imperceptibly, he dresses them so in the guise of truth. He says
"that the revenue to the crown, from America amounted to but little
more than the charges of collecting it," at the close of the last
war. I believe it did not amount to so much. The truth is, there
was never any pretence of raising a revenue in America before that
time, and when the claim was first set up, it gave an alarm, like a
warlike expedition against us. True it is that some duties had been
laid before by parliament, under pretence of regulating our trade,
and by a collusion and combination between the West India planters,
and the North American governors, some years before, duties had been
laid upon molasses, &c. under the same pretence, but in reality
merely to advance the value of the estates of the planters in the
West India Islands, and to put some plunder, under the name of thirds
of seisures into the pockets of the governors. But these duties,
though more had been collected in this province, than in any other in
proportion, were never regularly collected in any of the Colonies. So
that the idea of an American revenue for one purpose or another had
never, at this time, been formed in American minds.
Our writer goes on, "She, (Great Britain,) thought it as reasonable
that the Colonies should bear a part of the national burdens, as that
they should share in the national benefit."
Upon this subject Americans have a great deal to say. The national
debt before the last war, was near an hundred millions. Surely
America had no share in running into that debt. What is the reason
then that she should pay it? But a small part of the sixty
millions spent in the last war, was for her benefit. Did she not bear
her full share of the burden of the last war in America? Did not the
province pay twelve shillings in the pound in taxes for the support
of it; and send a sixth or seventh part of her sons into actual
service? And at the conclusion of the war, was she not left half a
million sterling in debt? Did not all the rest of New England exert
itself in proportion? What is the reason that the Massachusetts has
paid its debt, and the British minister in thirteen years of peace
has paid none of his? Much of it might have been paid in this time,
had not such extravagance and speculation prevailed, as ought to be
an eternal warning to America, never to trust such a minister with
her money. What is the reason that the great and necessary virtues
of simplicity, frugality and economy cannot live in England, Scotland
and Ireland, as well as America?
We have much more to say still. Great Britain has confined all our
trade to herself. We are willing she should, as far as it can be for
the good of the empire. But we say that we ought to be allowed as
credit, in the account of public burdens and expenses, so much paid
in taxes, as we are obliged to sell our commodities to her cheaper
than we could get for them at foreign markets. The difference is
really a tax upon us, for the good of the empire. We are obliged to
take from Great Britain commodities, that we could purchase cheaper
elsewhere. This difference is a tax upon us for the good of the
empire. We submit to this cheerfully, but insist that we ought to
have credit for it, in the account of the expenses of the empire,
because it is really a tax upon us. Another thing. I will venture
a bold assertion. Let Massachusettensis, or any other friend of
the minister, confute me. The three million Americans, by the tax
aforesaid, upon what they are obliged to export to Great Britain
only, what they are obliged to import from Great Britain only, and
the quantities of British manufactures which in these climates they
are obliged to consume, more than the like number of people in any
part of the three kingdoms, ultimately pay more of the taxes and
duties that are apparently paid in Great Britain, than any three
million subjects in the three kingdoms. All this may be computed
and reduced to stubborn figures, by the minister, if he pleases.
We cannot do it. We have not the accounts, records, &c. Now let
this account be fairly stated, and I will engage for America,
upon any penalty, that she will pay the overplus, if any, in her
own constitutional way, provided it is to be applied for national
purposes, as paying off the national debt, maintaining the fleet, &c.
not to the support of a standing army in time of peace, placemen,
pensioners, &c.
Besides, every farthing of expense which has been incurred on
pretence of protecting, defending and securing America, since the
last war, has been worse than thrown away; it has been applied to do
mischief. Keeping an army in America has been nothing but a public
nuisance.
Furthermore, we see that all the public money that is raised here,
and have reason to believe all that will or can be raised, will be
applied not for public purposes, national or provincial, but merely
to corrupt the sons of America, and create a faction to destroy its
interest and happiness.
