Letter 2.

LETTER 2.

The doctrine of Americanus is highly unconstitutional, and draws after it a long train of absurd consequences.

REVEREND SIR, - I hope I have proved, in my first letter, that Mr. Wesley’s doctrine of government is rational, Scriptural, and constitutional; and that a right of taxing subjects, with or without their consent, is an inseparable appendage of supreme government. I shall now attempt to prove that your doctrine of liberty, and taxation only with our own consent, is absurd and unconstitutional; and that, while you try to break the lawful yoke of civil government laid on the colonists, you doctrinally bind the greatest part of the English with chains of the most abject slavery, and fix a ridiculous charge of robbery on the king and parliament, for taxing some millions of Britons, who are no more represented in parliament than the foreigners who sojourn in England, or the English who live abroad.

Permit me to state the question more particularly than I have done in my former letter. Mr. Wesley thinks that the colonists are mistaken when they consider themselves as put on a level with slaves, because they are taxed by a parliament in which they have no representatives of their own choosing: I say, of their own choosing, because I apprehend that as all the freeholders and voting burgesses in Great Britain virtually represent the commonalty of all the British empire,f29 and as such freeholders, &c, virtually represent all that commonalty, whether it be made up of voters or non - voters, of poor men or men of property, of men at home, at sea, or on the continent; so the house of commons virtually represents all the freeholders and voting burgesses in Great Britain; whether they voted or not at the last election, or whether they voted for or against the sitting members. With an eye to this virtual representation, which draws after it a passive submission to taxation, Mr. W. asks, “Am I and two millions of Englishmen,” who have no right to vote for representatives in parliament, “made slaves, because we are taxed without our own consent?” You reply, “Yes, sir, if you are taxed without your own consent, you are a slave.” You consider such taxation as “the very quintessence of slavery;” you declare that if the Americans submit to it, “their condition differs not from that of the most abject slaves in the universe:” and you insinuate that whoever attempts to tax them otherwise than by their direct representatives, “attempts an injury; whoever does it, commits a robbery; he throws down the distinction between liberty and slavery. Taxation and representation [you mean direct representation] are coeval with, and essential to this constitution.” But when you publish such assertions, which justify the armed colonists, and represent the majority in parliament as a gang of robbers, does not an enthusiastic warmth for lawless liberty carry you beyond the bounds of calm reflection? And are you aware of the stab which you give the constitution; and of the insult which you offer, not only to your superiors, but also to millions of your worthy countrymen, whom you absurdly stigmatize as some of the “most abject slaves in the universe?” Probably not one in five of our husbandmen, sailors, soldiers, mechanics, day labourers, and hired servants, are freeholders, or voting burgesses. And must four out of five, in these numerous classes of free - born Englishmen, wear the badge of the most abject slavery, in compliance with your chimerical notions of liberty? We are not allowed to vote so long as we are minors; and must also all our blooming young men, from seventeen years of age to twenty - one, be considered as “most abject slaves?” You may say, indeed, that they are represented by their parents or guardians: but what if these guardians or parents have no vote themselves? Beside, if minors can be thus represented, why should not our colonies be represented in the same manner by the mother country, which has so tenderly nursed, and so carefully protected them from their infancy? To return. If the wives of freeholders are supposed to vote by their husbands, what must we say of those who have buried their husbands? Have all widows buried their liberty with the partners of their beds? A freeholder has seven children; he leaves his freehold to his eldest son; and because he cannot leave a freehold to all, will you reproach him as the father of six abject slaves? Another freeholder, to pay his debts, is obliged to sell his freehold, and of consequence his rights taxing himself. Does he sell his liberty with his freehold, and “involve himself in absolute slavery?” The general election comes on: a young gentleman wants a few months of the age which the law requires in a voter; and of consequence he cannot yet choose his own representative; must he continue a slave till the next election? A knight, disapproved by most voters in the county, offers to represent them; they try in vain to get some other gentleman to oppose him; and the candidate whom they tacitly object to, sits in the house chiefly for want of a competitor. Is their liberty at all affected by this kind of involuntary representation, which draws after it a kind of involuntary taxation? - At the next election, perhaps, the opposition runs high between several candidates; one has (I suppose) two thousand votes; another, one thousand nine hundred; and a third, one thousand seven hundred. The first is elected: two thousand freeholders are taxed by a representative of their own choosing, and three thousand six hundred voters go home disappointed of their choice, and having the mortification of being taxed by a man whom they did not vote into parliament; nay, by a man whom they opposed with all their might. Their choice is perhaps equally frustrated with regard to the other knight of the shire. Now, are these three thousand six hundred voters in any degree reduced to a state of slavery, till they can have an opportunity of being represented according to their minds? Again: a free - born Englishman is possessed of a house, which he lets for thirty - eight shillings a year; for want of two shillings more in his yearly income he is no freeholder: and, like the colonists, he is taxed without his consent; is he “an abject slave” on this account? Wild patriotism answers in the affirmative; but impartial men smile and say, What! is British liberty so mean a blessing as to depend upon a couple of shillings? Could a Jew make it turn on a hinge more contemptible than this? O, sir, what a low price does your system indirectly fix upon a jewel, on which you seem to set so immense a value!

