The Pennsylvania ledger, or, The Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, & New-Jersey weekly advertiser — Philadelphia, Pa., 1776-04-27 00:00:00, page 2

aw, in mixt governments. He has wrote a whole
feaion to (hew that the bed governments in the
world have been composed (as the Englilh is) of
monarchy, arifocracy and democracy. He fays God
ordained a mixt government, enfwering to this in
ail its parts; and confiding of a tingle judge or
chief captain (we contend not for names) a Council
of feventcen chosen men, or Sanhedrim; and the
General ffemblies^of the people. Is not this our
own form compleat? When he speaks of popular
governments, he afes the utmost precision. “ To
avoid nuneceffary'difputes, fays he, I give the name
" of popular governments to those ofßome, Athens,
" Spat 14 and the like ; but improperly, unicis the
" fame may also be given to many that are usually
" called monarchies, since there is nothing of vio
." lence in cither. As to popular governments, in
“ the livid sense, that is pure democracy, where
“ the people in themselves, and by themselves,
" perform all that belongs to government, I know
“ of no such thing; and if it be in the world, I
“ "have nothing to fayfor it." And more explicitly
still, he lays, " being no way concerned in the
“ defence of democracy—l may leave our Knight
" (Filmer) like Don Quixote, fighting against the
" phantafin of his own brain, and~to lay what he
" pleases againd such governments as never were,
<c unless in such a place as San Marino near Sene
" g^'" '" Italy, where an hundred men govern a
“ barbarous rock that no man invades. As tor
“ democracy, he may fay what he pleases of it;
“ and I believe it can fait only with' the convenience
" of a /mall town, accompanied with fuel) circum
" fiances as are fe/dom to be fotend." 'lf Sidney un
derdood any thing of the mattea, we fee that
every colony in America is already too unwieldy
for such a government, and therefore it cannot be
a model for an immense continent. In a word,
altho' this great man lived before' the revolution,
he laid its foundation, died a giartyr to its princi
ples, and by one of the firil a&s of Parliament made
under it, his attainder was repealed, and a solemn
national sanction given to his writings.
The tedimony of another profefs'd Whi.g, nay
an independent WHIG (the famous Gordon, in his
difeourfes upon Tacitus) Shall come next, “ Mo
“ narchy, according to Plato, is the best govern
“ ment or the word; to which opinion, fays he,
" I fubferibe; as I do to that of Philip de combines
" that England is the place in the world where the
“ public is molt equally administered, and where
“ the people differ the lead violence. 'We are
“ bicfed with a form of government, which Tacitus
“ mentions as the molt perfed, and thinks the
“ hardest to be framed; that happy balance and
" mixture of interests, that secures every intered."
Polybius (as he is quoted by Montagu, on the
rife ind fall of republics) agrees with Plato. '“ The
best form of government, fays he, is that Which is
composed of a due admixture of monarchy, ariflo
cracy and democracy" —Of all legislators he prefers
Lycurgus, whom he looks upon rather as divinely
inspired, than as a man To perpetuate the Spar
tan government, he united the peculiar excell ncies
of the best forms into one, that neither of the three
parts, by fuelling beyond its just bounds, might
ever be able to deviate into its original inborn de
fers. Montagu adds—" I cannot help observing,
" on this occasion, that our own constitution, as set
“ tied at the revolution, so nearly concides witli
“ Lycurgus's general plan, that it seems at firft
“ fight to be formed by that very model. " and
indeed, in the constitution of mixt governments,
there is fodnething more substantial than an attach
ment to the mystical number three, in this triple
union of powers. All power lodged, uncontroul
ed, in ora or many, has been shewn to be full of
danger; lodged in two diftind bodies, they may
chance to disagree long; but the addition of a third
turns tlle scale, & further additions would only be clogs
I have not loft fight of Montesquieu, whose fen
timenhs, as applicable to the English constitution,
in prmßice as well as theory, shall be briefly intro
duced in my next, to elofe this part of my work;
and then let the author of Common Sense combat
the arguments of these great men as well as he can;
fo/r he has yet said nothing that is any way appli
edible to them, and muff look for better arguments
1 han those drawn from the nature of the English
constitution, it he expeds to serve his cause. For
my part I hill hand upon my firft ground, and have
no fentim nt which 1 wish to hide on this occasion.
When it shall clearly appear, that we can be no
longer free nor secure in our rights and property,
in connection witli Britain, of that we can be more
secure in any other connexion (and the time which
will enable us to judge of this cannot be very remote)
the author of these letters Shall not then lisp a word
againh whatever measures the sense of the majority
of this country, fairly taken, shall adopt for the
common good; and will be ready to give his best
abidance for carrying them into execution. But
he mud ever bear his testimony against being fur
prized into public decisions, by misrepresentations,
ungrounded suggestions, and delusive arguments;
too evidently proceeding from prejudice, or pre
determination of a question, in which the happihefs
of a great continent is involved. C A T O.
