revolt, and set up for themselves, as some seem to apprehend,
let us not drive them to a necessity to feel themselves
independant of us; as they will do, the moment they perceive
that they can be supplied with all things from within
themselves, and do not need our assistance. If we would keep
them still dependant upon their mother country, and in some
respects subservient to their views and welfare, let us make it
their interest always to be so."
Tucker on trade.
"Our colonies, while they have English blood in their veins, and
have relations in England, and while they can get by trading
with us, the stronger and greater they grow, the more this crown
and kingdom will get by them; and nothing but such an arbitrary
power as shall make them desperate can bring them to rebel."
Davenant on the plantation trade.
"The northern colonies are not upon the same footing as those of
the south; and having a worse soil to improve, they must find
the recompence some other way, which only can be in property
and dominion. Upon which score, any innovations in the form of
government there, should be cautiously examined, for fear of
entering upon measures, by which the industry of the inhabitants
may be quite discouraged. 'Tis always unfortunate for a people,
either by consent or upon compulsion, to depart from their
primitive institutions, and those fundamental, by which they
were first united together."
Idem.
All wise states will well consider how to preserve the
advantages arising from colonies, and avoid the evils. And I
conceive that there can be but two ways in nature to hinder
them from throwing off their dependence; one to keep it out of
their power, and the other, out of their will. The first must be
by force; and the latter by using them well, and keeping them
employed in such productions, and making such manufactures, as
will support themselves and families comfortably, and procure
them wealth too, and at least not prejudice their mother country.
Force can never be used effectually to answer the end, without
destroying the colonies themselves. Liberty and encouragement
are necessary to carry people thither, and to keep them together
when they are there; and violence will hinder both. Any body
of troops considerable enough to awe them, and keep them in
subjection, under the direction too of a needy governor, often
sent thither to make his fortune, and at such a distance from
any application for redress, will soon put an end to all
planting, and leave the country to the soldiers alone, and if
it did not, would eat up all the profit of the colony. For this
reason, arbitrary countries have not been equally successful in
planting colonies with free ones; and what they have done in
that kind, has either been by force at a vast expence, or by
departing from the nature of their government, and giving such
privileges to planters as were denied to their other subjects.
And I dare say, that a few prudent laws, and a little prudent
conduct, would soon give us far the greatest share of the riches
of all America, perhaps drive many of other nations out of it,
or into our colonies for shelter.
There are so many exigencies in all states, so many foreign
wars and domestic disturbances, that these colonies can never
want opportunities, if they watch for them, to do what they
shall find their interest to do; and therefore we ought to
take all the precautions in our power, that it shall never be
their interest to act against that of their native country; an
evil which can no otherways be averted, than by keeping them
fully employed in such trades as will increase their own, as
well as our wealth; for it is much to be feared, if we do not
find employment for them, they may find it for us. The interest
of the mother country is always to keep them dependent, and
so employed; and it requires all her address to do it; and it
is certainly more easily and effectually done by gentle and
insensible methods, than by power alone.
Cato's letters.
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 has protected 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 may convince 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,
"_Mens ubi materna est?_"
Where is maternal affection.
A FARMER.
LETTER VI.
_Beloved Countrymen,_
It may perhaps be objected against the arguments that have been
offered to the public concerning the legal power of the parliament,
that it has always exercised the power of imposing duties for the
purposes of raising a revenue on the productions of these colonies
carried to Great-Britain, which may be called a tax on them. To this
I answer; that is no more a violation of the rights of the colonies,
than their being ordered to carry certain of their productions to
Great-Britain, which is no violation at all; it being implied in
the relation between them, that the colonies should not carry such
commodities to other nations, as should enable them to interfere
with the mother country. The duties imposed on these commodities
when brought to her, are only a consequence of her paternal right;
and if the point is thoroughly examined, will be found to be laid
on the people of the mother country, and not at all dangerous to
the liberties of the colonies. Whatever these duties are, they
must proportionably raise the price of the goods, and consequently
the duties must be paid by the consumers. In this light they were
considered by the parliament in the 25 Char. II. Chap. 7, sec. 2,
which says, that the productions of the plantations were carried
from one to another free from all customs "while the subjects of
this your kingdom of England have paid great customs and impositions
for what of them have been spent here, &c." Such duties therefore
can never be injurious to the liberties of the colonies.
Besides, if Great-Britain exports these commodities again, the
duties will injure her own trade, so that she cannot hurt us without
plainly and immediately hurting herself; and this is our check
against her acting arbitrarily in this respect.
It[27] may, perhaps, be further objected, "that it being granted that
statutes made for regulating trade are binding upon us, it will be
difficult for any persons but the makers of the laws to determine,
which of them are made for the regulating of trade, and which for
raising a revenue; and that from hence may arise confusion."