Once more: during the last election, myriads of Englishmen were abroad, some upon their travels for their health, and others upon civil, military, or mercantile business; nor had they any more share in the choice of the members of parliament who now tax them, than the American colonists; and will you aver, sir, that if all these Englishmen were collected, they might constitutionally reform the constitution, and tax themselves by a congress composed of men who stimulate them to discontent? Will you assert, that such a congress would do well to make laws in opposition to the statutes of the king and parliament? And would you call the members of such a congress loyal subjects, if they raised an army to drive the king’s forces out of his own dominions; yea, out of those very provinces where they hold their land by gracious grants of the crown; where they have acquired their wealth under the protection of the mother country; and where the sovereign’s forces, which they endeavour to cut off, have kindly fought their battles.

To come nearer to the point; some years ago, Lord Clive, member for Shrewsbury, went to the East Indies; and Lord Pigot, member for Bridgenorth, is now gone thither. Their estates are immensely large; yet in consequence of their leaving England, the former lord was, and he latter is, taxed without his consent. And will you stand to your absurd doctrine, sir, and infer, that the burgesses of Shrewsbury were, and that those of Bridgenorth are, reduced to a partial, temporary state of slavery, by the emigration of one of their representatives; and that Lord Clive was, and Lord Bigot now is, an absolute slave; because, in consequence of their emigration, the former was, and the latter is, taxed without his consent? If you say that Lord Clive came back to England, and that Lord Pigot may return and tax himself if he please; I reply, this is exactly the case with the colonists. By emigration they are prevented from sharing in the legislative power of the parliament But let them come back, if they have set their hearts upon legislative honours. The mother country and the parliament house are as open to them as to any free - born Englishman. They may purchase freeholds, they may be made burgesses of corporate towns, they may be chosen members of the house of commons; and some of them, if I mistake not, sit already there. The colonists are then on a level not only with Britons in general, but with all members of parliament who are abroad. And therefore to demand superior privileges, is to demand rights which no Britons have, and which the members of parliament who go out of Great Britain never thought of, our British nabobs not excepted. As mountains rise upon mountains among the Alps, so absurdities rise upon absurdities in your system: take some more instances of it. - If we believe you, sir, he is an abject slave who is taxed without his consent. Hence follows another absurdity. The day that a bill for an additional land tax to subdue the colonies passes, the knights of a large shire are absent; the one, I suppose, is kept from the house by illness, and the other is called into the country by business or pleasure: neither votes for the bill. Now, sir, are they and the county they represent made slaves by being taxed without their consent? If you reply, that their not opposing the bill implies that they consent to it; I answer, the inference is not just. I did not oppose the last murder which was committed in the county, but you will wrong me, if you infer that I consented to it. Many clergymen will not oppose your letter, who, nevertheless, reprobate the doctrine it contains.

