"Concordia res parvæ crescunt."Small things grow great by concord.—
"Concordia res parvæ crescunt."Small things grow great by concord.—
A FARMER.
Beloved Countrymen,
There is another late act of parliament, which seems to me to be as destructive to the liberty of these colonies, as that inserted in my last letter; that is, the act for granting the duties on paper, glass, &c. It appears to me to be unconstitutional.
The parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority toregulatethe trade ofGreat-Britain, and all its colonies. Such an authority is essential to the relation between a mother country and its colonies; and necessary for the common good of all. He, who considers these provinces as states distinct from theBritish Empire, has very slender notions ofjusticeor oftheir interests. We are but parts ofa whole; and therefore there must exist a power somewhere, to preside, and preserve the connection in due order. This power is lodged in the parliament; and we are as much dependant onGreat-Britain, as a perfectly free people can be on another.
I have looked over everystatuterelating to these colonies, from their first settlementto this time; and I find every one of them founded on this principle, till theStamp-actadministration[9].All beforeare calculated to preserve or promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire;and though many of them imposed duties on trade, yet those duties were always imposedwith designto restrain the commerce of one part, that was injurious to another, and thus to promote the general welfare. The raising a revenue thereby wasnever intended. Thus, the king by his judges in his courts of justice, imposes fines, which all together amount to a considerable sum, and contribute to the support of government: but this is merely a consequence arising from restrictions, which only meant tokeep peace, and prevent confusion; and surely a man would argue very loosely, who should conclude from hence, that the King has a right to levy money in general upon his subjects; Never did theBritish parliament, till the period abovementioned, think of imposing duties in AmericaFOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING A REVENUE. Mr.Greenville'ssagacity first introduced this language, in the preamble to the 4th of Geo. III. Ch. 15, which has these words—"And whereas it is just and necessary that arevenue be raised in your Majesty's said dominions in America,for defraying the expences of defending, protecting and securing the same: We your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects,the commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled,being desirous to make some provision in the present session of parliament, towards raising the said revenue in America, have resolved to give and grant unto your Majesty the several rates and duties herein after mentioned," &c.
A few months after came theStamp-act, which reciting this, proceeds in the same strange mode of expression, thus—"And whereas it is just and necessary, that provision be madefor raising a further revenue within your majesty's dominions in America, towards defraying the said expences, we your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, theCommons of Great-Britain, &c.GIVEandGRANT," &c. as before.
The last act, granting duties upon paper, &c. carefully pursues these modern precedents. The preamble is, "Whereas it is expedient that a revenue should be raised in your Majesty's dominions in America, for making a more certain and adequate provision for the defraying the charge of the administration of justice, and the support of civil government in such provinces, where it shall be found necessary; and towards the further defraying the expences of defending, protecting and securing the said dominions, we your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, theCommons of Great-Britain, &c. give and grant," &c. as before.
Here we may observe an authorityexpresslyclaimed to impose duties on these colonies;not for the regulation of trade; not for the preservation or promotion of a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire, heretofore thesole objectsof parliamentary institutions;but for the single purpose of levying money upon us.
This I call an[10]innovation; and a most dangerous innovation. It may perhaps be objected, thatGreat-Britainhas a right to lay what duties she pleases upon her[11]exports, and it makes no difference to us, whether they are paid here or there.
To this I answer. These colonies require many things for their use, which the laws ofGreat-Britainprohibit them from getting any where but from her. Such are paper and glass.
That we may be legally bound to pay anygeneralduties on these commodities, relative to the regulation of trade, is granted; but we beingobliged by her lawsto take them from Great Britain, anyspecialduties imposed on their exportationto us only, with intention to raise a revenue from us only, are as muchtaxesupon us, as those imposed by theStamp-act.
What is the difference insubstanceandright, whether the same sum is raised upon us by the rates mentioned in the Stamp-act, on theuseof the paper, or by these duties, on theimportationof it. It is nothing but the edition of a former book, with a new title page.
Suppose the duties were made payable inGreat-Britain?
It signifies nothing to us, whether they are to be paid here or there. Had theStamp-actdirected, that all the paper should be landed inFlorida, and the duties paid there, before it was brought to theBritish Colonies, would the act have raised less money upon us, or have been less destructive of our rights? By no means: For as we were under a necessity of using the paper, we should have been under the necessity of paying the duties. Thus, in the present case, a likenecessitywill subject us, if this act continues in force, to the payment of the duties now imposed.
