1. WHETHER Americans have not a right to speak their sentiments on subjects of government; and whether all attempts to check and discourage freedom of speech, any farther than to prevent the licentious abuses of it, are not to be consi­dered as unwarrantable usurpations, tending to introduce and establish a bondage of the worst kind?

2. Whether Americans have not an equal right to express their sentiments, when they happen to differ from, as when they happen to correspond with, the popular opinion?

3. Whether I differ more from another, than he differs from me; and, consequently, whether he has a better right to abuse me for a difference of sentiment, than I have to abuse him?

[Page 4] 4. Whether bigotry be not naturally pro­ductive of intolerance, and whether higotry and intolerance in politics be not as absurd in reason, as mean in their nature, and as destructive to society, as bigotry and intole­rance in matters of religion?

5. Whether there can be a greater proof of bigotry, either in religion or politics, than an obstinate resolution to hear or see nothing that is offered on the subject in ques­tion, by persons who are supposed to be of different sentiments?

6. Whether such a resolution be not also a proof, that a man in conscious of the weak­ness of his cause, and afraid of the force of those arguments which may be offered against him?

7. With regard to the present disputes be­tween the British American colonies and their mother country, whether there be not many of the colonists, who, by refusing to hear or see what is offered on the side of govern­ment, ^* betray the abovementioned consci­ousness and fear?

[Page 5] 8. Whether political bodies do not resem­ble animal bodies in many respects; and whether, when they are disordered, the same regimen and management which are needful for one, may not be proper for the other, in similar cases?

9. Whether the American colonies do not consider themselves as composing one dis­tinct political body ^*; and whether this body does not appear at this time to be deeply disordered?

10. Whether the disorder of the colo­nies, to speak in language taken from ani­mal bodies, be not of the feverish kind, as it is attended with an irregular, high pulse, and discovers, in some parts, a dangerous swelling and inflammation; and whether it has not been occasioned, in a great mea­sure, by their own imprudence and intem­perance?

11. Whether heating doses do not, in all cases, tend to increase a fever; and whe­ther inflammatory publications and ha­rangues [Page 6] be not so many heating doses, with regard to political bodies?

12. Whether, in investigating the na­ture and cause of disorders, and in fixing upon a method of cure, we ought not to have recourse to plain facts, and to gene­ral and established principles, instead of be­ing governed by the advice, and relying upon the opinions of notorious quacks and empiricks, who have an interest in deceiving us?

13. Whether some degree of respect be not always due from inferiors to superiors, and especially from children to parents; and whether the refusal of this on any occa­sion, be not a violation of the general laws of society, to say nothing here of the obli­gations of religion and morality?

14. Whether what constitutes right con­duct among men, does not constitute right conduct among societies, or bodies of men, with regard to one another; and whether the latter can be less criminal, or their conduct less disgusting and shocking to the genuine feelings of the moral sense, when they transgress the common rule of duty, than the former?

[Page 7] 15. Whether Great-Britain bears not a relation to these colonies, similar to that of a parent to children; and whether any parent can put up with such disrespectful and abusive treatment from children, as Great-Britain has lately received from her colonies?

16. Whether all true friends to the co­lonies, with whatever zeal they may think themselves bound to assert and support their claim, ought not, from a regard both to duty and safety, on every proper occasion, to express their disapprobation of a beha­viour, which is indecent and shameful in it­self, and which has brought upon the Ame­ricans the indignation of a power, which the proudest nation in Europe reveres, and under whose resentments the strongest would tremble?

17. Whether it be a mark either of wis­dom or candour to believe, declare, or in­sinuate, that Great-Britain has acted alto­gether from wrong motives, and the colo­nies altogether from right ones?

18. Whether there can be any medium between being subjects and not subjects; and whether, if the Americans be not British [Page 8] subjects, they are not, with regard to Great-Britain, aliens and foreigners?

19. Whether, if the colonies be a part of the great British community, they are not necessarily subject in all cases, to the juris­diction of that legislative power which re­presents this community, or, in other words, to the British parliament?