But, granting that your inferences are just, I press you closer, and point out two knights (suppose the members for Middlesex) who oppose the bill with all their might: and yet the bill passes. Now, sir, if your scheme of liberty be right, it follows that our great patriots and the little patriots whom they represent, are abject slaves; for they are evidently taxed, not only without their consent, but against their warmest opposition; seeing they are additionally taxed to bring their mistaken friends to reason. How excessively absurd then is your scheme, sir, since it not only puts the badge of the most abject slavery upon all the Britons who are not electors, but also upon all the electors and members of parliament who call themselves patriots with as much confidence as some mistaken divines call themselves orthodox!

You reply, “In all collective bodies the determinations of the majority of that, body are always considered as the determinations of the whole body; and every man who enters into society implicitly consents it should be so.” Mr. W. and I, sir, thank you for this concession. If you and the colonists stand to it, you will throw down your pen, and they their arms. For every body knows that Great Britain and her colonies make a collective, political body, called the British empire: and you declare that, “in all” such bodies, “the determinations of the majority are always considered as the determinations of the whole body.” Now, sir, if you do but allow that Great Britain is the majority of the British empire, and you cannot reasonably deny it, considering the glory, wealth, fame, and invincible navy of the mother country, together with the grant she made to the colonies of the large provinces, which they hold under her, as cottagers hold their gardens and habitations under the lord of the manor, who gave them leave to enclose and build upon a part of the waste within the limits of his jurisdiction; if you do but allow, I say, that Great Britain is the majority of the British empire, according to your own concession the determinations of Great Britain are always to be considered as the determinations of the whole British empire: and every colony “implicitly consents it should be so.” But the American colonies have not only implicitly consented it should be so; they have also done it explicitly, by humbly thanking the king for their charters, one of which says, in express terms, you are exempt from paying taxes to the king for seven years; plainly implying, says Mr. W. with great truth, that after those seven years they were to pay taxes like other subjects, if the sovereign taxed them; and if the king and parliament have allowed them a longer time, it is absurd and wicked to draw from this indulgence a plea to palliate a notorious breach of trust. As for the charter of Pennsylvania, it says in express terms that they are liable to taxation by the parliament, and therefore their rising against such taxation is ingratitude, perverseness, and a notorious breach of charter. One more remark upon your important concession. If you grant that the minority in parliament has implicitly and passively consented to the measures of the majority, though very much against their will, witness their warm petitions, protestations, remonstrances, &c, do you not abundantly grant this leading proposition of Mr. Wesley’s Address, in a thousand cases, “Any other than this kind of consent the condition of civil life does not allow?” Thus (so great is the force of truth!) after all your outcry against your opponent, you yourself lay down his grand principle: you come back to the very point whence he started, and are reduced to the mortifying necessity of maintaining that our English patriots, so called, are some of the most abject slaves in the universe; or that our American colonies are some of the most unreasonable colonies in the world, since they take up arms to oppose a legislative body to which they have consented, not only implicitly and passively, as the minority does to the majority in parliament, but explicitly and actively: witness the charter of the colony in which the congress is assembled, and the constant submission which for many years the colonists paid to the British laws; supreme laws these, according to which they have suffered their lives, and the liberty of their persons, to be disposed of; though they had no more hand in actually making those laws, than the great Mogul; most of them having been made long before any living Englishman drew his breath.

To show that taxation and your narrow ideas of representation are inseparable according to the constitution, to Monsieur Montesquieu’s erroneous account of the British constitution you add the bare assertion of Lord Camden and Lord Chatham. But permit me to observe, sir that all the Frenchmen and English lords in the world, can never overthrow a doctrine which, as I have proved in my first letter, stands or falls with reason, Scripture, and matter of fact.