Why was theStamp-actthen so pernicious to freedom? It did not enact, that every man in the coloniesshouldbuy a certain quantity of paper—No: It only directed, that no instrument of writing should be valid in law, if not made on stamp paper, &c.
The makers of that act knew full well, that the confusions that would arise upon the disuse of writings wouldCOMPELthe colonies to use the stamp paper, and therefore to pay the taxes imposed. For this reason theStamp-actwas said to be a lawTHAT WOULD EXECUTE ITSELF. For the very same reason, the last act of parliament, if it is granted to have any force here, will execute itself, and will be attended with the very same consequences toAmerican Liberty.
Some persons perhaps may say, that this act lays us under no necessity to pay the duties imposed, because we may ourselves manufacture the articles on which they are laid: whereas by the Stamp-act no instrument of writing could be good, unless made on British paper, and that too stampt.
Such an objection amounts to no more than this, that the injury resulting to these colonies, from the total disuse of British paper and glass, will not beso afflictingas that which would have resulted from the total disuse of writing among them; for by that means even the stamp-act might have been eluded. Why then was it universally detestedby them as slavery itself? Because it presented to these devoted provinces nothing but a choice of calamities, imbittered by indignities, each of which it was unworthy of freemen to bear. But is no injury a violation of right but thegreatestinjury? If the eluding the payment of the duties imposed by the stamp-act, would have subjected us to a more dreadful inconvenience, than the eluding the payment of those imposed by the late act; does it therefore follow, that the last is no violation of our rights, though it is calculated for the same purpose that the other was, that is,to raise money upon us,WITHOUT OUR CONSENT?
This would be makingrightto consist, not in an exemption frominjury, but from a certaindegree of injury.
But the objectors may further say, that we shall sustain no injury at all by the disuse of British paper and glass. We might not, if we could make as much as we want. But can any man, acquainted with America, believe this possible? I am told there are but two or threeglass-houseson this continent, and but very fewpaper-mills; and suppose more should be erected, a long course of years must elapse, before they can be brought to perfection. This continent is a country of planters, farmers, and fishermen; not of manufacturers. The difficulty of establishing particular manufactures in such a country, is almost insuperable,for one manufacture is connected with others in such a manner, that it may be said to be impossible to establish one or two, without establishing several others. The experience of many nations may convince us of this truth.
Inexpressible therefore must be our distresses in evading the late acts, by the disuse of British paper and glass. Nor will this be the extent of our misfortunes, if we admit the legality of that act.
Great-Britainhas prohibited the manufacturing iron and steel in these colonies, without any objection being made to her right of doing it. The like right she must have to prohibit any other manufacture among us. Thus she is possessed of an undisputedprecedenton that point. This authority, she will say, is founded on theoriginal intentionof settling these colonies; that is, that she should manufacture for them, and that they should supply her with materials. Theequityof this policy, she will also say, has been universally acknowledged by the colonies, who never have made the least objection to statutes for that purpose; and will further appear by themutual benefitsflowing from this usage, ever since the settlement of these colonies.
Our great advocate, Mr.Pitt, in his speeches on the debate concerning the repeal of theStamp-act, acknowledged, that Great-Britain could restrain our manufactures. Hiswords are these—"This kingdom, as the supreme governing and legislative power, hasalwaysbound the colonies by her regulations andrestrictionsin trade, in navigation, inmanufactures——in every thing,except that of taking their money out of their pockets,WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT." Again he says, "We may bind their trade,CONFINE THEIR MANUFACTURES, and exercise every power whatever, except that of taking money out of their pockets,WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT."
Here then, let my countrymen,ROUSEyourselves, and behold the ruin hanging over their heads. If they ONCE admit, that Great-Britain may lay duties upon her exportations to us,for the purpose of levying money on us only, she then will have nothing to do, but to lay those duties on the articles which she prohibits us to manufacture—and the tragedy of American liberty is finished. We have been prohibited from procuring manufactures, in all cases, any where but from Great-Britain, (excepting linens, which we are permitted to import directly from Ireland). We have been prohibited, in some cases, from manufacturing for ourselves; We are therefore exactly in the situation of a city besieged, which is surrounded by the works of the besiegers in every partbut one. Ifthatis closed up, no step can be taken,but to surrender at discretion. If Great-Britain can order us to come to her for necessaries wewant, and can order us to pay what taxes she pleases before we take them away, or when we have them here, we are as abject slaves, as France and Poland can shew in wooden shoes, and with uncombed hair.[12]
Perhaps the nature of the necessities of the dependant states, caused by the policy of a governing one, for her own benefit, may be elucidated by a fact mentioned in history. When the Carthaginians were possessed of the island of Sardinia, they made a decree, that the Sardinians should not get corn, any other way than from the Carthaginians. Then, by imposing any duties they would, they drained from the miserable Sardinians any sums they pleased; and whenever that oppressed people made the least movement to assert their liberty, their tyrants starved them to death or submission. This may be called the most perfect kind of political necessity.