20. Whether the supreme legislative au­thority of every nation does not necessarily extend to all the dominions of that nation; and whether any place, to which this au­thority does not extend, can justly be said to be a part of its dominions?

21. Whether, in consequence of a general grant, particular claims, founded upon par­tial constructions and remote inferences, which are contrary to the apparent interest and design of the granter, can be valid, either in law or in equity?

22. Whether any direct evidence has hi­therto appeared in favour of the exemption for which the colonies contend; and whe­ther it does not concern the managers of their cause, previously to any other steps, to produce such evidence in support of their claim?

[Page 9] 23. Whether there be any proof or pro­bability, that, when the first grants of land in America were made by the British crown to British subjects, it was intended by the former, or understood by the latter, that they were to be no longer subject to the su­preme legislative authority of the British nation?

24. Whether, supposing this to have been really intended, it was in the power of the crown to alienate any part of its dominions, without the adivce and consent of parlia­ment?

25. Whether the above supposition does not imply, that the executive power is able at pleasure, to annul, alter, or restrain the legislative power, which is the greatest ab­surdity?

26. Whether the exemption contended for be not inconsistent with the nature of dependent colonies, and compatible only with the idea of independent states?

27. Whether a right in the colonies to choose which laws of Great-Britain they will obey, and which they will disobey, would leave any obligation to obedience at all?

[Page 10] 28. Whether, in such a case, the Ameri­cans, being not English subjects, can claim the protection of the English laws, or talk of their rights as Englishmen, with any pro­priety?

29. Whether there has ever been a time, since the settlement of the colonies, in which the nation appears to have thought, that it had not a full and compleat right of juris­diction over them, notwithstanding the pri­vileges granted them by charter?

30. Whether there has ever been a time, in which the colonies appear to have thought, that the nation had not a full and compleat right of jurisdiction over them, till about the year 1764?

31. Whether more was expressly granted or meant to be granted, by charter to any of the colonies, than authority for regulating respectively their own police; and whether such an authority, granted for the purpose of internal regulation and government, can be fairly construed to exempt any society, or incorporated body whatever, from the supreme legislative power of that nation, to which it belongs?

32. Whether, on the contrary, obedience [Page 11] to the laws of Great-Britain, without any restriction or exception, was not clearly ob­served in all the charters granted to the co­lonies; and particularly, whether the right of parliament to lay taxes, was not expressly and literally observed in the charter of Pennsylvania?

33. Whether therefore the Pennsylvani­ans ought not now to be out of the question, as they can have no plausible pretence for urging a claim, from which they have been precluded by their own former stipulation?

34. Whether the first charter which was granted, for the purpose of colonization, by the crown of England in 1606, and the se­cond, which was granted three years after­wards, did not subject the two Virginia com­panies to laws made by a council of the pro­prietors residing in England, first nominated by the crown, and afterwards to be elected by the proprietors residing in England; and whether the same charters did not pro­vide, that even the King might tax all the inhabitants within the grant, by his sole pre­rogative, without consulting his parliament, and appropriate the monies, thus raised by taxes, for the use and benefit of the crown only?

[Page 12] 35. Whether the territory granted upon these terms did not extend from latitude 34 to latitute 45, and include all the country lying between Carolina and Nova-Scotia, and consequently the present New-England colonies; the inhabitants of which originally settled under the very charters above-men­tioned, after having purchased from one of those companies?

36. Whether the Massachusetts company had authority, under their first charter, to assess or tax the inhabitants for any purposes whatever; and whether their having levied money of the inhabitants was not alledged in the writ of scire facias issued against their charter, in the reign of Charles the second, as an act of notorious delinquency, upon which, judgment was given against them in the court of King's-Bench, and the charter vacated?

37. Whether, in the new charter, which was granted them by William and Mary, and under which they have been governed to the present year, the power of levying taxes is not restrained altogether to provincial and local purposes, and allowed to be exercised over such only as are inhabitants and propri­etors in the province, so that the English [Page 13] traders and their goods, which may happen to be in any of the ports of the province, are entirely exempted from this authority?