If your noble auxiliaries, to whom you join Mr. Locke, mean an indirect representation, we readily assent to your assertion: and we reply, that in this sense the taxation of the colonists is not separated from representation; for the colonies of Great Britain are indirectly represented by Great Britain, as the children of electors are indirectly represented by their fathers; as the non - voters at elections are indirectly represented by the voters, and as the electors who are at sea, or on the continent, are indirectly represented by those who are in the island. But if those lords mean a direct representation, they are desired to show how all the myriads of men, non - voters in Great Britain, to say nothing of minors, widows, maidens, bed ridden or imprisoned burgesses, and absent freeholders, are directly represented in the parliament which now taxes them, if (through a variety of insurmountable obstacles) they neither did, nor could, vote for a representative at the last election.

Till you, sir, or the lords who patronize your system, have removed this difficulty out of the way of your patriotism, you will allow us to think that you deal in irrational, unscriptural, and unconstitutional paradoxes, when, speaking of taxation and direct representation, you say, “God has joined them: no British parliament can separate them: to endeavour to do it, is to stab our vitals.”

When you have rashly charged nonsense upon God, you may well indirectly charge robbery upon the sovereign: accordingly your patriotism mounts the rostrum, and makes this convincing speech: “My position is this, I repeat it, I will maintain it to the last hour: taxation and representation are inseparable: this position is founded upon the law of nature: it is more; it is an eternal law of nature.” I grant it, sir, if by nature you mean the fallen nature of the men who say, “With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is Lord over us?” Psalm 12:4. But you go on: “Whatsoever is a man’s own, is absolutely his own: no man has a right to take it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself or his representative.” Nay, you grow so warm as to say, “Whoever attempts to do it, [that is, agreeably to the context, whoever attempts to tax a man, who has not consented to the tax, either personally or by his direct representative,] attempts an injury: whoever does it, [and the sovereign has done it,] commits a robbery.” What a speech! God save the king from such severe judges as you are!

Nothing can be more erroneous, sir, than the principle on which you found your bold, though indirect indictment: “Whatsoever is a man’s own, is absolutely his own.” I do not scruple to assert that this principle is detestable, as being unscriptural, irrational, and highly unconstitutional.

1. Unscriptural. For the Scriptures teach us that God is the first and grand proprietor of all things; that the powers that be are ordained of him; and that, for the ends mentioned in my first letter, he delegates his dominion and authority to kings and magistrates. Hence it is, that both in the Old and New Testament, those who make and enforce laws are called gods, and that St. Paul declares, “He that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of GOD.” To say, therefore, that what we have is absolutely our own, is to shake off the yoke of God’s supreme dominion, and of the delegated dominion of kings, lawgivers, and magistrates, who are his lieutenants and representatives.

2. Your principle is irrational: for, if whatever a man has, “is absolutely his own,” it follows that non - voters and foreigners, who never consented to our laws, either personally or by appointing their representatives, can never be taxed, imprisoned, or hanged, unless they first sign the warrants by which their property, liberty, and life, is legally disposed of. And if to dispose of their property by taxation is robbery, by the same rule we may say, that to dispose of their liberty and life by legal warrants which they may have not indorsed, is inhospitable tyranny and downright murder.

3. Your principle is highly unconstitutional. But few, comparatively, of the inhabitants of Great Britain have a share in the legislative power; nevertheless, the properties, liberties, and lives of all, are disposed of according to law. The constitution allows it; the constitution enjoins it. And yet you tell us, that disposing of the property of non - voters is unconstitutional, and that to lay taxes upon them is to commit robbery. Now, sir, if you are right, the government robs two hundred and twelve families in my parish only. With two of my neighbours I have just calculated the number of housekeepers in our little district: upon a moderate computation we find seventy - eight freeholders in two hundred and ninety families. Hence it follows, that two hundred and twelve families, out of two hundred and ninety, have no share in legislation, either personally, or by sending any representative to parliament. And yet all these families are taxed: the masters of some of them, who live upon large farms, for which they pay the land tax, pay more to the government than most freeholders. To say nothing of the land tax and highway money, they are all taxed in most of the articles which they use in housekeeping. The tea and sugar they drink in the morning, the salt they eat at noon, the candle they burn at night, the shoes they wear all the day, are taxed; their tobacco, snuff, gin, ale, and rum, great articles with too many of them, are all taxed: thus, according to your unconstitutional doctrine, they are robbed from morning till night. The freeholders, officers of excise, and collectors of taxes, are little robbers, and the king and his parliament the great robbers. Did ever any patriot pour more contempt upon the constitution than you inadvertently do? If you could proselyte me to your patriotism, sir, I would no more celebrate the fifth of November as a day of thanksgiving. I would wish success to any man who would venture his neck in order to blow up the den of thieves, with all the robbers who assemble therein. You insinuate that these two hundred and twelve non - voters are “able to purchase a freehold if they choose it,” and to become voters for themselves and their families. But you are mistaken, sir; I know my parish better than you do. Some of the housekeepers I mention could not vote on account of their sex, though they should have twenty estates; and most of the rest would find it, through their poverty, much more difficult to purchase a freehold, than most of our American patriots.