>,...<>...<>.• .«>....<>•.<>....<0•..<:>•• <> @ ..<> -:..<Ho<> n <>Hi>. #n < .<>..>.„.<>..„<>.... <> „
CASSANDRA to C ATO. Number 111.
I HAVE engaged in the present political contro
versy with a design to be of service to my country.
not stipulate for the performance of its engagements.
If we are foolifh enough to do this, mull not our
future security depend entirely on the will of a
British Parliament, i. e. of a Britifo Minifry ?
This in my opinion mud form an insuperable ob
stacle to reconciliation in the mind of every honed
man and sincere lover of liberty on the continent.
A second reason againd reconciliation is, that
the British constitution is so effectually undermined
by the influence of t e crown, that the people of
Britain have 770 security for the enjoyment of their
own liberties, and therefore America can never be
fate in being dependent on such a date.
The author of “ an historical eflay on the English
“ cond tution," printed anno 1771, fays, “ I shall
" not hesitate to date the outline of our constitution,
“ from the Revolution. William the 3d and his
" Parliament began the practice of retraining the
“ elective power of the people, by the legislative
" authority. A power that might become ten
“ thousand times more dangerous, to the elective
“ rights of the people, than the crown could ever
“ possibly be. For whenever the active parts of a
" government, founded upon the common rights
" of mankind, shall usurp a power to restrain, or
“ destroy those rights from whence they derive their
“ authority thatfo/e is not far from defrußion.
" Thus the primary law of our constitution, the
“ firft principle upon which it was founded, which
Ilie point with me has ever been, what will secure
our liberties ? The question of interest is ever deter
mined thereby. National prosperity and national
happiness, are incompatible with national slavery.
It is of small consequence to America, -whether God
has granted a King to the people of Britain or not;
or whether the constitution of their government
answers excellently to the inhabitants of that island,
if dependence on that excellent form of government
is big witli slavery and ruin to America.
If you mean not to hold your countrymen in fuf
pence until the day of lalvation is past, I call upon
you to prove that Great-Britain can offer any plan
of confiitutional dependence -which will not leave the
' future enjoyment of our liberties to hope, hazard,
and uncertainty, as the Foreder has finely expressed
it. And that if She can there isa probability she will.
If the one is impossible; or the other altogether im
probable, yourfelf mull acknowledge it is time to
P art *
On an impartial inquiry into the present date of the
British constitution, it appears to me that it is out
of the power of the British legislature to give us
security for the future enjoyment of our rights and
liberties, and on this ground I have opposed a re
union. I have examined every thing advanced by
you on the Subjed, and find them wide of the mark.
By the constitution of Great-Britain the present
Parliament can make no law which shall bind any
future one. For as the author of les Parliamentaria
or law of Parliament observes, page 77, when treat
ing of the power and authority of Parliaments,
" Tho' it be apparent, -what transcendent power
" and authority the Parliament hath, and though
" divers Parliaments # have attempted to bar, re
" drain, Suspend, qualify, or make void the power
“ of subsequent Parliaments; yet could they never
" ctFed it: For the latter Parliament hath ever
" power to abrogate, suspend, qualify, explain, or
" make void the former in the whole, or in any
" part thereof, notwithstanding any swords of re
" draint, prohibition, or penalty in the former.
" For it is a maxim in the jaw of Parliament, ,quod
" leger poferiores ;priores vontrarias abrogant."
Therefore Should any Parliament,give up, renounce,
and forever ,quit claim to the right of making laws
to bind us in any case whatever; yet it can conlli
tutionally stipulate for no longer than that one fit
ting. They have as full power and authority to
revive and enforce the claim at their next fitting as
if such renunciation had never taken place. Is it
wisdom then, or is there fafety in entering upon
terms of accommodation with a power which can-
“ had flood the tef of twelve hundred years, and
" been the admiration of ages, was now reduced to
“ the common level of a nuisance, to be corrected
“ by ads of Parliament. Our legislative authority
“ is, by its own nature, confined to a& within the
“ line of the constitution, because it is only veiled
« with a trust by the people, to the end they may
“ protect, and defend them in their rights and pri
“ vileges. And, therefore it is a contradiction in
“ terms, to fay, they have a right to consent to any
“ that may restrain or destroy them. Their consent
" to this law was 2 notorious violation of the trust
" reposed in them." For,
" Upon this principle our constitution may be
" one thing to day, and another thing to morrow.
" It is this, and that, or any thing that our legif
“ lative authority, for the time being, shall think
“ proper to make it." But “ the prevailing faction
" of those days" after sowing divisions among the
people to destroy their power and weaken their force,
“ obtained a law under pretence of providing for
“ the distemper of the times, by which they have
“ loft nay what have they not loft? They have
“ loft the distinguishing character between freemen
“ and slaves ! They have loft the distinguishing
“ character of Englishmen ! They have loft, what
" the mod tyrannical Kings of England, could ne
“ ver force from them ! They have loft, what their
“ forefathers have been spending their blood and
“ treasure to defend, for these thousand years !
