To the Parliament I wish to address myself in a more particular manner.They appear to have supposed themselves partners in the chase, and to have hunted with the lion from an expectation of a right in the booty; but in this it is most probable they would, as legislators, have been disappointed.The case is quite a new one, and many unforeseen difficulties would have arisen thereon.The Parliament claimed a legislative right over America, and the war originated from that pretence.But the army is supposed to belong to the crown, and if America had been conquered through their means, the claim of the legislature would have been suffocated in the conquest.Ceded, or conquered, countries are supposed to be out of the authority of Parliament.Taxation is exercised over them by prerogative and not by law.It was attempted to be done in the Grenadas a few years ago, and the only reason why it was not done was because the crown had made a prior relinquishment of its claim.Therefore, Parliament have been all this while supporting measures for the establishment of their authority, in the issue of which, they would have been triumphed over by the prerogative.This might have opened a new and interesting opposition between the Parliament and the crown.The crown would have said that it conquered for itself, and that to conquer for Parliament was an unknown case.The Parliament might have replied, that America not being a foreign country, but a country in rebellion, could not be said to be conquered, but reduced; and thus continued their claim by disowning the term.The crown might have rejoined, that however America might be considered at first, she became foreign at last by a declaration of independence, and a treaty with France; and that her case being, by that treaty, put within the law of nations, was out of the law of Parliament, who might have maintained, that as their claim over America had never been surrendered, so neither could it be taken away.The crown might have insisted, that though the claim of Parliament could not be taken away, yet, being an inferior, it might be superseded; and that, whether the claim was withdrawn from the object, or the object taken from the claim, the same separation ensued; and that America being subdued after a treaty with France, was to all intents and purposes a regal conquest, and of course the sole property of the king.The Parliament, as the legal delegates of the people, might have contended against the term "inferior," and rested the case upon the antiquity of power, and this would have brought on a set of very interesting and rational questions.
1st , What is the original fountain of power and honor in any country?
2d , Whether the prerogative does not belong to the people?
3d , Whether there is any such thing as the English constitution?
4th , Of what use is the crown to the people?
5th , Whether he who invented a crown was not an enemy to mankind?
6th , Whether it is not a shame for a man to spend a million a year and do no good for it, and whether the money might not be better applied? 7th , Whether such a man is not better dead than alive?
8th , Whether a Congress, constituted like that of America, is not the most happy and consistent form of government in the world?- With a number of others of the same import.
In short, the contention about the dividend might have distracted the nation; for nothing is more common than to agree in the conquest and quarrel for the prize; therefore it is, perhaps, a happy circumstance, that our successes have prevented the dispute.
If the Parliament had been thrown out in their claim, which it is most probable they would, the nation likewise would have been thrown out in their expectation; for as the taxes would have been laid on by the crown without the Parliament, the revenue arising therefrom, if any could have arisen, would not have gone into the exchequer, but into the privy purse, and so far from lessening the taxes, would not even have been added to them, but served only as pocket money to the crown.The more I reflect on this matter, the more I am satisfied at the blindness and ill policy of my countrymen, whose wisdom seems to operate without discernment, and their strength without an object.
To the great bulwark of the nation, I mean the mercantile and manufacturing part thereof, I likewise present my address.It is your interest to see America an independent, and not a conquered country.If conquered, she is ruined; and if ruined, poor;consequently the trade will be a trifle, and her credit doubtful.If independent, she flourishes, and from her flourishing must your profits arise.It matters nothing to you who governs America, if your manufactures find a consumption there.Some articles will consequently be obtained from other places, and it is right that they should; but the demand for others will increase, by the great influx of inhabitants which a state of independence and peace will occasion, and in the final event you may be enriched.The commerce of America is perfectly free, and ever will be so.She will consign away no part of it to any nation.She has not to her friends, and certainly will not to her enemies; though it is probable that your narrow-minded politicians, thinking to please you thereby, may some time or other unnecessarily make such a proposal.Trade flourishes best when it is free, and it is weak policy to attempt to fetter it.
Her treaty with France is on the most liberal and generous principles, and the French, in their conduct towards her, have proved themselves to be philosophers, politicians, and gentlemen.
