immunity from the circumstance of not being qualified to vote. Under this Constitution then, a double or virtual representation may be reasonably supposed. The electors, who are inseparably connected in their interests with the non-electors, may be justly deemed to be the representatives of the non-electors, at the same time they exercise their personal privilege in their right of election, and the members chosen, therefore, the representatives of both. This is the only rational explanation of the expression, virtual representation.

It is an essential principle of the English Constitution that the subject shall not be taxed without his consent, which hath not been introduced by any particular law, but necessarily results from the nature of that mixed Government; for without it the order of democracy could not exist.

[p. 10]. There is not that intimate and inseparable relation between the electors of Great Britain and the inhabitants of the colonies which must inevitably involve both in the same taxation; on the contrary, not a single actual elector in England might be immediately affected by a taxation in America, imposed by a statute which would have a general operation and effect upon the properties of the inhabitants of the colonies. The latter might be oppressed in a thousand shapes, without any sympathy, or exciting any alarm in the former. Moreover, even Acts oppressive and injurious to the colonies in an extreme degree might become popular in England, from the promise or expectation that the very measures which depressed the colonies, would give ease to the inhabitants of Great Britain. It is indeed true that the interests of England and the colonies are allied, and an injury to the colonies produced into all its consequences, will eventually affect the mother-country; yet these consequences being generally remote, are not at once forseen, they do not immediately alarm the fears and engage the passions of the English electors; the connection between a freeholder of Great Britain and a British American being deducible only through a train of reasoning which few will take the trouble

to investigate; wherefore a relation between the British Americans and the English electors is a knot too infirm to be relied on.

[p. 13. In answer to the argument that the colonies are no more than common corporations, and no more entitled to exemption from parliamentary taxation, than London.]

The colonies have a compleat and adequate legislative authority, and are not only represented in their Assemblies, but in no other manner. The power of making bye-laws vested in the Common Council is inadequate and incompleat, being bounded by a few particular subjects; and the Common Council are actually represented too, by having a choice of members to serve in Parliament. How then can the reason of the exemption from internal parliamentary taxations claimed by the colonies, apply to the citizens of London ?

The power described in the provincial charters is to make laws, and in the exercise of that power the colonies are bounded by no other limitations than what result from their subordination to and dependence upon Great Britain. The term byelaws is as novel and improper when applied to the Assemblies, as the expression Acts of Assembly would be, if applied to the Parliament of Great Britain, and it is as absurd and insensible to call a colony a common corporation, because not an independant kingdom, . . . as it would be to call Lake Erie a duck-puddle, because not the Atlantic Ocean.

[p. 26]

A little examination will find how unfair and deceptive the representation is, that the colonies in North America, 'two millions of British subjects, an opulent, thriving, and commercial people, contribute to the national expence no more than 7 or 800l. per annum by taxes raised there'; for,

it doth not follow that, 'the inhabitants of the colonies are indulged at the expence of Great Britain, and that the neediest British cottager, who out of his scanty pittance, hardly earned, pays the high duties of customs and excise in the price of his consumptions, has reason to complain' if immense sums are raised upon the inhabitants of the colonies elsewhere.

By such artifices and sophistry is ignorance misled, credulity deceived, and prejudices excited. Thus oppression gains the credit of equity, cruelty passes for moderation, and tyranny for justice, and the man who deserves reproach, is celebrated by adulation, and applauded by delusion for his wisdom and patriotic virtues.

The truth is that a vast revenue arises to the British nation from taxes paid by the colonies in Great Britain, and even

the most ignorant British cottager, not imposed upon by infamous misrepresentation, must perceive that it is of no consequence to his ease and relief, whether the duties raised upon America are paid there, and thence afterwards remitted to Great Britain, or paid arst upon the produce of the colonies in Great Britain.

In the article of tobacco, for instance, the planter pays a tax upon that produce of his land and labour consumed in Great Britain, more than six times the clear sum received by him for it, besides the expences of freight, commission, and other charges, and double freight, commission and charges upon the tobacco re-exported, by which the British merchants, mariners, and other British subjects are supporteda tax at least equal to what is paid by any farmer of Great Britain, possessed of the same degree of property; and moreover the planter must contribute to the support of the expensive internal Government of the colony in which he resides.