You answer, if this be the case, their “property must be so small, that it can be of no consequence to them who has the granting of it.” But I argue in a quite contrary manner: for, if my poor parishioners have little of the necessaries of life, by every dictate of common sense, it is of the greatest consequence to there, not to be robbed of that little. Those who have blood to spare, may trust their arm in the hands of almost any surgeon; but those, whose veins are already drained, are deeply interested in the choice of him who is to let out the precious drops which they can so ill part with. The parting with a couple of shillings, or the losing of two days’ work in mending the highways, is more to a poor man who has a large family, than the losing of £2000 is to a man of fortune. Taxes are never felt by the rich; because they pay them out of their superfluous abundance: whereas the poor part with some of the necessaries of life, whenever they part with a penny. Beside, the poor, not being able to buy meat, live chiefly upon bread, which is the cheapest food. They eat a pound of it, where the rich eat an ounce. Therefore, when our wealthy legislators raise the price of bread, by allowing a bounty for the exportation of corn, or by forbidding the importation, or permitting the distilling of it, they reap the principal benefit, and the poor bear the principal burden. You advance, then, a monstrous paradox, when you insinuate that legislation “can be of no consequence” to the poor; for the capital branch of legislation, which raises or sinks the price of corn, chiefly concerns the lowest class of mankind, by whom corn is chiefly consumed.

This is not all. The legislative power disposes of our life, and locomotive liberty, as well as of our property. I have seen some free - born Englishmen, who never had any share in legislation, put in the stocks, or sent to jail: I have seen others loaded with irons, ready for transportation: and others with a rope about their neck, ready for the gallows. Now, as the poor are as much concerned in the disposal of their locomotive liberty and life as the rich, do you not betray gross partiality, sir, when you represent the poor as persons who may be doomed to abject slavery, which your system supposes to be inseparably connected with our having no share in the legislature? Indigence and slavery are not naturally connected. The poor Indians are as jealous of their liberty as you. And when the Lacedemonians and the Romans were in the lowest circumstances, they valued their liberty most.

It is true, you insinuate that all who cannot purchase a freehold are not absolutely obliged to remain slaves; because a place in the legislature is a “privilege extended in a few boroughs to every one that boils a pot.” But does not this very argument pour fresh contempt upon your notions of slavery and liberty? Does it not make English liberty, or abject slavery, to turn upon the boiling or not boiling of a pot? However, suppose that all who are not able to purchase freeholds could avoid slavery by crowding with their families into the few boroughs you mention; which many colonists could do with greater ease than thousands of Britons: or, supposing this peculiar privilege were extended to all the pot boilers in Great Britain, would you mend the constitution by these means? No: you would only avoid one inconveniency by running upon another; for the rich would justly complain of a levelling scheme which would allow every starving cottager to have as good a right of granting their property, as they have themselves.

