and check the luxuriance of our imperial plant. It is to deprive us of our natural equality with the rest of mankind, by establishing" every state "as a part of the British Empire." In short, your Excellencies invite men of common sense, to exchange an independent station for a servile and dangerous dependence? But, when we recollect, that the king of Great Britain has, from the throne, declared his "firm and steadfast resolutions to withstand every attempt to weaken or impair the supreme authority of that legislature over all the dominions of his crown;" that his hirelings in Parliament and tools in office, abhorred by the English nation, have echoed the sentiment; and that America, for ten years, has experienced that king's total want of candor, humanity, and justice; it is, I confess, a matter of wonder, that your Excellencies can submit to appear so lost to decency, as to hold out subjection as the only condition of peace: and that you could condescend to sully your personal honor, by inviting us to trust a government, in which you are conscious we cannot, in the nature of things, place any confidence; a government that you are sensible, has been, now is, and ever must be jealous of our prosperity and natural growth; a government that you know is absolutely abandoned to corruption! Take it not amiss, if I hint to your Excellencies, that your very appearing in support of such a proposal, furnishes cause to doubt even of your integrity; and to reject your allurements, lest they decoy us into slavery.
The Declaration says, "the king is most graciously pleased to direct a revision of such of his royal instructions to his governors," etc., "and to concur in the revisal of all acts, by which His Majesty's subjects may think themselves aggrieved." But what of all this? Your Excellencies have not told the people, who "think themselves aggrieved," that they are to be a party in the revision. You have not even told them who are to be revisers. If you had, it would be nothing to the purpose; for you have not, and cannot tell them, and engage that even any of the instructions and acts, being revised, shall be revoked, and repealed, particularly those by which people "may think themselves aggrieved." But, if such are not to be repealed, why have you mentioned "think themselves aggrieved?" If they are intended to be repealed, why did not your Excellencies come to the point at once, and say so? It is evident your Excellencies are by your superiors, precipitated into a dilemma. You have not been accustomed to dirty jobs, and plain dealing does not accord with your instructions; otherwise, in the latter case, I think you are men of too much sense and honor, to have overlooked or suppressed so material a point of information. However, you say instructions and acts are to be revised. We see that you have laid an ambuscade for our liberties; the clause is carefully constructed, without the least allusion to the revisors, or to the words redress, revoke, repeal. In short, it appears to be drawn up entirely on the plan of a declaration by King James the Second, after his abdication, as confidentially explained by James' secretary of state, the earl of Melford, to Lord Dundee, in Scotland. For Melford writes; to Dundee, "that notwithstanding of what was promised in the declaration, indemnity and indulgence, yet he had couched things so, that the king would break them when he pleased; nor would he think himself obliged to stand to them." And your Excellencies have "couched things so," that more words upon this subject are unnecessary.
"It is recommended to the inhabitants at large, to reflect seriously upon their present condition." Is it possible your Excellencies can be serious, and mean any thing by this recommendation? Can you be ignorant, that ever since the birth of the Stamp Act, the inhabitants at large, have been reflecting upon their deplorable condition? Can you have an idea, that, after such a length of time, during which they have been continually kept to their reflections, by the declaratory law, the Tea Act, the Boston Port Bill, and those then passed to annihilate the charter of Massachusetts Bay, the Quebec Bill to establish Popery, the Fishery Bill, to coerce by famine, the British commencement of the late civil war, and the Act of Parliament, in December last, declaring the inhabitants rebels; I say, after such a series of causes for reflection, and that your Excellencies now find us in arms against you, determined on independence or death, can you possibly entertain an idea, that we have not reflected seriously? On the contrary, you know, that we are prepared to offer up our lives in evidence of our serious reflections! In addressing a world, you ought to have some attention to the propriety of your recommendations, if only from a regard to your own reputation.
