ADVERTISEMENT. THE following sheets were written during the late nonimportation agreement: but that agreement being dissolved before they were ready for the press, it was then judged unseasonable to publish them. Many will, per haps, be surprised to see the legislative authority of the British parliament over the colonies denied in every instance. Those the writer informs, that, when he began this piece, he would probably have been surprised at such an opinion himself; for that it was the result, and not the occasion, of his disquisitions. He entered upon them with a view and expectation of being able to trace some constitutional line between those cases in which we ought, and those in which we ought not, to acknowledge the power of parliament over us. In the prosecution of his inquiries, he became fully convinced that such a line does not exist; and that there can be no medium between acknowledging and denying that power in all cases. Which of these two alternatives is most consistent with law, with the principles of liberty, and with the happiness of the colonies, let the public determine. To them the writer submits his sentiments, with that respectful deference to their judgment, which, in all questions affecting them, every individual should pay. August 17th, 1774. 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 publish 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 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: "2 "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. [3 The language of the Declaration of Independence is, “All men are 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 |