coins its own money, and has its peculiar parliament; and as such freeholders, &c., virtually represent all that commonalty, whether it be made up of voters or nonvoters, 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.

66

With an eye to this virtual representation, which draws after it a passive submission to taxation, Mr. Wesley 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 co-eval 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?"

66

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

66

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? Besides, 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 partner of their bed? 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 right of 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 mind? 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 an hinge more contemptible than this? 0, 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, or for their health, and others upon civil, military, or mercantile business; nor had they any more share in the choice of the parliament-men 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 now 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 Bridgnorth, is now gone there. Their estates are immensely large; yet in conse

quence of their leaving England, the former lord was, and the 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 Bridgnorth are, reduced to a partial, temporary state of slavery, by the emigration of one of their representatives; and that Lord Clive was, and Lord Pigot 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 pleases; 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 Englishmen. 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 our members of parliament who are abroad. And therefore, to demand superior privileges, is to demand rights which no Britons have, and of which the members of parliament whɔ go out of Great Britain never thought of; our British nabobs not excepted.

As mountain rises upon mountain 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 an additional land-tax is laid to subdue the colonies, 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 will you infer that I conwrong me, if you sented to it. Many clergymen will not oppose your letter, who nevertheless reprobate the doctrine it contains.

But, granting that your inference is 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 is 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. 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.

How

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. Wesley 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 everybody 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