There are scarcely three sentences together, in all the voluminous
productions of this plausible writer, which do not convey some error
in fact or principle, tinged with a colouring to make it pass for
truth. He says, "the idea, that the stamps were a tax, not only
exceeding our proportion, but beyond our utmost ability to pay,
united the Colonies generally in opposing it." That we thought it
beyond our proportion and ability is true, but it was not this
thought which united the Colonies in opposing it. When he says that
at first, we did not dream of denying the authority of parliament to
tax us, much less to legislate for us, he discovers plainly either
a total inattention to the sentiments of America at that time, or a
disregard of what he affirms.
The truth is, the authority of parliament was never generally
acknowledged in America. More than a century since, Massachusetts
and Virginia, both protested against even the act of navigation
and refused obedience, for this very reason, because they were
not represented in parliament and were therefore not bound; and
afterwards confirmed it by their own provincial authority. And from
that time to this, the general sense of the Colonies has been, that
the authority of parliament was confined to the regulation of trade,
and did not extend to taxation or internal legislation.
In the year 1764, your house of representatives sent home a petition
to the king, against the plan of taxing them. Mr. Hutchinson, Oliver
and their relations and connections were then in the legislature, and
had great influence there. It was by their influence that the two
houses were induced to wave the word rights, and an express denial of
the right of parliament to tax us, to the great grief and distress
of the friends of liberty in both houses. Mr. Otis and Mr. Thatcher
laboured in the committee to obtain an express denial. Mr. Hutchinson
expressly said he agreed with them in opinion, that parliament had
no right, but thought it ill policy to express this opinion in the
petition. In truth, I will be bold to say, there was not any member
of either house, who thought that parliament had such a right at
that time. The house of representatives, at that time, gave their
approbation to Mr. Otis's rights of the Colonies, in which it was
shewn to be inconsistent with the right of British subjects to be
taxed, but by their own representatives.
In 1765, our house expressly resolved against the right of
parliament to tax us. The congress at New York resolved 3. "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.
4. That the people of the Colonies are not, and from their local
circumstances cannot be represented in the house of commons of Great
Britain. 5. 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." Is it not a striking disregard to
truth in the artful Massachusettensis to say, that at first we did
not dream of denying the right of parliament to tax us? It was the
principle that united the Colonies to oppose it, not the quantum of
the tax. Did not Dr. Franklin deny the right in 1754, in his remarks
upon governor Shirley's scheme, and supposed that all America would
deny it? We had considered ourselves as connected with Great Britain,
but we never thought parliament the supreme legislature over us. We
never generally supposed it to have any authority over us, but from
necessity, and that necessity we thought confined to the regulation
of trade, and to such matters as concerned all the colonies together.
We never allowed them any authority in our internal concerns.
This writer says, acts of parliament for regulating our internal
polity were familiar. This I deny. So far otherwise, that the
hatter's act was never regarded; the act to destroy the Land Bank
Scheme raised a greater ferment in this province, than the stamp-act
did, which was appeased only by passing province laws directly in
opposition to it. The act against slitting mills, and tilt hammers,
never was executed here. As to the postage, it was so useful a
regulation, so few persons paid it, and they found such a benefit
by it, that little opposition was made to it. Yet every man who
thought about it called it an usurpation. Duties for regulating
trade we paid, because we thought it just and necessary that they
should regulate the trade which their power protected. As for duties
for a revenue, none were ever laid by parliament for that purpose
until 1764, when, and ever since, its authority to do it has been
constantly denied. Nor is this complaisant writer near the truth,
when he says, "We know that in all those acts of government, the good
of the whole had been consulted." On the contrary, we know that the
private interest of provincial governors and West India planters, had
been consulted in the duties on foreign molasses, &c. and the private
interest of a few Portugal merchants, in obliging us to touch at
Falmouth with fruit, &c. in opposition to the good of the whole, and
in many other instances.