38. Whether the whole tenor of this charter does not operate against the claim that is made by the people of the Massa­chusetts-Bay, evidencing the limitation of their legislative authority, instead of re­straining the power of the British parlia­ment?

39. Whether the charter granted to Lord Baltimore, in 1632, did not express­ly provide, that the inhabitants of Mary­land, for the suture, should be separated from Virginia, and not dependent upon the government of that, or any other colony; BUT, that they should be subject immediately to the CROWN of England, as depending thereof forever?

40. Whether the charters granted by Charles the Second, to the inhabitants of Connecticut and Rhode-Island, are more than bare charters of incorporation, erecting them respectively into corporate bodies, and empowering them to perform corpo­rate acts, in the same manner, say the char­ters, ‘as other our liege people of this our realm of England, or any other corpora­tion, [Page 14] or body politic, within the same;’ necessarily implying, that they were thought to be within the realm of England, and subject in all cases, to the supreme authori­ty of the realm?

41. Whether the charter of Carolina, granted in the same reign, did not fully de­clare the like dependency of the inhabi­tants, in the following words: ‘Our will and pleasure is, that they be subject im­mediately to our crown of England, as depending thereof forever; and that the inhabitants shall not, at any time, be liable to answer to any matter out of our said province, other than in our realm of England, and dominion of Wales?’

42. Whether subjection to the Crown of England ever meant, in public instruments, subjection only to him, who held the crown of England, in his private or personal capa­city; and whether the laws do not always mean, by the authority of the crown, the supreme authority of the nation, represented by the crown?

43. Whether the use of the great seal of England, in ratifying the grants above­mentioned, does not prove that, in each [Page 15] instance, the whole affair, on one side, was a public transaction, and in behalf of the nation, and that the subjection, or depen­dency expressly reserved, was to be of the same extent with the authority that required it?

44. Whether it does not appear from acts that have been made in evey reign, since the founding of the colonies, that it was the sense of Parliament, that its authority over the American plantations was as full and un­limited, as over any other part of his Ma­jesty's dominions?

45. Whether the preamble to an act of the parliament, in 1650, although the act it­self was unconstitutional and invalid, did not express the opinion of the wisest men in the nation, and even of the sons of liberty, at that time, with regard to the point in ques­tion, when it declared, concerning the colonies, and plantations in America, that they had ‘ever since the planting there­of, been, and ought to be, subject to such laws, orders and regulations, as are or shall be made by the parliament of England?’

46. Whether the following acts viz. of the 12th, 15th, and 25th of Charles II.— [Page 16] of the 7th and 8th of William and Mary, and more particularly and act passed the same year, entitled, ‘An act for preventing frauds, and regulating abuses in the plan­tations,’ and an act of the 11th, of the "same reign," for the trial of pirates in America, an act of the 9th of Queen Ann, for establishing the post-office in order that ‘her Majesty may be supplied, and the re­venue arising by the said office better im­proved, settled and secured to her Majesty, her heirs and successors’—and the several acts made in the late reign, relating to the manufacturing of hats, the naturalization of foreigners, and rendering lands in Ameri­ca assets, &c. I say, whether such a succes­sion of such acts does not afford compleat evidence, that the parliament has always claimed, and exercised, an unlimited juris­diction over the colonies, whenever the oc­casion was thought to require it?

47. Whether in the late reign, when the assembly of Jamaica withheld the usual grants for the support of government in that island, and the ministry desired the opinion of those two eminent lawyers, Sir, Clement Wearg, and Sir Philip York, then attorney and solicitor general, on this point, whether the King, or his privy [Page 17] council, had not a right to levy upon the inhabitants the taxes that were wanted; they did not reply in the following words: ‘That if Jamaica was still to be consider­ed as a conquered island, the King had such a right; but if it was considered in the same light with the other colonies, no tax could be imposed on the inhabi­tants, but by the assembly of the island, or by act of parliament.?’

