two furies, that the more hungry they grow, transgressed the
bounds, they ought in regard to themselves, to have observed. To
keep up the deception in the minds of subjects "there must be," says
a very learned author[33] "some proportion between the impost and the
value of the commodity; wherefore there ought not to be an excessive
duty upon merchandizes of little value. There are countries in
which the duty exceeds seventeen or eighteen times the value of
the commodity. In this case the prince removes the illusion. His
subjects plainly see they are dealt with in an unreasonable manner,
which renders them most exquisitely sensible of their slavish
situation."
[33] Montesquieu's spirit of laws, b. 13. chap. 8.
From hence it appears that subjects may be ground down into misery
by this sort of taxation as well as the other. They may be as much
impoverished if their money is taken from them in this way, as
in the other; and that it will be taken, may be more evident, by
attending to a few more considerations.
The merchant, or importer who pays the duty at first, will
not consent to be so much money out of pocket. He, therefore,
proportionably raises the price of his goods. It may then be said to
be a contest between him and the person offering to buy, who shall
lose the duty. This must be decided by the nature of the commodities
and the purchasers demand for them. If they are mere luxuries,
he is at liberty to do as he pleases, and if he buys, he does it
voluntarily: But if they are absolute necessaries, or conveniences
which use and custom have made requisite for the comfort of life,
and which he is not permitted, by the power imposing the duty, to
get elsewhere, there the seller has a plain advantage, and the
buyer must pay the duty. In fact, the seller is nothing less than
the collector of the tax for the power that imposed it. If these
duties then are extended to necessaries and conveniences of life in
general, and enormously increased, the people must at length become
indeed "most exquisitely sensible of their slavish situation."
Their happiness, therefore, entirely depends on the moderation of
those who have authority to impose the duties.
I shall now apply these observations to the late act of parliament.
Certain duties are thereby imposed on paper and glass, &c. imported
into these colonies. By the laws of _Great-Britain_ we are
prohibited to get these articles from any other part of the world.
We cannot at present, nor for many years to come, though we should
apply ourselves to these manufactures with the utmost industry,
make enough ourselves for our own use. That paper and glass are not
only convenient, but absolutely necessary for us, I imagine very
few will contend. Some, perhaps, who think mankind grew wicked and
luxurious as soon as they found out another way of communicating
their sentiments than by speech, and another way of dwelling than
in caves, may advance so whimsical an opinion. But I presume nobody
will take the unnecessary trouble of refuting them.
From these remarks I think it evident, that we must use paper and
glass, that what we use must be _British_, and that we must pay the
duties imposed unless those who sell these articles are so generous
as to make us presents of the duties they pay, which is not to be
expected.
Some persons may think this act of no consequence, because the
duties are so _small_. A fatal error. That is the very circumstance
most alarming to me. For I am convinced that the authors of this
law, would never have obtained an act to raise so trifling a sum, as
it must do, had they not intended by it to establish a _precedent_
for future use. To console ourselves with the _smallness_ of the
duties, is to walk deliberately into the snare that is set for us,
praising the _neatness_ of the workmanship. Suppose the duties,
imposed by the late act, could be paid by these distressed colonies,
with the utmost ease, and that the purposes, to which they are
to be applied, were the most reasonable and equitable that could
be conceived, the contrary of which I hope to demonstrate before
these letters are concluded, yet even in such a supposed case,
these colonies ought to regard the act with abhorrence. For who
are a free people? not those over whom government is reasonably
and equitably exercised but those who live under a government, so
_constitutionally checked_ and _controuled_, that proper provision
is made against its being otherwise exercised. The late act is
founded on the destruction of this constitutional security.
If the parliament have a right to lay a duty of four shillings and
eight pence on a hundred weight of glass, or a ream of paper, they
have a right to lay a duty of any other sum on either. They may
raise the duty as the author before quoted says, has been done in
some countries, till it "exceeds seventeen or eighteen times the
value of the commodity." In short, if they have a right to levy a
tax of _one penny_ upon us, they have a right to levy a _million_
upon us. For where does their right stop? At any given number of
pence, shillings, or pounds? To attempt to limit their right, after
granting it to exist at all, is as contrary to reason, as granting
it to exist at all is contrary to justice. If they have any right
to tax us, then, whether our own money shall continue in our own
pockets, or not, depends no longer on _us_, but on _them_. "There
is nothing which we can call our own", or to use the words of Mr.
_Locke_, "What property have" we "in that, which another may, by
right, take, when he pleases, to himself."[34]
[34] Speech Lord Cambden lately published.
These duties, which will inevitably be levied upon us, and which
are now levying upon us, are expressly laid for the sole purpose
of taking money. This is the true definition of taxes. They are
therefore taxes. This money is to be taken from us. We are therefore
taxed. Those who are taxed without their own consent, given by
themselves, or their representatives, are slaves.[35] We are taxed
without our own consent given by ourselves, or our representatives.