From what has been said, I think this uncontrovertible conclusion may be deduced, that when a ruling state obliges a dependant state to take certain commodities from her alone, it is implied in the nature of that obligation; and is essentially requisite to give it the least degree of justice; and is inseparablyunited with it, in order to preserve any share of freedom to the dependant state; that those commodities should never be loaded with duties for the sole purpose of levying money on the dependant state.
The place of paying the duties imposed by the late act, appears to me therefore to be totally immaterial. The single question is, whether the parliament can legally impose duties to be paidby the people of these colonies onlyfor the sole purpose of raising a revenue,on commodities which she obliges us to take from her alone; or, in other words, whether the parliament can legally take money out of our pockets, without our consent. If they can, our boasted liberty is but
Vox et præterea nihil.A sound, and nothing else.
Vox et præterea nihil.A sound, and nothing else.
A FARMER.
Beloved Countrymen,
I rejoice to find, that my two former letters to you, have been generally received with so much favour by such of you whose sentiments I have had an opportunity of knowing. Could you look into my heart, you would instantly perceive an ardent affection for your persons, a zealous attachment to your interests, a lively resentment of every insult and injury offered to your honour or happiness, and an inflexible resolution to assert your rights, to the utmost of my weak power, to be the only motives that have engaged me to address you.
I am no further concerned in any thing affecting America, than any one of you, and when liberty leaves it I can quit it much more conveniently than most of you: but while divine providence, that gave me existence in a land of freedom, permits my head to think, my lips to speak, and my hand to move, I shall so highly and gratefully value the blessing received, as to take care that my silence and inactivity shall not give my implied assent to any act degrading my brethren and myself from the birthrightwherewith heaven itself "hath made us free.[13]"
Sorry I am to learn, that there are some few persons, shake their heads with solemn motion, and pretend to wonder what can be the meaning of these letters. "Great-Britain, they say, is too powerful to contend with; she is determined to oppress us; it is in vain to speak of right on one side, when there is power on the other; when we are strong enough to resist, we shall attempt it; but now we are not strong enough, and therefore we had better be quiet; it signifies nothing to convince us that our rights are invaded, when we cannot defend them, and if we should get into riots and tumults about the late act, it will only draw down heavier displeasure upon us."
What can such men design? What do their grave observations amount to, but this—"that these colonies, totally regardless of their liberties, should commit them, with humble resignation, tochance,time, and the tender mercies ofministers."
Are these men ignorant, that usurpations, which might have been successfully opposed at first, acquire strength by continuance, and thus become irresistible? Do they condemn the conduct of these colonies, concerning theStamp-act? Or have they forgot its successful issue? Ought the colonies at thattime, instead of acting as they did, to have trusted for relief, to the fortuitous events of futurity? If it is needless "to speak of rights" now, it was as needless then. If the behaviour of the colonies was prudent and glorious then, and successful too; it will be equally prudent and glorious to act in the same manner now, if our rights are equally invaded, and may be as successful. Therefore it becomes necessary to enquire, whether "our rightsareinvaded." To talk of "defending" them, as if they could be no otherwise "defended" than by arms, is as much out of the way, as if a man having a choice of several roads to reach his journey's end, should prefer the worst, for no other reason, than because it is the worst.
As to "riots and tumults," the gentlemen who are so apprehensive of them, are much mistaken, if they think, that grievances cannot be redressed without such assistance.
I will now tell the gentlemen, what is "the meaning of these letters." The meaning of them is, to convince the people of these colonies, that they are at this moment exposed to the most imminent dangers; and to persuade them immediately, vigourously, and unanimously, to exert themselves, in the most firm, but most peaceable manner for obtaining relief.
