ON THE

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY

OF THE

BRITISH PARLIAMENT.

No question can be more important to Great Britain, and to the colonies, than this-does the legislative authority of the British parliament extend over them?

On the resolution of this question, and on the measures which a resolution of it will direct, it will depend, whether the parent country, like a happy mother, shall behold her children flourishing around her, and receive the most grateful returns for her protection and love; or whether, like a step-dame, rendered miserable by her own unkind conduct, she shall see their affections alienated, and herself deprived of those advantages which a milder treatment would have ensured to her.

The British nation are generous: they love to enjoy freedom: they love to behold it: slavery is their greatest abhorrence. Is it possible, then, that they would wish themselves the authors of it? No. Oppression is not a plant of the British soil; and the late severe proceedings against the colonies must have arisen from the detestable schemes of interested ministers, who have misinformed and misled the people. A regard for that nation, from

whom we have sprung, and from whom we boast to have derived the spirit which prompts us to oppose their unfriendly measures, must lead us to put this construction on what we have lately seen and experienced. When, therefore, they shall know and consider the justice of our claim that we insist only upon being treated as freemen, and as the descendants of those British ancestors, whose memory we will not dishonor by our degeneracy, it is reasonable to hope, that they will approve of our conduct, and bestow their loudest applauses on our congenial ardor for liberty.

But if these reasonable and joyful hopes should fatally be disappointed, it will afford us at least some satisfaction to know, that the principles on which we have founded our opposition to the late acts of parliament, are the principles of justice and freedom, and of the British constitution. If our righteous struggle shall be attended with misfortunes, we will reflect with exultation on the noble cause of them; and while suffering unmerited distress, think ourselves superior to the proudest slaves. On the contrary, if we shall be reinstated in the enjoyment of those rights, to which we are entitled by the supreme and uncontrollable laws of nature, and the fundamental principles of the British constitution, we shall reap the glori ous fruit of our labors; and we shall, at the same time, give to the world and to posterity an instructive example, that the cause of liberty ought not to be despaired of, and that a generous contention in that cause is not always unattended with success.

The foregoing considerations have induced me to pub lish a few remarks on the important question, with which I introduced this essay.

Those who allege that the parliament of Great Britain have power to make laws binding the American colonies, reason in the following manner. "That there is and must

"2

be in every state a supreme, irresistible, absolute, uncontrolled authority, in which the jura summi imperii, or the rights of sovereignty, reside; "1 "That this supreme power is, by the constitution of Great Britain, vested in the king, lords, and commons: "That, therefore, the acts of the king, lords, and commons, or, in other words, acts of parliament, have, by the British constitution, a binding force on the American colonies, they composing a part of the British empire."

I admit that the principle, on which this argument is founded, is of great importance: its importance, however, is derived from its tendency to promote the ultimate end of all government. But if the application of it would, in any instance, destroy, instead of promoting, that end, it ought, in that instance, to be rejected: for to admit it, would be to sacrifice the end to the means, which are valuable only so far as they advance it.

All men are, by nature, equal and free:

14 Bl. Com. 48, 49.

3

no one has a

2 Id. 50, 51.

"All men are

[3 The language of the Declaration of Independence is, created equal," and it declares that government derives all just powers from the consent of the governed. Considerable stress is laid upon the similarity of language (the words are not the same because not in the same language), and idea between the words of the Declaration and an expression of Voltaire; but the idea was not new and certainly the language ought not to be credited to a writer in French when we have this example of the use of almost identical language and language expressing the identical idea, especially when the words are used in a published address to the American people, and by one who was a member of the convention which framed the instrument. •

It is strange that those who ascribe the language to Voltaire sometimes misquote the same, e. g. Professor Hammond says: "The Declaration beginning with the statement that all men are born free and equal," etc., and adds (in language translated almost literally from the writings of Voltaire), 1 Ham. Blk. 276, thus seeming to credit Voltaire with the invention of the language of the Declaration. But the trouble with his statement is that he himself misquotes the words and it is not easy to see how a translation can be literal-it may be liberal.

Nothing could have been more prejudicial to the cause of the Ameri

right to any authority over another without his consent: all lawful government is founded on the consent of those who are subject to it: such consent was given with a view to ensure and to increase the happiness of the governed, above what they could enjoy in an independent and unconnected state of nature. The consequence is, that the happiness of the society is the first law of every government.1

2

This rule is founded on the law of nature: it must control every political maxim: it must regulate the legislature itself. The people have a right to insist that this rule be observed; and are entitled to demand a moral security that the legislature will observe it. If they have not the first, they are slaves; if they have not the second, they are, every moment, exposed to slavery. For "civil liberty is nothing else but natural liberty, divested of that part which constituted the independence of individuals, by the authority which it confers on sovereigns, attended with a right of insisting upon their making a good use of their authority, and with a moral security that this right will have its effect." 4

cans than to have created an impression in England that they had imbibed notions of liberty from French sources, and nothing could be further from the fact. There is not the slightest ground for ascribing a single idea of the Declaration of Independence to Voltaire.

That document is a strictly English production, evolved in accordance with English principles of liberty and fortified with constant reference to English precedent, and this address of our author, with the one next following, makes clear these grounds as does no other document of the period.]

1 The right of sovereignty is that of commanding finally—but in order to procure real felicity; for if this end is not obtained, sovereignty ceases to be a legitimate authority. 2 Burl. 32, 33.

[2 A comparisonof the second clause of the Declaration of Independence with this clause of the address discloses that every essential idea of the former is expressed in the latter except the right of separation which it would have been injudicious to have then expressed.]

3 The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. 1 Bl.Com.41. 4 2 Burl. 19.

Let me now be permitted to ask-Will it ensure and increase the happiness of the American colonies, that the parliament of Great Britain should possess a supreme, irresistible, uncontrolled authority over them? Is such an authority consistent with their liberty? Have they any security that it will be employed only for their good? Such a security is absolutely necessary. Parliaments are not infallible: they are not always just. The members, of whom they are composed, are human; and, therefore, they may err; they are influenced by interest; and, therefore, they may deviate from their duty. The acts of the body must depend upon the opinions and dispositions of the members: the acts of the body may, then, be the result of error and of vice. It is no breach of decency to suppose all this; the British constitution supposes it" it supposes that parliaments may betray their trust, and provides, as far as human wisdom can provide, that they may not be able to do so long, without a sufficient control." Without provisions for this purpose, the temple of British liberty, like a structure of ice, would instantly dissolve before the fire of oppression and despotic sway. 1

It will be very material to consider the several securities, which the inhabitants of Great Britain have, that their liberty will not be destroyed by the legislature, in whose hands it is intrusted. If it shall appear, that the same securities are not enjoyed by the colonists; the undeniable consequence will be, that the colonists are not under the same obligations to intrust their liberties into the hands of the same legislature; for the colonists are entitled to all the privileges of Britons. We have committed no crimes to forfeit them: we have too much spirit

1 Bol. Diss. on Part. I. 11, 12, p. 167, 179.

2 As the law is the birthright of every subject, so wheresoever they go, they carry their laws with them. 2 P. Wms. 75.