“That _every man_ of the commonalty, excepting infants, insane persons, and criminals, is of common right, and by the laws of God, a freeman, and entitled to the free enjoyment of liberty. “_That liberty or freedom, consists in having an actual share in the appointment of those who frame the laws_, and who are to be the guardians of every man’s life, property, and peace; for the _all_ of one man is as dear to him as the _all_ of another, and the poor man has an _equal_ right, but _more_ need, to have representatives in the Legislature than the rich one. “That they who have no voice nor vote in the electing of representatives _do not enjoy liberty, but are absolutely enslaved to those who have votes and to their representatives_; for to be enslaved is to have governors whom _other men have set over us_, and be subject to laws _made by the representatives of others_, without having had representatives of our own to give consent in our behalf.”[238] Here is no claim for communities merely, but expressly for “every man,” including especially “the poor man,” and without distinction of color. This American testimony is fitly crowned by the Declaration of Independence, which, beginning with the proclamation that “all men are created equal,” proceeds to assert that governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Here again is no claim for communities, but for “all men”; and this is the most authoritative interpretation of the original claim thundered forth by Otis, and echoed throughout the land. It is idle to show that in certain instances the Fathers failed to apply the sublime principles they declared. Their failure can be no apology for us, on whom the duty is now cast. But there is still another interpreter. The maxim of Otis was not original with him. It is found in the writings of John Locke, so remarkable for masculine sense and an exalted love of liberty. On a former occasion I adduced his authority, which is plain and positive. Pardon me, if I call attention to it once more. After asserting that Government cannot take the property of any one without his own consent, being the consent of the majority, the philosopher thus expresses himself:-- “For, if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority _and without such consent of the people_, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property and subverts the end of government; for what property have I in that which another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?”[239] Mr. Hallam, commenting on this text, does not hesitate to say, that it “in some measure seems to charge with usurpation all the established governments of Europe,”--that “neither the Revolution of 1688 nor the administration of William the Third could have borne the test by which Locke has tried the legitimacy of government.”[240]