48. Whether the right of parliament to impose taxes upon the colonies, which ap­pears to have never been questioned in Eng­land, was not generally admitted in the co­lonies, and the exercise of it thought ex­pedient and necessary so very lately as in 1755?

49. Whether the congress at Albany in that year, consisting of gentlemen of the first character from most of the colonies, did not approve of, and agree to, the pro­posal of general Shirley, that ‘application should be made to parliament, to empow­er the committees of the several colonies to tax them, in proportion to their re­spective abilities, in order to raise a ge­neral fund for the common defence?’

[Page 18] 50. Whether, when Mr. Shirley's plan, including this proposal, was laid before the assembly of New-York, it was not resolved by that house, after a proper discussion of all the particulars, ‘That the scheme pro­posed by governor Shirley, for the de­fence of the British colonies in North-America, is well concerted, and that this colony joins therein?’

51. Whether it could have been the opi­nion of general Shirley, or of the gentlemen at the congress, or of the house of assem­bly in New-York, that the parliament could delegate a power to others, with which they were not vested themselves?

52. Whether it has not been a standing maxim with our judges and lawyers, how­ever some of them may have departed from it lately, that the original settlers of the colonies brought over with them the laws of England that were then in force, from which they were not released by any sub­sequent charters; and that all acts of par­liament that have passed since that period, in which the design of extending them to the colonies is expressed, have, and ought to have, the force and obligation of laws upon the colonies in general?

[Page 19] 53. Whether the utmost claim of the co­lonies, at the time of the late stamp-act, was more than an exemptior from the autho­rity of parliament, as far as it related to internal taxation, for the purpose of a re­venue?

54. Whether it was not then allowed by the public advocates for American liber­ty, that the parliament had a right to re­gulate the trade of the colonies, and to lay duties both on their imports and ex­ports ^*?

[Page 20] 55. Whether the parliament, receding from, but not meaning to give up, the right of taxation, did not then meet the colonies upon their own ground, exercising no more than the right that had been ad­mitted, of regulating their trade, and im­posing duties upon a few of their own ex­ports to the colonies?

[Page 21] 56. Whether a regard to decency and consistency ought not to have produced in the Americans a quiet and peacable sub­mission to an act, which was framed on the very principles that had been so lately established, in behalf of the colonies?—But,

57. Whether the colonies did not then in­troduce a new distinction, to take off the force of their former concessions, contend­ing that duties laid upon the necessaries of life, such as paper, glass and paint (which, by the way, can be called necessaries only by a violent hyperbole) were equivalent to an internal tax, and therefore inadmis­sible?

58. Whether the parliament, in farther compliance with this distinction, did not then withdraw the duties they had laid upon such necessaries, reserving only as a mark of their authority to impose taxes, a small duty of three pence per pound, upon an article of sheer luxury, which can never be materially useful to any of the colonies, and which has been very hurtful to all of them, occasioning such an expensive man­ner of living as the inhabitants in general are unable to afford?

[Page 22] 59. Whether the opposition now made to this trifling duty, upon a hurtful luxury, is not as general, as vigorous, as clamor­ous, and as injurious to private property, and the alarm of danger to our constituti­onal rights, sounded with as much vehe­mence and vociferation, as in the time of the stamp-act?

60. Whether the facts here alluded to, following one another in so close a succes­sion, do not amount to a clear proof, that every indulgence or concession granted to the colonies operates against the authority of parliament, as for every inch given from a principle of generosity, an ell is demand­ed as matter of right; and whether the inference be not natural, that nothing less will satisfy the colonies, than an absolute renunciation of all claim of authority or ju­risdiction, in the British parliament?

61. Whether the maxim, that English­men are bound by no laws but such as they consent to, either personally or by their re­presentatives, has not been grossly misun­derstood by our American patriots, and ve­ry absurd inferences been drawn from it?

[Page 23] 62. Whether the English constitution does not make the king and parliament the representatives of all the people withing the kingdom, whether they be actual elec­tors or non-electors?

