blow, and reduce it all to waste paper; to the

* The agents in England, whither the laws were sent to receive the King's assent. Franklin was one of the agents in that country at the time the laws in question were sent out for approval. - EDITOR.

utter confusion of all trade and dealings, and the ruin of multitudes, merely to avoid paying their own just tax; -words may be wanting to express, but minds will easily conceive, and never without abhorrence.

The second amendment proposed by their lordships was, "That the located uncultivated lands belonging to the proprietaries shall not be assessed higher than the lowest rate, at which any located uncultivated lands belonging to the inhabitants shall be assessed." Had there been any provision in the act, that the proprietaries' lands and those of the people, of the same value, should be taxed differently, the one high, and the other low, the act might well have been called in this particular "fundamentally wrong and unjust." But, as there is no such clause, this cannot be one of the particulars on which the charge is founded; but, like the first, is merely a requisition to make the act clear; by express directions therein, that the proprietaries' estate should not be, as they pretended to believe it would be, taxed higher in proportion to its value than the estates of others. As to their present claim, founded on that article, "that the best and most valuable of their lands, should be taxed no higher than the worst and least valuable of the people's," it was not then thought of; they made no such demand; nor did any one dream, that so iniquitous a claim would ever be made by men, who had the least pretence to the characters of honorable and honest.

The third particular was, "That all lands, not granted by the proprietaries within boroughs and towns, be deemed located uncultivated lands, and rated accordingly, and not as lots." The clause in the act that this relates to is, "And whereas many valuable lots of ground within the city of Philadelphia, and the several boroughs and towns within this province, remain

unimproved; be it enacted, &c., that all such unimproved lots of ground within the city and boroughs aforesaid shall be rated and assessed according to their situation and value, for and towards raising the money hereby granted." The reader will observe, that the word is, all unimproved lots; and that all comprehends the lots belonging to the people, as well as those of the proprietary. There were many of the former; and a number belonging even to members of the then assembly; and, considering the value, the tax must be proportionably as grievous to them, as the proprietary's to him.

Is there among us a single man, even a proprietary relation, officer, or dependant, so insensible of the differences of right and wrong, and so confused in his notions of just and unjust, as to think and say, that the act in this particular was "fundamentally wrong and unjust"? I believe not one. What, then, could their lordships mean by the proposed amendment? Their meaning is easily explained. The proprietaries have considerable tracts of land within the bounds of boroughs and towns, that have not yet been divided into lots. They pretended to believe, that by virtue of this clause an imaginary division would be made of those lands into lots, and an extravagant value set on such imaginary lots, greatly to their prejudice. It was answered, that no such thing was intended by the act; and that by "lots" was meant only such ground as had been surveyed and divided into lots, and not the open undivided lands. If this only is intended, say their lordships, then let the act be amended, so as clearly to express what is intended. This is the full amount of the third particular. How the act was understood here, is well known by the execution of it, before the dispute came on in England, and therefore

before their lordships' opinion on the point could be given; of which full proof shall presently be made. In the mean time it appears, that the act was not on this account "fundamentally wrong and unjust."

The fourth particular is, "That the governor's consent and approbation be made necessary to every issue and application of the money, to be raised by virtue of such act." The assembly intended this, and thought they had done it in the act. The words of the clause being, "That [the commissioners named], or the major part of them, or of the survivors of them, with the consent or approbation of the governor or commander-inchief of this province for the time being, shall order and appoint the dispositions of the moneys arising by virtue of this act, for and towards paying and clothing two thousand seven hundred effective men," &c. It was understood here, that as the power of disposing was expressly to be with the consent and approbation of the governor, the commissioners had no power to dispose of the money without that approbation. But their lordships, jealous (as their station requires) of this prerogative of the crown, and being better acquainted with the force and weakness of law expression, did not think the clause explicit enough, unless the words "and not otherwise" were added, or some other words equivalent. This particular, therefore, was no more than another requisition of greater clearness and precision, and by no means a foundation for the charge of "fundamentally wrong and unjust."

The fifth particular was, "That provincial commissioners be named, to hear and determine appeals, brought on the part of the inhabitants, as well as the proprietaries." There was already subsisting a provision for the appointment of county commissioners of appeal; by whom the act might be, and actually has