Again: if Britons, and sons of Britons, must be “equally represented,” with respect to the disposal of their property, in order to be free men; have not the rich a right to make a congress, and to enact, that, as the man who has forty shillings a year in land, has one vote; so he who has twice forty shillings, should have two votes; and he who has ten thousand pounds a year, should have five thousand votes: by which means he might return himself member for any poor borough in the kingdom? On the other hand, will the poor not have as good a right to rise in their turn, and to form another congress, under pretence that rich men have but one body, and one life, any more than the poor: and therefore it is unreasonable that the rich should have so much greater a part in legislation than they? Nor will the mischief stop here: the wise and experienced will rise also, and urge, it is absurd that a young man, or a fool, should have as great a share in the legislature as a wise, aged man; and they will insist on having votes according to their wisdom and years; nor will their claim be, in my judgment, the most unreasonable.

This is not all. Every little market town, and every ancient village, will insist on sending two representatives to parliament, as well as Wenlock and Old Sarum. By the rule of proportion, large towns, cities, and populous counties will claim a right of sending a number of members so much greater, as they are larger than Cornish boroughs, and more populous than Huntingdonshire. Thus we shall have an army of parliament men, who, like the Polish nobility at their diets, will not be able to hear one another speak, and will be more ready to draw the sword, than to make laws. And if such a parliament is to be chosen every year, as you intimate it should, the nation will spend half her time in raising armies of pot boilers, to raise another army of lawgivers.

From these, and many such inconveniences, it appears, sir, that your scheme of equal representation is absurd and impossible; and that, before you can bring it to bear, you must first get all Britons to be equally wise, rich, noble, learned, experienced, and diligent. Secondly, you must take all of one age and sex: and thirdly, you must contrive to make them all live in the same place, and at the same time. If you consider the difficulty of such a task, I flatter myself, sir, that you will be less ready to find fault with the constitution, and to make the injudicious wish for a revolution productive of equal representation, that is, of an absolute impossibility. Much less will you persuade injudicious patriots, that the king and the majority in parliament “commit robbery,” and “stab our vitals,” when they tax the colonists, as they do two out of three of their subjects in England, that is, without a direct representation.

You try, indeed, to obviate this difficulty, by intimating that the vast body of free - born Englishmen, who have no right to choose their representatives, or who, through absence, cannot exercise their right, may “consent to the disposal of their property, because they have always this security, that those who take an active part in the disposal of their property, must, at the same time, dispose of an equal proportion of their own.” Whereas, “the American can have no voice in the disposal of his property; and what is worse, those who are to have the power of disposing of it are under every possible temptation to abuse that power, because every shilling they take out of the pocket of an American, is so much saved in their own.”

As this is your capital argument, I shall give it a full answer.

(1.) It is improbable that our lawgivers would save a dirty shilling in their pockets, by oppressively taking one out of an American’s pocket. If I am rightly informed, they are so far from abusing their power in this respect, that when they take sixpence for the use of government out of an American’s pocket, they take sixteen shillings out of their own.

(2.) Our excellent constitution obviates your ungenerous suspicion, by ordering that the legislators, who compose the lower house of parliament, shall all be men of fortune, raised by their circumstances above the felonious trick you speak of

(3.) You mistake, when you say that “the American can have no voice in the disposal of his property;” for as many of the colonists as choose to purchase a freehold in England, may become electors; and as many as have a sufficient fortune, may become candidates at the next election. You speak yourself of your “late American candidate, who was a friend to America.” If I mistake not, we have American members in the house; and the papers inform us that - - - - - Sayer, Esq., who is a native of Boston, claims a seat in the parliament; and, if he obtain it, he will not only represent his borough, but also, in connection with his fellow members, he will represent the commonalty of all the British empire. Hence it is, that the minority in parliament, though they are not the special representatives of the colonists, plead their cause so warmly, even against the privileges of the electors whom they particularly represent.

(4.) Supposing these American members have no estates beyond the Atlantic; are there not several members in both houses of parliament who have a large - a very large property in America; and who, when they tax the colonists, take far more money out of their own pockets, than they probably do out of the pockets of Messrs. Adams and Hancock?

(5.) If the colonists were afraid of being taxed more heavily than the rule of proportion allows, 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 Romans 13:2. 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.f30 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 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 stir. 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 changes 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 had 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 consequences, 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.