We are therefore----I speak it with grief----I speak it with
indignation----we are slaves.
"_Miserabile vulgus._"
A miserable tribe.
A FARMER.
[35] This is the opinion of Mr. Pitt, in his speech on the
Stamp-act.
"It is my opinion, that this kingdom has no right to lay a tax
upon the colonies. The AMERICANS are the SONS, not the BASTARDS
of ENGLAND. The distinction between legislation and taxation
is essentially necessary to liberty. The Commons of America
represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in
possession of this their constitutional right of giving and
granting their own money. They would have been slaves if they
had not enjoyed it. The idea of a virtual representation of
America, in this house, is the most contemptible idea that ever
entered into the head of man. It does not deserve a serious
refutation."
That great and excellent man Lord Cambden, maintains the same
opinion in his speech, in the house of peers, on the declaratory
bill of the sovereignty of Great-Britain over the colonies.
The following extracts so perfectly agree with, and confirm
the sentiments avowed in these letters, that it is hoped the
inserting them in this note will be excused.
"As the affair is of the utmost importance, and in its
consequences may involve the fate of kingdoms, I took the
strictest review of my arguments; I re-examined all my
authorities; fully determined, if I found myself mistaken,
publicly to own my mistake, and give up my opinion, but my
searches have more and more convinced me, that the British
parliament have no right to tax the Americans. Nor is the
doctrine new; it is as old as the constitution; it grew up with
it, indeed it is its support. Taxation and representation are
inseparably united. God hath joined them; no British parliament
can separate them; to endeavour to do it is to stab our vitals.
"My position is this--I repeat it--I will maintain it to my
last hour--Taxation and representation are inseparable. This
position is founded on the laws of nature; it is more, it
is itself an eternal law of nature; for whatever is a man's
own, is absolutely his own; and no man hath a right to take
it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself
or representative; whoever attempts to do it, attempts an
injury; whoever does it, commits a robbery; he throws down
the distinction between liberty and slavery." "There is not
a blade of grass, in the most obscure corner of the kingdom,
which is not, which was not, represented since the constitution
began: there is not a blade of grass, which when taxed, was not
taxed by the consent of the proprietor." "The forefathers of
the Americans did not leave their native country, and subject
themselves to every danger and distress, to be reduced to the
state of slavery. They did not give up their rights; they looked
for protection, and not for chains, from their mother-country.
By her they expected to be defended in the possession of their
property; and not to be deprived of it: For should the present
power continue, there is nothing which they can call their own,
or, to use the words of Mr. Locke, what property have they in
that, which another may, by right, take, when he pleases, to him
self."
It is impossible to read this speech and Mr. Pitt's, and not be
charmed with the generous zeal for the rights of mankind, that
glows in every sentence. These great and good men, animated by
the subject they speak upon, seem to rise above all the former
glorious exertions of their abilities. A foreigner might be
tempted to think they are Americans, asserting with all the
ardour of patriotism, and all the anxiety of apprehension,
the cause of their native land, and not Britons striving to
stop their mistaken countrymen from oppressing others. There
reasoning is not only just; it is "vehement," as Mr. Hume says
of the eloquence of Demosthenes, "'Tis disdain, anger, boldness,
freedom, involved in a continual stream of argument." Hume's
Essay on Eloquence.
LETTER VIII.
_Beloved Countrymen_,
In my opinion, a dangerous example is set in the last act relating
to these colonies. The power of parliament to levy money upon us for
raising a revenue, is therein avowed and exerted. Regarding the act
on this single principle, I must again repeat, and I think it my
duty to repeat, that to me it appears to be unconstitutional.
No man, who considers the conduct of parliament since the repeal
of the Stamp-act, and the disposition of many people at home, can
doubt, that the chief object of attention there, is, to use Mr.
Grenville's expression, "providing that the dependance and obedience
of the colonies be asserted and maintained."
Under the influence of this notion, instantly on repealing the
Stamp-act, an act passed, declaring the power of parliament to
bind these colonies in all cases whatever. This, however, was only
planting a barren tree, that cast a shade indeed over the colonies,
but yielded no fruit. It being determined to enforce the authority
on which the Stamp-act was founded, the parliament having never
renounced the right, as Mr. Pitt advised them to do; and it being
thought proper to disguise that authority in such a manner, as not
again to alarm the colonies; some little time was required to find
a method, by which both these points should be united. At last the
ingenuity of Mr. Greenville and his party accomplished the matter,
as it was thought, in "An act for granting certain duties in the
British colonies and plantations in America, for allowing drawbacks,
&c. which is the title of the act laying duties on paper, &c."