The cause of liberty is a cause of too much dignity, to be sullied by turbulenceand tumult. It ought to be maintained in a manner suitable to her nature. Those who engage in it, should breathe a sedate, yet fervent spirit, animating them to actions of prudence, justice, modesty, bravery, humanity, and magnanimity.
To such a wonderful degree were the antientSpartans, as brave and as free a people as ever existed, inspired by this happy temperature of soul, that rejecting even in their battles the use of trumpets, and other instruments for exciting heat and rage, they marched up to scenes of havock and horror, with the sound of flutes, to the tunes of which their steps kept pace—"exhibiting, asPlutarchsays, at once a terrible and delightful sight, and proceeding with a deliberate valour, full of hope and good assurance, as if some divinity had insensibly assisted them."
I hope, my dear countrymen, that you will in every colony be upon your guard against those who may at any time endeavour to stir you up, under pretences of patriotism, to any measures disrespectful to our sovereign and our mother country. Hot, rash, disorderly proceedings, injure the reputation of a people as to wisdom, valour and virtue, without procuring them the least benefit. I pray God, that he may be pleased to inspire you and your posterity to the latest ages with that spirit, of which I have an idea, but find a difficulty to express: to express inthe best manner I can, I mean a spirit that shall so guide you, that it will be impossible to determine, whether anAmerican's character is most distinguishable for his loyalty to his sovereign, his duty to his mother country, his love of freedom, or his affection for his native soil.
Every government, at some time or other, falls into wrong measures; these may proceed from mistake or passion.——But every such measure does not dissolve the obligation between the governors and the governed; the mistake may be corrected; the passion may pass over.
It is the duty of the governed, to endeavour to rectify the mistake, and appease the passion. They have not at first any other right, than to represent their grievances, and to pray for redress, unless an emergency is so pressing, as not to allow time for receiving an answer to their applications which rarely happens. If their applications are disregarded, then that kind of opposition becomes justifiable, which can be made without breaking the laws, or disturbing the public peace. This consists in the prevention of the oppressors reaping advantage from their oppressions, and not in their punishment. For experience may teach them what reason did not; and harsh methods, cannot be proper, till milder ones have failed.
If at length it becomes undoubted, that an inveterate resolution is formed to annihilatethe liberties of the governed, the English history affords frequent examples of resistance by force. What particular circumstances will in any future case justify such resistance, can never be ascertained till they happen. Perhaps it may be allowable to say, generally, that it never can be justifiable, until the people areFULLY CONVINCED, that any further submission will be destructive to their happiness.
When the appeal is made to the sword, highly probable it is, that the punishment will exceed the offence; and the calamities attending on war out weigh those preceding it. These considerations of justice and prudence, will always have great influence with good and wise men.
To these reflections on this subject, it remains to be added, and ought for ever to be remembred; that resistance in the case of colonies against their mother country, is extremely different from the resistance of a people against their prince. A nation may change their King or race of Kings, and retain their antient form of government, be gainers by changing. Thus Great-Britain, under the illustrious house of Brunswick, a house that seems to flourish for the happiness of mankind, has found a felicity, unknown in the reigns of the Stuarts. But if once we are separated from our mother country, what new form of government shall we accept, or when shall we find another Britain to supplyour loss? Torn from the body to which we are united by religion, liberty, laws, affections, relations, language, and commerce, we must bleed at every vein.
In truth, the prosperity of these provinces is founded in their dependance on Great-Britain; and when she returns to "her old good humour, and old good nature," as Lord Clerendon expresses it, I hope they will always esteem it their duty and interest, as it most certainly will be, to promote her welfare by all the means in their power.
We cannot act with too much caution in our disputes. Anger produces anger; and differences that might be accommodated by kind and respectful behaviour, may by imprudence be changed to an incurable rage.
In quarrels between countries, as well as in those between individuals, when they have risen to a certain heighth, the first cause of dissention is no longer remembred, the minds of the parties being wholly engaged in recollecting and resenting the mutual expressions of their dislike. When feuds have reached that fatal point, all considerations of reason and equity vanish; and a blind fury governs, or rather confounds all things. A people no longer regards their interest, but the gratification of their wrath. The sway of the Cleon's,[14]and Clodius's, the designingand detestable flatters of the prevailing passion, becomes confirmed.