63. Whether a great part of the people in England can be said to give their consent to the laws that are made, by any other repre­sentatives than these?

64. Whether persons who have a right to vote in the election for members of par­liament, are not often bound by laws, to which they consent in no shape, except as above-mentioned; they not approving of the laws; and even the members for the coun­ty or borough in which they voted, oppos­ing and protesting against the laws at the time of making them?

65. Whether, for instance, a duty has not been laid upon hops, and an excise up­on cyder, when the hop-growers, and the makers of cyder, and their friends in par­liament, have used their utmost influence to prevent the passing of the law?

66. Whether, therefore, the consent given by them to the law, was not a consent without their approbation or liking; [Page 24] and whether such a consent, which is the only one given by many Englishmen, be the privilege for which the colonies contend?

67. Whether therefore the maxim, that Englishmen are bound only by laws to which they consent, can be true, otherwise than of the nation collectively, or the body of the people, while great numbers of them are forced to submit to many laws with re­luctance?

68. Whether, if it were allowed to the colonies to send members to parliament of their own choosing, they would accept of the offer?

69. Whether, while they would refuse to send members to parliament, they have any right to exclaim against acts of parlia­ment, on account of their having no mem­bers in parliament to represent them dis­tinctly?

70. Whether the privileges enjoyed by virtue of the English constitution of govern­ment are not political privileges; and whe­ther the natural right of the Americans can entitle them to the political privileges of [Page 25] Englishmen, and more than to the political privileges of Dutchmen ^*?

71. Whether upon a review of the ar­guments that have been used in favour of the colonies, it be reasonable to expect that the British parliament will be convinced by them; or that, without conviction, af­ter their right to govern, and regulate the trade of the colonies; has been so inde­cently questioned and denied, they will not assert it in such a way, as shall be thought most expedient and effectual.

72. Whether an effectual support of the authority of parliament, after such a de­nial of it, can be supposed to have so light [Page 26] an effect upon the property of Americans, as the small duty upon tea, if quietly sub­mitted to, necessarily would have?

73. Whether therefore those patriotic gentlemen, and patriotic labourers and me­chanicks, who have urged on a greater evil, in order to avoid a less, are in reality, what­ever they may have intended, friends to their country?

74. Whether interested, designing men,—or men who court popularity as the great Sultana of their affections—or igno­rant men, bred to the lowest occupations, who have no knowledge of the general prin­ciples upon which civil society should be always established—are any of them qua­lified for the direction of political affairs, or ought to be trusted with it?

75. Whether the old rule, Ne futor ul­tar crepidam, be not a good rule and pro­per for this day?

76. Whether the colonies, in a great mea­sure, have not, for ten years past, been under an iniquitous and tyranical government, namely, the government of unprincipled mobs; and whether experience has not yet convinced us, that this made of governing a country is most detestable?

[Page 27] 77. Whether the sons of liberty have ever willingly allowed to others the liberty of thinking and acting for themselves; and whether any other liberty than that of doing as they shall direct, is to be expected during their administration?

78. Whether it would not be safer, both to our liberty and property, to be under the authority of the British parliament, and sub­ject to all those duties and taxes which they might think fit to impose, than to be under the government of the American sons of Liberty, without paying any duties or taxes at all?

79. Whether the unavailing opposition that has been made to parliament, has not, since the commencement of the present year, been a greater expence to the Americans, if we allow for the neglect of business, and ex­traordinary tavern expences, than all the duties with which the parliament would pro­bably charge us, would amount to in fifty years?

80. Whether if the British parliament should only leave us to ourselves, as some wise persons have seriously advised; or if we were able to compel them to submit to our own terms, which no wise person can imagine that we are; either event would not be as great a [Page 28] calamity to the colonies, in its natural conse­quences, as the pestilence or a famine?

81. Whether, without the superintending authority of Great-Britain to restrain them, the colonies would not probably be soon at war among themselves; and whether with­out the same authority to protect them, they would not probably soon become a prey to some foreign power.