“ They have loft the greatest jewel that ever any
" people possessed! They have loft their constitutional
" and natural liberty, their birth right and inhe
" ritance, derived from God and nature! They
“ have loft their constitutional redress, for all their
“ grievances ! They have loft their all, their every
" thing, by that damnable septennial law."
I shall conclude.my quotations from this invalu
able essay for the present with the following, as
perfectly applicable to America; and the foregoing
extracts will not only juftify but enforce the doctrine
it contains, to every honefl heart.
To deduce our rights from the principles of
" equity, justice, and the constitution is very well;
“ but equity andjufticeareno defence against powm
“ You mull take your constitutional rights under
your own protection, and that quickly too, or they
“ will be lofl for ever. Protect and defend them as
“ the apple of your eye, from danger, or, as you
" would your wives and children, from deftruftion:
" And never defif tfrom using every remedy" in
your power, “ till you have established them on a
“ foundation never more to be Shaken, either by
“ King or Parliament." A constitution that affords
no check against its own Servants, can yield no
security to ur.
He who lias the nomination of the officers of
government, has the whole power of that govern
ment in his own hand, and may -do witli it as he
.pleases. Fliis is abundantly proved by the present
ruinous date of government in every colony, where
the King or a Proprietor had the nomination.
Liberty will never flourish in such a government.
By the constitution of tlie Saxon government,"
fays tlie author firft quoted, '' no officer, either
" civil or military, or even ecclesiastical, could be
“ invested in his office, or exercise any jurifdi&ion or
“ authority over Freemen, without the free election
" of those Freemen over whom he was to exercise
" such authority; and it is for this reason, more
" elpecially, that the people of England were de
" nominated free; for that by the ancient laws and
« constitution of the kingdom, they had this just
" and natural right, viz. the free election of their
“ Magistrates and Governors, without which our
" ancestors thought all our liberties were but a
'“ species of bondage. For of what use can liberty
" be to him, whose person or estate is fubje& to
“ officers, &c. set over him, without his consent."
How different from, and how much superior to our
present form of government, was the Saxon, or old
constitution of England!
These three considerations form in my opinion
an iniurmountable obstacle against a reunion with
Great Britain. The man who has not thought
upon these points, is ill qualified to judge of the
necessity of Independence, or the inevitable ruin,
attendent on reunion.
N. B. No good man can agree to any terms
which will not give perfect security, and a division
mull therefore be intended by every man who at
tempts to prepare the minds of the ignorant and
unwary to except of any thing else. As every wri
ter on the fide of dependence has hitherto studiously
evaded the point, it appears they design if possible
to effect a division. 1 ake care tlien ye good people of
America, not to be duped by difinguifoed Torie s .
^.<>....<>....<,....&...<>....<,. ••<>.••«>"•<>..•..<>....<>....<>.., .<>....<,....<,....<,....<,..1,..
Mr. Humphreys, Please give the following a place
My objections are radical, reaching to the root
of the evil, and if a radical cure cannot be obtained
in one way, it ought to be obtained in another.
To Skin over the wound would be madness. I
therefore once more entreat you either to point out
a compleat remedy for these defers, and prove it
more easily attainable than a compleat delivery by
a Declaration of Independence; or to give no fur
ther opposition to the measure. He who cannot fee
a fair profpeft of removing these defects, and yet
wishes to fee America return to a state dependence,
has something else in view then the liberties of his
Country. CASSANDRA.
in your next paper.
I HAVE read with great attention the various pro
ductions of the several writers, who have favour
ed the public with their sentiments, on the import
ant fubjeCt of Independence. When the pamphlet
called Common Sense firft appeared, I found myfelf
Stagger'd with the high wrought declamations a
gainst Monarchy in general, and of Britain in parti
cular; I view'd the “ Royal Brute" with an indig
nant frown, and began to new-mould my monar
chical sentiments, into those of a common-wealth,
whose virtue Should reign triumphant, and vice be
expelled from the land; where Liberty like the
mighty branches of the spreading oak, Should ex
tend her protecting arms, and Shelter me from the
Scorching heats and beating storms of Slavery; and
every man I met (with whom I had the least acquaint
ance) I touch'd upon the theme which was upper
mod in my mind, by way of trying, how far they
had been convinced by the appearance of the late
wonderful phenomenon; some I found, like myfelf,
“ had drank deep of the dream and forgot all their
cares," but others of more cautious tempers, had
perused the performance with calm attention, and
pronounced it, an artful well wrought deception,
calculated to alarm tlie padions, rather than con
vince the reason; I read it a Second time with more
deliberation, and uninfluenced by those impressions
which are generally made by novelty; for l am one
of those, who have a wonderful aptitude to be