Wise and good men in vain oppose the storm, and may think themselves fortunate, if, endeavouring to preserve their ungrateful fellow citizens, they do not ruin themselves. Their prudence will be called baseness; their moderation, guilt; and if their virtue does not lead them to destruction, as that of many other great and excellent persons has done, they may survive, to receive from their expiring country, the mournful glory of her acknowledgment, that their councils, if regarded, would have saved her.
The constitutional modes of obtaining relief, are those which I would wish to see pursued on the present occasion, that is, by petitioning of our assemblies, or, where they are not permitted to meet, of the people to the powers that can afford us relief.
We have an excellent prince, in whose good dispositions towards us we may confide. We have a generous, sensible, and humane nation, to whom we may apply. They may be deceived: they may, by artful men, be provoked to anger against us; but I cannot yet believe they will be cruel or unjust; or that their anger will be implacable. Let us behave like dutiful children, who have received unmerited blows from a beloved parent. Let us complain to our parents; but let our complaints speak at the sametime, the language of affliction and veneration.
If, however, it shall happen by an unfortunate course of affairs, that our applications to his Majesty and the parliament for the redress, prove ineffectual, let us then take another step, by withholding from Great-Britain, all the advantages she has been used to receive from us. Then let us try, if our ingenuity, industry, and frugality, will not give weight to our remonstrances. Let us all be united with one spirit in one cause. Let us invent; let us work; let us save; let us at the same time, keep up our claims, and unceasingly repeat our complaints; but above all, let us implore the protection of that infinite good and gracious Being, "by whom kings reign and princes decree justice."
"Nil desperandum."Nothing is to be despaired of.
"Nil desperandum."Nothing is to be despaired of.
A FARMER.
Beloved Countrymen,
An objection, I hear, has been made against what I offer in my second letter, which I would willingly clear up before I proceed. "There is," say these objectors "a material difference between the Stamp-act and the late act for laying a duty on paper, &c. that justifies the conduct of those who opposed the former, and yet are willing to submit to the latter. The duties imposed by the Stamp-act, were internal taxes, but the present are external, which therefore the parliament may have a right to impose."——To this I answer, with a total denial of the power of parliament to lay upon these colonies any tax whatever.
This point being so important to this and to all succeeding generations, I wish to be clearly understood.
To the word "Tax," I annex that meaning which the constitution and history of England require to be annexed to it; that it is, an imposition on the subject for the sole purpose of levying money.
In the early ages of our monarchy, the services rendered to the crown, for thegeneral good, were personal;[15]but in progress of time, such institutions being found inconvenient, certain gifts and grants of their own property were made by the people, under the several names of aids, tallages, talks, taxes, subsidies, &c. These were made as may be collected even from the names for public service, "upon need and necessity,"[16]all these sums were levied upon the people by virtue of their voluntary gift.[17]The design of them was to supportthe national honour and interest. Some of those grants comprehended duties arising from trade, being imports on merchandizes. These Chief Justice Coke classes "under subsides"[18]and "parliamentary aids." They are also called "customs." But whatever the name was, they were always considered as gifts of the people to the crown, to be employed for public uses.
Commerce was at a low ebb, and most surprising instances may be produced, how little it was attended to, for a succession of ages. The terms that have been mentioned, and among the rest that of "tax," hadobtained a national, parliamentary meaning, drawn from the principles of the constitution, long before any Englishmen thought of regulations of trade "by imposing duties."
Whenever we speak of taxes among Englishmen, let us therefore speak of them with reference to the intentions with which, and the principles on which they have been established. This will give certainty to our expression, and safety to our conduct: but if when we have in view the liberty of these colonies, and the influence of "taxes" laid without our consent, we proceed in any other course, we pursue a Juno[19]indeed, but shall only catch a cloud.
In the national parliamentary sense insisted on, the word "tax"[20]was certainly understood by the congress at New-York, whose resolves may be said to form the American "bill of rights." I am satisfied that the congress was of opinion, that no impositions could be legally laid on the people of these colonies for the purpose of levying money, but by themselves or their representatives.
The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth resolves are thus expressed.
III. "That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no tax be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally or by their representatives."
IV. "That the people of the colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be represented in the House of Commons, in Great-Britain."
V. "That the only representatives of the people of the colonies, are the persons chosen therein by themselves; and that no taxes ever have been, or can be constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective legislatures."
VI. "That all supplies to the crown being free gifts of the people, it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the principles and spirit of the British constitution, for the people of Great-Britain to grant to his Majesty the property of the colonies."
