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 be _so afflicting_ as 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 detested by 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 the
_greatest_ injury? 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 making _right_ to consist, not in an exemption from
_injury_, but from a certain _degree 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 three
_glass-houses_ on this continent, and but very few _paper-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-Britain_ has 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 undisputed
_precedent_ on that point. This authority, she will say, is founded
on the _original intention_ of settling these colonies; that is,
that she should manufacture for them, and that they should supply
her with materials. The _equity_ of 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 the _mutual benefits_ flowing 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 the _Stamp-act_, acknowledged, that
Great-Britain could restrain our manufactures. His words are
these--"This kingdom, as the supreme governing and legislative
power, has _always_ bound the colonies by her regulations and
_restrictions_ in trade, in navigation, in _manufactures_----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, ROUSE yourselves, 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 part _but one_. If _that_ is
closed up, no step can be taken, _but to surrender at discretion_.
If Great-Britain can order us to come to her for necessaries we
want, 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]
[12] The peasants of France wear wooden shoes; and the vassals
of Poland are remarkable for matted hair, which never can be
combed.
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 inseparably united 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 paid _by
the people of these colonies only_ FOR 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.
A FARMER.
LETTER III.
_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 birthright wherewith heaven itself
"_hath made us free_.[13]"
[13] Gal. v. 1.
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, to _chance_,
_time_, and the tender mercies of _ministers_."
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 the _Stamp-act_? Or have they forgot its
successful issue? Ought the colonies at that time, 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 rights _are_ invaded." 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 turbulence and 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 antient _Spartans_, 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, as _Plutarch_
says, 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 in the best manner I can, I mean
a spirit that shall so guide you, that it will be impossible to
determine, whether an _American_'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 annihilate the 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 are FULLY 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 supply our 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 designing and detestable
flatters of the prevailing passion, becomes confirmed.
[14] Cleon was a popular firebrand of Athens and Clodius
of Rome; each of them plunged his country into the deepest
calamities.
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 same time, 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.
A FARMER.
LETTER IV.
_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 the general 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 support the 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.
[15] It is very worthy of remark, how watchful our wise
ancestors were, least these services should be extended beyond
the limits of the law. No man was bound to go out of the realm
to serve, and therefore even in the conquering reign of Henry V.
when the martial spirit of the nation was inflamed by success
to a great degree, they still carefully guarded against the
establishment of illegal services. Lord Chief Justice Coke's
words are these, "When this point concerning maintainance of
wars out of England came in question, the Commons did make their
continual claim of their antient freedom and birth-right, as
in the first of Henry V. and 7th of Henry V. &c. the Commons
made protest that they were not bound to the maintainance of
war in Scotland, Ireland, Calais, France, Normandy, or other
foreign parts, and caused their protests to be entered into
the parliament roll, where they yet remain; which, in effect,
agreeth with that, which upon the like occasion was made in the
parliament of 25. E. 1." 2d Inst. p. 528.
[16] 4. Inst. p. 28.
[17] _Rege Angliæ nihiltale, nisi convocatis primis ordinibus et
assentiente populo, suscipiunt. Phil. Comines._
These gifts entirely depending on the pleasure of the donors,
were proportioned to the abilities of the several ranks of
people, who gave, and were regulated by their opinion of the
public necessities. Thus Edward I. had in his 11th year a
thirteenth from the laity, a twentieth from the clergy; in his
22d year, a tenth from the laity, a sixth from London, and other
corporate towns, half of their benefices from the clergy; in his
23d year, an eleventh from the barons and others, a tenth from
the clergy, and a seventh from the burgesses, &c.
Hume's History of England.
The same difference in the grants of the several ranks, is
observable in other reigns. In the famous statute _de tallagio
non concedendo_, the King enumerates the several classes,
without whose consent he and his heirs should never set or levy
any tax. "_Nullum tallagium vel auxilium, per nos, vel hæredes
nostros, in regno nostro ponatur seu levetur, sine voluntare
et assensu archiepiscoporum, episcoporum, comitum, baronum,
militum, burgensium, et aliorum liberorum de regno nostro._" 34
E. I.
Lord Chief Justice Coke in his comment on these words, says,
"for the quieting of the Commons, and for a perpetual and
constant law for ever after, both in this and other like cases,
this act was made." "These words are plain without scruple;
absolute without any saving."
2 Coke's Inst. p. 522, 523.
Little did the venerable judge imagine, that "other like cases"
would happen, in which the spirit of this law would be despised
by Englishmen, the posterity of those who made it.
[18] 4. Inst. p. 28.
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," had obtained 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.
[19] The goddess of empire, in the heathen mythology. According
to an ancient fable, Ixion pursued her, but she escaped by a
cloud which she threw in his way.
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.