The parliament having several times before imposed duties to be paid
in America, it was expected no doubt, that the repetition of such
a measure would be passed over as an usual thing. But to have done
this, without expressly asserting and maintaining "the power of
parliament to take our money without our consent," and to apply it
as they please, would not have been sufficiently declarative of its
supremacy, nor sufficiently depressive of American freedom.
Therefore it is, that in this memorable act we find it expressly
"provided" that money shall be levied upon us without our consent,
for purposes, that render it, if possible, more dreadful than the
Stamp-act.
That act, alarming as it was, declared, the money thereby to
be raised, should be applied "towards defraying the expences
of defending, protecting and securing the British colonies and
plantations in America:" And it is evident from the whole act,
that by the word "British" were intended colonies and plantations
settled by British people, and not generally, those subject to the
British crown. That act therefore seemed to have something gentle
and kind in its intention, and to aim only at our own welfare: But
the act now objected to, imposes duties upon the British colonies,
"to defray the expences of defending, protecting and securing his
Majesty's dominions in America."
What a change of words! What an incomputable addition to the
expences intended by the Stamp-act! "His Majesty's dominions"
comprehended not only the British colonies; but also the conquered
provinces of Canada and Florida, and the British garrisons of
Nova-Scotia; for these do not deserve the name of colonies.
What justice is there in making us pay for "defending, protecting
and securing" these places? What benefit can we, or have we ever
derived from them? None of them was conquered for us; nor will "be
defended, protected and secured" for us.
In fact, however advantageous the subduing or keeping any of these
countries may be to Great-Britain, the acquisition is greatly
injurious to these colonies. Our chief property consists in lands.
These would have been of a much greater value, if such prodigious
additions had not been made to the British territories on this
continent. The natural increase of our own people, if confined
within the colonies, would have raised the value still higher and
higher, every fifteen or twenty years. Besides, we should have lived
more compactly together, and have been therefore more able to resist
any enemy.
But now the inhabitants will be thinly scattered over an immense
region, as those who want settlements, will chuse to make new ones,
rather than pay great prices for old ones.
These are the consequences to the colonies of the hearty assistance
they gave to Great-Britain in the late war.----A war, undertaken
solely for her own benefit. The objects of it were, the securing to
herself the rich tracts of land on the back of these colonies, with
the Indian trade, and Nova-Scotia with the fishery. These, and much
more has that kingdom gained; but the inferior animals that hunted
with the Lion, have been amply rewarded for all the sweat and blood
their loyalty cost them, by the honour of having sweated and bled in
such company.
I will not go so far as to say, that Canada and Nova-Scotia are
curbs on New-England; the chain of forts through the back woods, on
the middle provinces; and Florida, on the rest: but I will venture
to say, that if the products of Canada, Nova-Scotia and Florida,
deserve any consideration, the two first of them are only rivals of
our northern colonies and the other of our southern.
It has been said, that without the conquest of these countries, the
colonies could not have been "protected, defended, and secured;"
If that is true, it may with as much propriety be said, that
Great-Britain could not have been "defended, protected, and secured"
without that conquest: for the colonies are parts of her empire,
which it is as much concerns her as them to keep out of the hands of
any other power.
But these colonies when they were much weaker, defended themselves,
before this conquest was made; and could again do it, against any
that might properly be called their enemies. If France and Spain
indeed should attack them, as members of the British empire perhaps
they might be distressed; but it would be in a British quarrel.
The largest account I have seen of the number of people in Canada,
does not make them exceed 90,000. Florida can hardly be said to have
any inhabitants----It is computed that there are in our colonies,
3,000,000.--Our force therefore must encrease with a disproportion
to the growth of their strength, that would render us very safe.
This being the state of the case, I cannot think it just, that these
colonies, labouring under so many misfortunes, should be loaded
with taxes, to maintain countries not only not useful, but hurtful
to them. The support of Canada and Florida cost yearly, it is said,
half a million sterling. From hence we may make some guess of the
load that is to be laid upon us; for we are not only to "defend,
protect, and secure" them, but also to make "an adequate provision
for defraying the charge of the administration of justice and the
support of civil government, in such provinces where it shall be
found necessary."
Not one of the provinces of Canada, Nova-Scotia, or Florida, has
ever defrayed these expences within itself: And if the duties
imposed by the last statute are collected, all of them together,
according to the best information I can get, will not pay
one-quarter as much as Pennsylvania alone. So that the British
colonies are to be drained of the rewards of their labour, to
cherish the scorching sands of Florida, and the icy rocks of Canada
and Nova-Scotia, which never will return to us one farthing that we
send to them.
Great-Britain----I mean the ministry in Great-Britain, has cantoned
Canada and Florida out into five or six governments, and may form
as many more. She now has fourteen or fifteen regiments on this
continent; and may send over as many more. To make "an adequate
provision" for all these expences, is, no doubt, to be the
inheritance of the colonies.