[27] 'If any one should observe, that no opposition has been
made to the legality of the 4th Geo. III. ch. 15, which is
the first act of parliament that ever imposed duties on the
importations in America, for the express purpose of raising a
revenue there, I answer, first, that tho' that act expressly
mentions the raising a revenue in America, yet it seems that
it had as much in view, "the improving and securing the trade
between the same and Great-Britain," which words are part of
its title, and the preamble says, "Whereas it is expedient
that new provisions and regulations should be established for
improving the revenue of this kingdom, and for extending and
securing the navigation and commerce between Great-Britain and
your Majesty's dominions in America, which, by the peace, have
been so happily extended and enlarged, &c." 'Secondly, all
the duties mentioned in that act, are imposed solely on the
productions and manufactures of foreign countries, and not a
single duty laid on any production or manufacture of our mother
country. Thirdly, the authority of the provincial assemblies
is not therein so plainly attacked, as by the last act, which
makes provision for defraying the charges of the administration
of justice, and the support of civil government, 4thly, That it
being doubtful whether the intention of the 4th Geo. III. ch.
15, was not as much to regulate trade as to raise a revenue, the
minds of the people here were wholly engrossed by the terror of
the Stamp-act, then impending over them, about the intention of
which they could be in no doubt.'
'These reasons so far distinguish 4th Geo. III. ch. 15, from
the last act, that it is not to be wondered at, that the first
should have been submitted to, though the last should excite the
most universal and spirited opposition. For this will be found
on the strictest examination to be, in the principle on which
it is founded, and in the consequences that must attend it, if
possible, more destructive than the Stamp-act. It is, to speak
plainly, a prodigy in our laws, not having one British feature.'
To this I answer, that the objection is of no force in the present
case, or such as resemble it, because the act now in question is
formed expressly for the sole purpose of raising a revenue.
However, supposing the design of the parliament had not been
expressed, the objection seems to me of no weight, with regard to
the influence, which those who may make it, might expect it ought
to have on the conduct of the colonies.
It is true, that impositions for raising a revenue, may be hereafter
called regulations of trade, but names will not change the nature
of things. Indeed we ought firmly to believe, what is an undoubted
truth, confirmed by the unhappy experience of many states heretofore
free, that unless the most watchful attention be exerted, a new
servitude may be slipped upon us under the sanction of usual and
respectable terms.
Thus the Cæsars ruined Roman liberty, under the titles of tribunical
and dictatorial authorities,----old and venerable dignities, known
in the most flourishing times of freedom. In imitation of the same
policy, James II. when he meant to establish popery, talked of
liberty of conscience, the most sacred of all liberties; and had
thereby almost deceived the dissenters into destruction.
All artful rulers, who strive to extend their own power beyond its
just limits, endeavour to give to their attempts, as much semblance
of legality as possible. Those who succeed them may venture to go a
little farther; for each new encroachment will be strengthened by a
former, [28]"That which is now supported by examples, growing old,
will become an example itself," and thus support fresh usurpations.
[28] Tacitus.
A free people, therefore, can never be too quick in observing, nor
too firm in opposing the beginnings of alterations, either in form
or reality, respecting institutions formed for their security. The
first leads to the last; on the other hand nothing is more certain,
than that forms of liberty may be retained, when the substance is
gone. In government as well as in religion, "the letter killeth, but
the spirit giveth life."[29]
[29] 2 Cor. iii. 6.
I will beg leave to enforce this remark by a few instances. The
crown, by the constitution, has the prerogative of creating peers;
the existence of that order in due number and dignity, is essential
to the constitution; and if the crown did not exercise that
prerogative, the peerage must have long since decreased so much, as
to have lost its proper influence. Suppose a prince for some unjust
purposes, should from time to time advance many needy profligate
wretches, to that rank, that all the independance of the house of
Lords should be destroyed, there would then be a manifest violation
of the constitution, under the appearance of using legal prerogative.
The house of Commons claim the privilege of forming all money-bills,
and will not suffer either of the other branches of the legislature
to add to or alter them; contending that their power, simply extends
to an acceptance or rejection of them. This privilege appears to
be just; but under pretence of this just privilege, the house of
Commons has claimed a licence of tacking to money bills, clauses
relating to many things of a totally different kind, and have thus
forced them, in a manner, on the crown and lords. This seems to
be an abuse of that privilege, and it may be vastly more abused.
Suppose a future house; influenced by some displaced discontented
demagogues, in a time of danger, should tack to a money bill
something so injurious to the king and peers, that they would not
assent to it and yet the Commons should obstinately insist on it;
the whole kingdom would be exposed to ruin, _under the appearance of
maintaining a valuable privilege_.
