manding reasonable taxes, for expensive protection; an incontestible right this, which you allow, none deny but "political Quixotes."-(3.) But this power eases itself by loading them! And what if it do? Is the Sovereign to bear all the national expence, without being eased by his subjects? Or are some of the subjects to bear all the burden, without being eased by others who are to help them? Where is either the equity or reasonableness of this objection?—(4.) But it is impossible to fix any bounds to this power! I have already shewn, that nothing can be easier than to fix proper bounds to the power of taxing the Colonies. The parliament can enact, that the Colonists shall be taxed as the Britons are; making the Colonists a proper allowance for the superior commercial privileges of the Mother-country. Supposing, for instance, that the privileges of British subjects are four times greater than the privileges of American subjects, the taxes of the American subjects might be four times lighter than ours. Thus, when we pay four shillings in the pound, they might pay only one shilling: And when four articles of equal importance are taxed in England, only one might be taxed in America. It is therefore excessively wrong in Doctor Price to assert, that it is impossible to fix any bounds to the power of parliamentary taxation: And none but heated patriots will praise him for increasing, by such a groundless assertion, the absurd " rage into which the Colonists" have "thrown" themselves "from one end of the Continent to the other."

Page 48, You take up again "Doctor Price's truly valuable tract, and enrich" your "piece with a note from this capital writer upon the subject. In reference to the American charters, he speaks with true dignity as follows: The question with all liberal inquirers ought to be, not what jurisdiction over them (the Colonies) Precedents, Statutes, and Charters give, but what reason and equity, and the rights of humanity give.'' Sir, this is the very first test, to which I have brought your "American Patriotism." The Doctor insinuates indeed, that the power which taxes the Americans, will

not suffer its rights to be questioned. But this is a mistake. The legislature of Great Britain is too equitable, not to give up the right of reasonably taxing the Colonists, whom they have so long protected, if you, Sir, Doctor Price, or the Congress, can prove that reason, equity, and the rights of humanity are against such taxation. Have you not yourself granted the propriety and necessity of subjects paying proportionable taxes, for the good of the whole empire? Is it reasonable or equitable, that Great Britain should bear all the burden of the Navy, which protects the Colonies and their trade? Is it contrary to "the rights of humanity” to demand a penny for a penny-loaf, or, which comes to the same thing, to demand reasonable taxes for royal protection? Or do parent states violate "the rights of humanity" in demanding some assistance from the growing states, to which they have given birth, when those states are well able to bear the easy burden? As soon will Doctor Price persuade me that it is contrary to "the rights of humanity" in twelve lubberly young fellows, who have always enjoyed the benefit of their father's house, and who can get more money than their father, to give him something towards the payment of the window-tax, when he is burdened with debts, and wants some assistance to pay that tax.

Page 49, You continue to quote the Doctor thus: "Did they not settle under the faith of charters, which promised them the enjoyment of all the rights of Englishmen ?" Granted. But did these charters promise them rights superior to those of Englishmen? Is it not evident, that if the Colonists enjoy the right of being protected by the legislative power of Great Britain, without paying taxes to that power, they enjoy a right superior to that of Englishmen, who are bound to pay taxes for British protection? The Doctor goes on. "These charters allowed them to tax themselves, and to be governed by legislatures of their own, similar to ours." Granted in one sense: Namely, in the same sense, in which charters have been granted to corporations. Corporate bodies are allowed to tax themselves