Can any man believe that the duties upon paper, &c. are the last
that will be laid for these purposes? It is in vain to hope, that
because it is imprudent to lay duties on the exportation of
manufactures from a mother country to colonies, as it may promote
manufactures among them, that this consideration will prevent them.
Ambitious, artful men have made the measure popular, and whatever
injustice or destruction will attend it in the opinion of the
colonists, at home it will be thought just and salutary.[36]
[36] "So credulous, as well as obstinate, are the people in
believing every thing, which flatters their prevailing passion."
Hume's Hist. of England.
The people of Great-Britain will be told, and they have been told,
that they are sinking under an immense debt--that great part of this
debt has been contracted in defending the colonies--that these are
so ungrateful and undutiful, that they will not contribute one mite
to its payment--nor even to the support of the army now kept up for
their "protection and security"--that they are rolling in wealth,
and are of so bold and republican a spirit, that they are aiming at
independence--that the only way to retain them in "obedience" is to
keep a strict watch over them, and to draw off part of their riches
in taxes--and that every burden laid upon them is taking off so much
from Great-Britain--These assertions will be generally believed,
and the people will be persuaded that they cannot be too angry with
their colonies, as that anger will be profitable to themselves.
In truth, Great-Britain alone receives any benefit from Canada,
Nova-Scotia, and Florida; and therefore she alone ought to maintain
them.--The old maxim of the law is drawn from reason and justice,
and never could be more properly applied, than in this case.
"_Qui sentit, commodum, sentire debet et onus._"
They who feel the benefit, ought to feel the burden.
A FARMER.
LETTER IX.
_Beloved Countrymen_,
I have made some observations on the purposes for which money is to
be levied upon us by the late act of parliament. I shall now offer
to your consideration some further reflections on that subject; and,
unless I am greatly mistaken, if these purposes are accomplished,
according to the exprest intention of the act, they will be
found effectually to supersede that authority in our respective
assemblies, which is most essential to liberty. The question is not
whether some branches shall be lopt off--The ax is laid to the root
of the tree; and the whole body must infallibly perish, if we remain
idle spectators of the work.
No free people ever existed, or ever can exist, without, keeping, to
use a common but strong expression, "the purse strings" in their own
hands. Where this is the case, they have a constitutional check upon
the administration, which may thereby be brought into order without
violence: but where such a power is not lodged in the people,
oppression proceeds uncontrouled in its career, till the governed,
transported into rage, seeks redress in the midst of blood and
confusion.
The elegant and ingenious Mr. Hume, speaking of the Anglo-Norman
government, says "princes and ministers were too ignorant to be
themselves sensible of the advantages attending an equitable
administration; and there was no established council or assembly
which could protect the people, and, by withdrawing supplies,
regularly and peaceably admonish the King of his duty, and ensure
the execution of the laws."
Thus this great man, whose political reflections are so much
admired, makes this power one of the foundations of liberty.
The English history abounds with instances, proving that this is the
proper and successful way to obtain redress of grievances. How often
have Kings and ministers endeavoured to throw off this legal curb
upon them, by attempting to raise money by a variety of inventions,
under pretence of law, without having recourse to parliament? And
how often have they been brought to reason, and peaceably obliged to
do justice, by the exertion of this constitutional authority of the
people, vested in their representatives?
The inhabitants of these colonies have on numberless occasions,
reaped the benefits of this authority lodged in their assemblies.
It has been for a long time, and now is, a constant instruction to
all governors, to obtain a permanent support for the officers of
government. But as the author of the administration of the colonies
says, "this order of the crown is generally, if not universally,
rejected by the legislatures of the colonies."
They perfectly know how much their grievances would be regarded,
if they had no other method of engaging attention, than by
complaining. Those who rule, are extremely apt to think well of
the constructions made by themselves, in support of their own
power. These are frequently erroneous and pernicious to those they
govern--Dry remonstrances, to shew that such constructions are
wrong and oppressive, carry very little weight with them, in the
opinion of persons, who gratify their own inclinations in making
these constructions. They cannot understand the reasoning that
opposes their power and desire: but let it be made their interest to
understand such reasoning--and a wonderful light is instantly thrown
on the matter; and then rejected remonstrances become as clear as
"proof of holy writ."[37]
[37] Shakespeare.
The three most important articles, that our assemblies, or any
legislatures can provide for, are, first the defence of the
society: secondly--the administration of justice: and, thirdly, the
support of civil government.
Nothing can properly regulate the expence of making provision for
these occasions, but the necessities of the society; its abilities;
the conveniency of the modes of levying money among them; the
manner in which the laws have been executed; and the conduct of the
officers of government; all which are circumstances that cannot
possibly be properly known, but by the society itself; or, if they
should be known, will not, probably, be properly considered, but by
that society.