In these cases it might be difficult for a while to determine,
whether the King intended to exercise his prerogative in a
constitutional manner or not; or whether the Commons insisted on the
demand factitiously, or for the public good: But surely the conduct
of the crown, or of the house, would in time sufficiently explain
itself.
Ought not the people therefore to watch to observe facts? to search
into causes? to investigate designs? and have they not a right
of judging from the evidence before them, on no slighter points
than their liberty and happiness? It would be less than trifling,
wherever a British government is established, to make use of any
other arguments to prove such a right. It is sufficient to remind
the reader of the day on which King William landed at Torbay.[30]
[30] November 5, 1688.
I will now apply what has been said to the present question. The
nature of any impositions laid by parliament on the colonies, must
determine the design in laying them. It may not be easy in every
instance to discover that design. Whenever it is doubtful, I think
submission cannot be dangerous; nay, it must be right: for, in my
opinion, there is no privilege the colonies claim, which they ought,
in duty and prudence, more earnestly to maintain and defend, than
the authority of the British parliament to regulate the trade of all
her dominions. Without this authority, the benefits she enjoys from
our commerce, must be lost to her: The blessings we enjoy from our
dependance upon her, must be lost to us; her strength must decay;
her glory vanish; and she cannot suffer, without our partaking in
her misfortune.----"Let us therefore cherish her interest as our
own, and give her every thing that it becomes FREEMEN to give or to
receive."
The _nature_ of any impositions she may lay upon us, may in general
be known, considering how far they relate to the preserving, in due
order, the connexion between the several parts of the _British_
empire. One thing we may be assured of, which is this; whenever a
statute imposes duties on commodities, to be paid only upon their
exportation from Great-Britain to these colonies, it is not a
regulation of trade, but a design to raise a revenue upon us. Other
instances may happen, which it may not be necessary to dwell on.
I hope these colonies will never, to their latest existence, want
understanding sufficient to discover the intentions of those who
rule over them, nor the resolution necessary for asserting their
interests. They will always have the same right that all free states
have, of judging when their privileges are invaded, and of using all
prudent measures for preserving them.
"_Quocirca vivite fortes_"
"_Fortiaque adversis opponite pectora rebus_,"
Wherefore keep up your spirits, and gallantly oppose this adverse
course of affairs.
A FARMER.
LETTER VII.
_Beloved Countrymen_,
This letter is intended more particularly for such of you,
whose employment in life may have prevented your attending to
the consideration of some points that are of great and public
importance. For many such persons there must be even in these
colonies, where the inhabitants in general are more intelligent than
any other people, as has been remarked by strangers, and it seems
with reason.
Some of you perhaps, filled as I know your breasts are with loyalty
to our most excellent prince, and with love to our dear mother
country, may feel yourselves inclined by the affections of your
hearts, to approve every action of those whom you so much venerate
and esteem.
A prejudice thus flowing from goodness of disposition is amiable
indeed. I wish it could be indulged without danger. Did I think this
possible, the error should have been adopted, not opposed by me.
But in truth, all men are subject to the passions and frailties of
nature; and therefore whatever regard we entertain for the persons
of those who govern us, we should always remember that their
conduct as rulers may be influenced by human infirmities.
When any laws injurious to these colonies are passed, we cannot,
with the least propriety, suppose that any injury was intended us
by his Majesty or the Lords. For the assent of the crown and peers
to law seems, as far as I am able to judge, to have been vested
in them, more for their own security than for any other purpose.
On the other hand, it is the particular business of the people to
enquire and discover what regulations are useful for themselves,
and to digest and present them in the form of bills to the other
orders, to have them enacted into laws--Where these laws are to
bind themselves, it may be expected that the house of Commons will
very carefully consider them: But when they are making laws, that
are not designed to bind themselves, we cannot imagine that their
deliberations will be as cautious and scrupulous as in their own
case.[31]
[31] Many remarkable instances might be produced of the
extraordinary inattention with which bills of great importance,
concerning these colonies, have passed in parliament; which is
owing, as it is supposed, to the bills being brought in by the
persons who have points to carry, so artfully framed, that it is
not easy for the members in general, in the haste of business,
to discover their tendency.
The following instances shew the truth of this remark. When
Mr. Grenville, in the violence of reformation and innovation,
formed the 4th Geo. III. chap. 15th, for regulating the American
trade, the word "Ireland" was dropt in the clause relating to
our iron and lumber, so that we could send these articles to
no other part of Europe, but to Great-Britain. This was so
unreasonable a restriction, and so contrary to the sentiments of
the legislature, for many years before, that it is surprising it
should not have been taken notice of in the house. However the
bill passed into a law. But when the matter was explained, this
restriction was taken off in a subsequent act.