82. Whether, if the connexion of the co­lonies with Great-Britain were dissolved, they must not immediately put themselves under the protection of some maritime power, less able to defend them, and less disposed to indulge their froward and petulant humour?

83. Whether, in such a case, they would not be obliged to pay dearly for the protec­tion afforded to their ships abroad, or to their sea-ports at home; and whether this would not be a much heavier burden, than that of the duties that have been demaned by the British parliament?

84. Whether there can be any prospect of peace or safety to the colonies, while they are under the displeasure, and exposed to resentment of Great-Britain?

85. Whether therefore the reconciliation [Page 29] of Great-Britain to her colonies be not a matter of capital and supreme importance, to promote which, every American is bound, in duty to his country; and as he values the peace of Jerusalem, to contribute his best wishes, prayers and endeavours?

86. Whether every thing that tends to obstruct so desirable an event, ought not to be conscienciously avoided, and treated with abhorrence?

87. Whether Great-Britain can be sup­posed at present to be in such a condition, or of such a temper, as patiently to put up with our bullying and abusive language, to submit to our reproaches, or to be intimi­dated with our threatenings?

88. Whether on the other hand, the con­tinuance of such provocations will not ne­cessarily increase the indignation of a power that is irresistable by us, and render an ac­commodation impracticable, but upon terms the most humiliating to the colonies?

89. Whether the several colonies, by having chosen delegates to represent them at the congress, have not taken the matter in dispute out of the hands of the peo­ple; and whether those, who, notwithstand­ing, still endeavour farther to inflame the [Page 30] passions ^* of the populace, already intox­icated with a few magical founds, are not to be considered and treated as incendiaries, scattering abroad the firebrands of faction, in order to bring on the conflagration of their country?

90. Whether what is farther to be offered on the subject in dispute, should not be ad­dressed to the gentlemen of the Congress, who are entrusted with, and answerable, in no small degree, both in this world and the next, for THE FATE OF THE COLONIES; and whether, in that case, if we mean not to affront them, cool and impartial represen­tations and reasonings ought not to charac­terise our future political productions?

91. Whether full confidence ought not [Page 31] to be reposed in the wisdom, the prudence, and patriotic spirit of our representatives at the congress, who are generally men of pro­perty, and have much more to risque than most of their constituents?

92. Whether it be not time for our far­mers and mechanicks, and labourers, to re­turn to their business, and the care of their families; and all scrious Christians, to a sense of their duty?

93. Whether it does not become us to employ the present interval of reflexion, in examining, how far the principles that have been propagated amongst us are conformable to reason, and productive of good or evil to society; and whether, in reality, they de­serve to be countenanced or discouraged?

94. Whether it would be amiss, at the same time, to consider, how far the Supreme Governor of the world, from whose juris­diction no resolves of town-meetings can exempt us, may be supposed, from the de­clarations he has made, to approve of our conduct?

95. Whether the prosperity of states, and of all public societies, does not depend upon his blessing; and whether his blessing is to be otherwise expected, than in the way of conformity to his precepts?

[Page 32] 96. Whether he has given any dispensa­tion to the body of the people, under any government, to refuse honor, or custom, or tribute, to whom they are due; to contract habits of thinking and speaking evil of dig­nities, and to weaken the natural principle of respect for those in authority?

97. Whether, on the contrary, he does not command us to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; and require us, on pain of damnation, to be duly subject to the higher powers, and not to resist their lawful authority?

98. Whether, if it should smally appear, that the claim of the British parliament is just, and according to law, it be not a neces­sary consequence, that the colonies have re­sisted that power, which is ordained of God, and are in the high road to open rebellion?

99. Whether those, who on the present occasion, so zealously proclaim their attach­ment to revolution principles, give not too much reason to expect, that they are fond of revolutions? But after all,

100. Whether it be not a matter both of worldly wisdom, and of indispensable Chris­tian duty, in every American, to fear the Lord and the King and to meddle not with them that are GIVEN TO CHANGE?