people, whether they were subject to George or Louis, the King of
Great Britain or the French King, if both were arbitrary, as both
would be, if both could levy taxes without Parliament."
Afterwards in commenting on this passage he made the following
defense of its apparent unpatriotic sentiment. "It may be
objected, that there are some differences between arbitrary
princes, in this respect, at least, that some are more rigorous
than others. It is granted; but, then, let it be remembered,
that the life of man is a vapor that soon vanisheth away, and we
know not who may come after him, a wise man or a fool; though the
chances, before and since Solomon, have ever been in favor of the
latter."--"That I should die very soon after my head should be
struck off, whether by a sabre or a broadsword, whether chopped
off to gratify a tyrant by the Christian name of Tom, Dick, or
Harry, is evident. That the name of the tyrant would be of no
more avail to save my life, than the name of the executioner,
needs no proof. It is, therefore, manifestly of no importance
what a prince's Christian name is, if he be arbitrary, any more,
indeed, than if he were not arbitrary. So the whole amount of
this dangerous proposition may, at least in one view, be reduced
to this, viz.: It is of little importance what a king's
Christian name is. It is, indeed, of importance, that a king, a
governor, and all good Christians, should have a Christian name;
but whether Edward, Francis, or William, is of none, that I can
discern."

A passage ascribed to Otis during a session of the legislature at
Cambridge gives some idea of the character of his invective. It
had been said in defence of some measure that it had been taken
by the advice of Council, when Otis exclaimed, "Ay, by the advice