I cannot postively say, how long after the taking off this
restriction, as I have not the acts; but I think in less than
eighteen months, another act of parliament passed, in which the
word "Ireland," was left out as it had been before. The matter
being a second time explained, was a second time regulated.
Now if it be considered, that the omission mentioned struck
off, with one word, so very great a part of our trade, it must
appear remarkable: and equally so is the method by which rice
became an enumerated commodity, and therefore could be carried
to Great-Britain only.
"The enumeration was obtained, (says Mr. Gee*) by one Cole,
a Captain of a ship, employed by a company then trading to
Carolina; for several ships going from England thither and
purchasing rice for Portugal, prevented the aforesaid Captain of
a loading. Upon his coming home, he possessed one Mr. Lowndes,
a member of parliament (who was very frequently employed to
prepare bills) with an opinion, that carrying rice directly to
Portugal was a prejudice to the trade of England, and privately
got a clause into an act to make it an enumerated commodity; by
which means he secured a freight to himself. But the consequence
proved a vast loss to the nation."
[* Gee on trade, p. 32.]
I find that this clause "privately got into an act," for the
benefit of Capt. Cole, "to the vast loss of the nation,"
is foisted into the 3d Anne, chap. 5, intituled, "An act
for granting to her Majesty a further subsidy on wines and
merchandizes imported," with which it has no more connexion,
than with 34th Edw. I. 34th and 35th of Henry VIII. or the 25th
of Car. II. which provide that no person shall be taxed but by
himself or his representative.
I am told that there is a wonderful address frequently used in
carrying points in the house of commons, by persons experienced in
these affairs--that opportunities are watched--and sometimes votes
are past, that if all the members had been present, would have been
rejected by a great majority. Certain it is, that when a powerful
and artful man has determined on any measure against these colonies,
he has always succeeded in his attempt. Perhaps therefore it will
be proper for us, whenever any oppressive act affecting us is past,
to attribute it to the inattention of the members of the house of
commons, and to the malevolence or ambition of some factious great
man, rather than to any other cause.
Now I do verily believe, that the late act of parliament imposing
duties on paper, &c. was formed by Mr. Grenville and his party,
because it is evidently a part of that plan, by which he endeavoured
to render himself popular at home; and I do also believe that not
one half of the members of the house of commons, even of those who
heard it read, did perceive how destructive it was to American
freedom.
For this reason, as it is usual in Great-Britain, to consider the
King's speech, as the speech of the ministry, it may be right here
to consider this act as the act of a party.--Perhaps I should speak
more properly if I was to use another term.--
There are two ways of laying taxes.--One is by imposing a certain
sum on particular kinds of property, to be paid by the user or
consumer, or by taxing the person at a certain sum; the other is, by
imposing a certain sum on particular kinds of property to be paid by
the seller.
When a man pays the first sort of tax, he knows with certainty
that he pays so much money for a tax. The consideration for which
he pays it is remote, and it may be does not occur to him. He is
sensible too that he is commanded and obliged to pay it as a tax;
and therefore people are apt to be displeased with this sort of tax.
The other sort of tax is submitted to in a very different manner.
The purchaser of any article very seldom reflects that the seller
raises his price so as to indemnify him for the tax he has paid. He
knows the prices of things are continually fluctuating, and if he
thinks about the tax, he thinks at the same time in all probability,
that he might have paid as much, if the article he buys had not been
taxed. He gets something visible and agreeable for his money, and
tax and price are so confounded together, that he cannot separate,
or does not chuse to take the trouble of separating them.
This mode of taxation therefore is the mode suited to arbitrary
and oppressive governments. The love of liberty is so natural to
the human heart, that unfeeling tyrants think themselves obliged
to accommodate their schemes as much as they can to the appearance
of justice and reason, and to deceive those whom they resolve to
destroy or oppress, by presenting to them a miserable picture of
freedom, when the inestimable original is lost.
This policy did not escape the cruel and rapacious Nero. That
monster, apprehensive that his crimes might endanger his authority
and life, thought proper to do some popular acts to secure the
obedience of his subjects. Among other things, says [32]Tacitus, "he
remitted the twenty-fifth part of the price on the sale of slaves,
but rather in shew than reality; for the seller being ordered to pay
it, it became a part of the price to the buyer."
[32] Tacitus's An. b. 13. f. 31.
This is the reflection of the judicious historian: but the deluded
people gave their infamous emperor full credit for his false
generosity. Other nations have been treated in the same manner the
Romans were. The honest industrious Germans who are settled in
different parts of this continent can inform us, that it was this
sort of tax that drove them from their native land to our woods, at
that time the seats of perfect and undisturbed freedom.