Is it objected that the duties charged upon tobacco fall ultimately upon the consumers of this commodity in the consequential price set upon it? Be it so, and let the principle be established that all taxes upon a commodity are paid by the consumers of it, and the consequence of this principle be fairly drawn and equally applied.

The British consumers, therefore, ultimately pay the high duties laid upon tobacco, in proportion to the quantity of that commodity which they consume. The colonies therefore, in proportion to their consumption of British manufactures, pay also the high duties of custom and excise with which the manufacturers are charged in the consequential price set upon their consumption their passage, more over, from the British manufacturerso the American importers, the commodities go throat many hands, by which their costs are enhanced; the factors, the carriers, the shopkeepers, the merchants, the brokers, the porters, the watermen, the mariners and others, have their respective profits, from which they derive their subsistence and the support of their families, and are enabled to pay the high duties of customs and excise in the price of their consumptions.

The policy, of the late regulations of the colonies is of the same character with their justice and lenity. The produce

of their lands, the earnings of their industry, and the gains of their commerce, center in Great Britain, support the artificers, the manufactories, and navigation of the nation, and with them the British landholders too.

[p. 34]

It appears to me that there is a clear and necessary. Dis... tinction between an Act imposing a tax for the single purpose of revenue, and those Acts which have been made for the regulation of trade, and have produced some revenue in consequence of their effect and operation as regulations of trade. The colonies claim the privileges of British subjects. It has been proved to be inconsistent with those privileges to tax them without their own consent, and it hath been demonstrated that a tax imposed by Parliament is a tax without their consent.

The subordination of the colonies, and the authority of the Parliament to preserve it, have been fully acknowledged. Not only the welfare, but perhaps the existence of the mother country as an independent kingdom, may rest upon her trade and navigation, and these so far upon her intercourse with the colonies, that if this should be neglected, there would soon be an end to that commerce whence her greatest wealth is derived, and upon which her maritime power is principally founded. From these considerations, the right of the British Parliament to regulate the trade of the colonies may be justly deduced: a denial of it would contradict the admission of the subordination, and of the authority to preserve it, resulting from the nature of the relation between the mother country and her colonies. It is a common and frequently the most proper method to regulate trade by duties on imports and exports. The authority of the mother country to regulate the trade of the colonies being unquestionable, what regulations are the most proper, are to be of course submitted to the determination of the Parliament; and if an incidental revenue should be produced by such regulations, these are not therefore unwarrantable.

A right to impose an internal tax on the colonies without their consent for the single purpose of revenue is denied a right to regulate their trade without their consent is admitted. The imposition of a duty may, in some instances, be the proper regulation. If the claims of the mother country and the colonies should seem on such an occasion to interfere, and

the point of right to be doubtful (which I take to be otherwise) it is easy to guess that the determination will be on the side of power, and that the inferior will be constrained to submit.

Any oppression of the colonies would intimate an opinion of them I am persuaded they don't deserve, and their security as well as honour ought to engage them to confute. When contempt is mixed with injustice, and insult with violence, which is the case when an injury is done to him who hath the means of redress in his power; if the injured hath one inflammable grain of honour in his breast, his resentment will invigorate his pursuit of reparation, and animate his efforts to obtain an effectual security against a repetition of the outrage.

*

If the case supposed should really happen, the resentment I should recommend would be a legal, orderly, and prudent resentment, to be expressed in a zealous and vigorous industry, in an immediate use and unabating application of the advantages we derive from our situation,-a resentment which could not fail to produce effects as beneficial to the mother country as to the colonies, and which a regard to her welfare as well as our own, ought to inspire us with on such an occasion.

The general assemblies would not, I suppose, have it in their power to encourage by laws, the prosecution of this beneficial, this necessary measure; but they might promote it almost as effectually by their example. I have in my younger days seen fine sights, and been captivated by their dazzling pomp and glittering splendor; but the sight of our representatives, all adorned in compleat dresses of their own leather and flax and wool, manufactured by the art and industry of the inhabitants of Virginia, would excite, not the gaze of admiration, the flutter of an agitated imagination, or the momentary amusement of a transient scene, but

*The ingenious Mr. Hume observes, in his History of James I, that the English fine cloth was in so little credit even at home, that the king was obliged to seek expedients by which he might engage the people of fashion to wear it, and the manufacture of fine linen was totally unknown in the kingdom. What an encouragement to industry! This very penetrating gentleman also recommends a mild Government, as a proper measure for preserving the dominion of England over her colonies.