Here is no distinction made, between internal and external taxes. It is evident from the short reasoning thrown into these resolves that every imposition "to grant to his Majesty the property of the colonies," was thought a "tax;" and that every such imposition if laid any other way "but with their consent, given personally, or by their representatives;" was not only "unreasonable, and inconsistent with the principles and spirit of the British constitution,"but destructive "to the freedom of a people."
This language is clear and important. A "tax" means an imposition to raise money. Such persons therefore as speak of internal and external "taxes," I pray may pardon me, if I object to that expression as applied to the privileges and interests of these colonies. There may be external and internal impositions, founded on different principles, and having different tendencies; every "tax" being an imposition, tho' every imposition is not a "tax." But all "taxes" are founded on the same principle, and have the same tendency.
"External impositions for the regulation of our trade, do not grant to his Majesty the property of the colonies." They only prevent the colonies acquiring property in things not necessary, and in a manner judged to be injurious to the welfare of the whole empire. But the last statute respecting us, "grants to his Majesty the property of these colonies," by laying duties on manufactures of Great-Britain, which they must take, and which he settled them, in order that they should take.
What[21]"tax" can be more "internal" than this? Here is money drawn withouttheir consent from a society, who have constantly enjoyed a constitutional mode of raising all money among themselves. The payment of this tax they have no possible method of avoiding, as they cannot do without the commodities on which it is laid, andthey cannot manufacture these commodities themselves; besides, if this unhappy country should be so lucky as to elude this act, by getting parchment enough to use in the place of paper, or reviving the antient method of writing on wax and bark, and by inventing something to serve instead of glass, her ingenuity would stand her in little stead; for then the parliament would have nothing to do, but to prohibit manufactures, or to lay a tax on hats and woollen cloths, which they have already prohibited the colonies from supplying each other with; or on instruments and tools of steel and iron, which they have prohibited the provincialsfrom manufacturing at all[22]And then what little gold and silver they have, must be torn from their hands, or they will not be able in a short time, to get an ax[23]for cutting their firewood, nor a plough for raising their food.—In what respect therefore, I beg leave to ask, is the late act preferable to the Stamp-act, or more consistent with the liberties of the colonies? "I regard them both with equal apprehension, and think they ought to be in the same manner opposed."
"Habemus quidem senatus consultum—tanquam gladium in vagina repositum"We have a statute like a sword in the scabbard.
A FARMER.
Beloved Countrymen,
Perhaps the objection to the late act, imposing duties upon paper, &c. might have been safely rested on the arguments drawn from the universal conduct of parliaments and ministers, from the first existence of these colonies, to the administration of Mr. Grenville.
What but the indisputable, the acknowledged exclusive right of the colonies to tax themselves, could be the reason, that in this long period of more than one hundred and fifty years, no statute was ever passed for the sole purpose of raising a revenue on the colonies? And how clear, how cogent must that reason be, to which every parliament and every minister, for so long a time submitted, without a single attempt to innovate?
England in part of that course of years, and Great Britain, in other parts, was engaged in fierce and expensive wars; troubled with some tumultuous and bold parliaments; governed by many daring and wicked ministers; yet none of them ever ventured to touch the PALLADIUMof American Liberty. Ambition, avarice, faction, tyranny, all revered it. Whenever it was necessaryto raise money on the colonies, the requisitions of the crown were made, and dutifully complied with. The parliament from time to time regulated their trade, and that of the rest of the empire, to preserve their dependencies, and the connection of the whole in good order.
The people of Great-Britain in support of their privileges, boast much of their antiquity. Yet it may well be questioned, if there is a single privilege of a British subject, supported by longer, more solemn, or more uninterrupted testimony, than the exclusive right of taxation in these colonies. The people of Great-Britain consider that kingdom as the sovereign of these colonies, and would now annex to that sovereignty a prerogative never heard of before. How would they bear this, was the case their own? What would they think of a new prerogative claimed by the crown? We may guess what their conduct would be from the transports of passion into which they fell about the late embargo, laid to remove the most emergent necessities of state, admitting of no delay; and for which there were numerous precedents. Let our liberties be treated with the same tenderness, and it is all we desire.
Explicit as the conduct of parliaments, for so many ages, is, to prove that no money can be levied on these colonies, by parliament for the purpose of raising a revenue; yet it is not the only evidence in our favour.
Every one of the most material arguments against the legality of the Stamp-act operates with equal force against the act now objected to; but as they are well known, it seems unnecessary to repeat them here.