in a subordinate manner, and to be governed by legislatures of their own, similar to that of Great Britain. Thus the City of London is governed by a Lord Mayor, who represents the King; by a court of Aldermen, which represents the High Court of Parliament; and by a body of Liverymen and Freemen, which answers to the body of voting Burgesses and Freeholders in Great Britain. And I suppose all together can raise money for the support of the Corporation, by means of some peculiar rates, or subordinate taxes. Now if the Citizens of London rose against parliamentary taxation, under pretence that they are, and always have been taxed by their own magistrates; they would shew themselves as unjust as the Colonists, and as good logicians as Doctor Price. What have subordinate taxes for the maintenance of lamp-lighters, watchmen, and trained bands, to do with the primary taxes, by which the army and navy are supported? When rash patriots avail themselves of the payment of the former taxes, to refuse paying the latter; do they shew more wisdom and equity than I should do, if I quarrelled with my physician for demanding of me ten guineas for ten visits, and dismissed him with the following speech: Sir, I claim all the rights of Englishmen, nor will I be duped by you. I'do not deny paying fees, but I will not pay any to you. I will discharge my apothecary's bill; but as for your demands, they are contrary to "Reason, Equity, and the rights of Humanity." American patriots might give me thanks, and compliment me with the freedom of London in a golden box, for such a spirited opposition to tyranny and robbery; but I am of opinion, that British patriots would hardly think me worthy of the freedom of Old Sarum in a wooden box: And if the physician were "thrown into a rage" by my provoking injustice, he might possibly think that I deserved a very different box, from that which Dr. Price has been lately presented with.

But the Doctor has an answer ready. Speaking of the Colonists he says, "They are taxed to support their own governments:-Must they maintain two govern

ments? Must they submit to be triple taxed ?" To shew the frivolousness of this argument, I need only farther apply it to my physician's case, thus: Sir, you demand fees of me for your attendance, but I have alrea. dy feed my apothecary: Must I maintain two of you? Must 1 submit to be triple taxed? What! must I pay my surgeon too? You unreasonable men, will you all agree to enslave me? You pack of r- -s, will you leave me nothing that I can call my own?

Whilst you are struck with the fallacy of this patriotic argument, I proceed to some observations upon Doctor Price's doctrine, with respect to the charters of the Colonies. To suppose, that their charters exempt them from paying taxes to the British Government for ever, is not only contrary to the express terms of the charter of Pennsylvania: But also to all probability. What ruling power would be so unwise as to suffer the emigration of subjects, out of a country which is not overstocked with inhabitants, into one where that power has claims and possessions, unless it was assured of retaining the right of supremacy over those emigrated subjects? Is it reasonable to think, that a power would thus weaken itself? And is not the right of supreme taxation inseparably connected with the right of supreme government?

Again: When one of our Kings granted a charter to the Colonists, did he not grant it as being the head of the legislative power of Great Britain: A power this whose ships had taken possession of North America? Was it not as the representative of all this power, that be signed the charter? Suppose the Lord Mayor of London, as political head of that city, had granted me leave to build a house upon some waste ground belonging to the city: And suppose he had helped me to build it with some materials, the property of the city, and had from time to time preserved it from being robbed and burned, by sending me watchmen, firemen, and fire. engines from the city; would it be right in me to say, I acknowledge myself indebted to the Lord Mayor, as a Lord; but as for his London Mayoralty, and the council

Aldermen, I bid them defiance, and deny my being under the least obligation of submitting myself to them. In short, I am willing that the Mayor of London should be my governor; but if the body of the Corporation daim authority over me, and demand of me, who am neither one of the Livery nor a Freeman, city rates to ay the watchmen or buy new fire-engines, I will shew both them and the Lord Mayor, that I am a patriot, and that I can defend my property and protect my perD-Could you help smiling at the absurdity of such a speech? And think you, Doctor Price himself could prove, that the distinction which the Colonists make between the King and the parliament,-between the head and the body of the British legislature, is not as trifling and ungenerous, as the distinction I make between the Lordship of the Mayor of London, and the London Mayoralty; or between the head and the body of that respectable Corporation.

To return: After saying that the arguments drawn from the charters for the Colonies appear to him "greatly to outweigh the arguments against them," Doctor Price speaks thus: "But I lay no stress on arters. They [the Colonies] derive their rights from higher source. It is inconsistent with common sense imagine, that any people would ever think of settling a distant country, on any such condition, as that the people from whom they withdrew should for ever be masas of their property, and have power to subject them to ay modes of government they pleased."The flaw of this argument consists in imputing to Great Britain, false daims, which never entered into the minds of our legisators. When did the parliament say, they would "for er be masters of the property of the Colonists," any otherwise than they are masters of the property of Engishmen?-If the King and parliament claim the right "making statutes of sufficient force to bind the Coonies in all cases whatsoever," does not candour dictate, at they only mean all cases wherein they have power bind Englishmen ?-And is not Doctor Franklin too