Europe and his treaties with those states have, when considered with regard to his subjects, all the binding force of laws upon them. (1. Bl. Com. 252.) Where is the absurdity in supposing him vested with the same right to regulate the commerce of the distinct parts of his dominions with one another, which he has to regulate their commerce with foreign states? If the history of the British constitution, relating to this subject, be carefully traced, I apprehend we shall discover, that a prerogative in the crown, to regulate trade, is perfectly consistent with the principles of law. We find many authorities that the king cannot lay impositions on traffic; and that he cannot restrain it altogether, nor confine it to monopolists; but none of the authorities, that I have had an opportunity of consulting, go any farther. Indeed many of them seem to imply a power in the crown to regulate trade, where that power is exerted for the great end of all prerogative-the public good.

If the power of regulating trade be, as I am apt to believe it to be, vested, by the principles of the constitution, in the crown, this good effect will flow from the doctrine: a perpetual distinction will be kept up between that power, and a power of laying impositions on trade. The prerogative will extend to the former : it can, under no pretence, extend to the latter as it is given, so it is limited, by the law.

SPEECH

DELIVERED IN THE

CONVENTION FOR THE PROVINCE

OF

PENNSYLVANIA,

HELD AT PHILADELPHIA,

IN JANUARY, 1775.

SPEECH IN CONVENTION,

IN JANUARY, 1775.'

WHENCE, sir, proceeds all the invidious and illgrounded clamor against the colonists of America? Why are they stigmatized, in Britain, as licentious and ungovernable? Why is their virtuous opposition to the illegal attempts of their governors, represented under the falsest colors, and placed in the most ungracious point of view? This opposition, when exhibited in its true light,

[1 The progress of the contest between the English parliament and the colonies should be noted, in order to understand the real force of this speech. The fundamental propositions of the Declaration of Independence are here declared, as in the last speech the fundamental principles of government and liberty were expressed in language quite similar to that used in the Declaration of Independence. The climax of the Declaration is reached at the point when the king is charged with combining with others (parliament) to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, etc., and ends with the declaration that he has abdicated government here, etc. In this speech all of these acts are referred to.

The unwarranted acts of parliament are subjected to a proposed resolution and the fact of abdication alluded to at p. 556. The whole speech compares favorably with any of the masterpieces of English or American oratory in elegance of diction, in warmth of expression, power of reasoning, or breadth of information.

And a comparison of the speech with the Declaration of Independence will dispel the illusion cherished in some quarters that the source of our Declaration can be traced to foreign shores.

The brighest side of Wilson's nature is said to have been his power of advocacy, and this speech ought to be an everlasting monument of his eloquence and power.]

547