This general one only shall be considered at present. That tho' these colonies are dependant on Great-Britain; and tho' she has a legal power to make laws for preserving that dependance; yet it is not necessary for this purpose, nor essential to the relation between a mother-country and her colonies, as was eagerly contended by the advocates for the Stamp-act, that she should raise money upon them without their consent.
Colonies were formerly planted by warlike nations, to keep their enemies in awe; to relieve their country overburthened with inhabitants; or to discharge a number of discontented and troublesome citizens. But in more modern ages, the spirit of violence being in some measure, if the expression may be allowed, sheathed in commerce, colonies have been settled by the nations of Europe for the purposes of trade. These purposes were to be attained by the colonies raising for their mother country those things which she did not produce herself; and by supplying themselves from her with things they wanted. These were the national objects in the commencement of our colonies, and have been uniformly so in their promotion.
To answer these grand purposes, perfect liberty was known to be necessary; all history proving, that trade and freedom are nearly related to each other. By a due regard to this wise and just plan, the infant colonies exposed in the unknown climates, and unexplored wildernesses of this new world, lived, grew, and flourished.
The parent country with undeviating prudence and virtue, attentive to the first principles of colonization, drew to herself the benefits she might reasonably expect, and preserved to her children the blessings, on which those benefits were founded. She made laws obliging her colonies to carry to her all those products which she wanted for her own use; and all those raw materials which she chose herself to work up. Besides this restriction, she forbade them to procure manufactures from any other part of the globe; or even the products of European countries, which alone could rival her, without being first brought to her. In short, by a variety of laws, she regulated their trade in such a manner, as she thought most conducive to their mutual advantage, and her own welfare. A power was reserved to the crown of repealing any laws that should be enacted. The executive authority of government was all lodged in the crown and its representatives; and an appeal was secured to the crown from all judgments in the administration of justice.
For all these powers established by the mother country over the colonies; for all these immense emoluments derived by her from them; for all their difficulties and distresses in fixing themselves, what was the recompense made them? A communication of her rights in general, and particularly of that great one, the foundation of all the rest—that their property, acquired with so much pain and hazard, should not be disposed of by[24]any one but themselves—or to use the beautiful and emphatic language of the sacred scriptures, "that they should sit every man under his vine, and under his fig tree, and none should make them afraid."[25]
Can any man of candour and knowledge deny, that these institutions, form an affinity between Great-Britain and her colonies, that sufficiently secures their dependance upon her? or that for her to levy taxes upon them, is to reverse the nature of things? or that she can pursue such a measure, without reducing them to a state of vassalage?
If any person cannot conceive the supremacy of Great Britain to exist, without the power of laying taxes to levy money upon us, the history of the colonies and of Great-Britain since their settlement will prove the contrary. He will there find the amazingadvantages arising to her from them—The constant exercise of her supremacy—and their filial submission to it, without a single rebellion, or even the thought of one, from the first emigration to this moment—and all these things have happened, without an instance of Great-Britain laying taxes to levy money upon them.
How many British authors[26]have remonstratedthat the present wealth, power and glory of their country are founded on these colonies? As constantly as streams tend to the ocean, have they been pouring the fruits of all their labours into their mother's lap. Good Heaven! And shall a total oblivion offormer tendernesses and blessings be spread over the minds of a wise people, by the sordid acts of intriguing men, who covering their selfish projects under pretences of public good, first enrage their countrymen into a frenzy of passion, and then advance theirown influence and interest, by gratifying that passion, which they themselves have barely excited?
Hitherto Great-Britain has been contented with her prosperity. Moderation has been the rule of her conduct. But now a generous and humane people that so often hasprotected the liberty of strangers, is inflamed into an attempt to tear a privilege from her own children, which, if executed, must in their opinion, sink them into slaves: And for what? For a pernicious power, not necessary to her, as her own experience mayconvince her; but horribly dreadful and detestable to them.
It seems extremely probable, that when cool, dispassionate posterity shall consider the affectionate intercourse, the reciprocal benefits, and the unsuspecting confidence,that have subsisted between these colonies and their parent country, for such a length of time, they will execrate with the bitterest curses the infamous memory of those men, whose pestilential ambition, unnecessarily, wantonly, first opened the sources of civil discord, between them; first turned their love into jealousy; and first taught these provinces, filled with grief and anxiety, to enquire,