The resolves of the house of Burgesses of Virginia, upon the stamp
act, did great honor to that province, and to the eminent patriot
Patrick Henry, Esq. who composed them. But these resolves made no
alteration in the opinion of the Colonies, concerning the right of
parliament to make that act. They expressed the universal opinion of
the continent at that time, and the alacrity with which every other
Colony, and the congress at New York, adopted the same sentiment in
similar resolves, proves the entire union of the Colonies in it, and
their universal determination to avow and support it.
What follows here, that it became so popular that his life was in
danger, who suggested the contrary, and that the press was open to
one side only, are direct misrepresentations and wicked calumnies.
Then we are told, by this sincere writer, that when we obtained a
partial repeal of the statute imposing duties on glass, paper, and
teas, this was the lucky moment, when to have closed the dispute.
What? With a Board of commissioners remaining the sole end of
whose creation was to form and conduct a revenue--with an act of
parliament remaining, the professed design of which expressed in the
preamble, was to raise a revenue, and appropriate it to the payment
of governors' and judges' salaries, the duty remaining too upon an
article, which must raise a large sum, the consumption of which
would constantly increase? Was this a time to retreat? Let me ask
this sincere writer a simple question. Does he seriously believe
that the designs of imposing other taxes, and of new modelling our
governments, would have been bid aside, by the ministry or by the
servants of the crown here? Does he think that Mr. Bernard, Mr.
Hutchinson, the commissioners and others, would have been content
then to have desisted? If he really thinks so, he knows little of
the human heart, and still less of those gentlemen's hearts. It was
at this very time that the salary was given to the governor, and an
order soliciting for that to the judges.
Then we are entertained with a great deal of ingenious talk about
whigs and tories, and at last are told that some of the whigs owed
all their importance to popularity. And what then? Did not as many
of the tories owe their importance to popularity?--And did not many
more owe all their importance to unpopularity? If it had not been
for their taking an active part on the side of the ministry, would
not some of the most conspicuous and eminent of them have been
unimportant enough? Indeed, through the two last administrations to
despise and hate the people, and to be despised and hated by them
were the principal recommendations to the favours of government, and
all the qualification that was required.
The tories, says he, were for closing the controversy. That is, they
were for contending no more, and it was equally true that they never
were for contending at all, but lying at mercy. It was the very end
they had aimed at from the beginning. They had now got the governor's
salary out of the revenue--a number of pensions and places, and
they knew they could at any time get the judges' salaries from the
same fountain, and they wanted to get the people reconciled and
familiarised to this, before they went upon any new projects.
The whigs were averse to restoring government, they even refused
to revive a temporary riot act, which expired about this time.
Government had as much vigour then as ever, excepting only in those
cases which affected this dispute. The riot act expired in 1770,
immediately after the massacre in King Street. It was not revived and
never will be in this Colony, nor will any one ever be made in any
other, while a standing army is illegally posted here, to butcher
the people, whenever a governor, or a magistrate, who may be a tool,
shall order it. "Perhaps the whigs thought that mobs were a necessary
ingredient in their system of opposition." Whether they did or no, it
is certain that mobs have been thought a necessary ingredient by the
tories in their system of administration, mobs of the worst sort with
red coats, fuzees and bayonets, and the lives and limbs of the whigs
have been in greater danger from these, than ever the tories were
from others.
"The scheme of the whigs flattered the people with the idea of
independence; the tories' plan supposed a degree of subordination."
This is artful enough, as usual not to say jesuitical. The word
independence is one of those, which this writer uses, as he does
treason and rebellion, to impose upon the undistinguishing on both
sides of the Atlantic. But let us take him to pieces. What does he
mean by independence? Does he mean independent of the crown of Great
Britain, and an independent republic in America, or a confederation
of independent republics? No doubt he intended the undistinguishing
should understand him so. If he did; nothing can be more wicked,
or a greater slander on the whigs; because he knows there is not a
man in the province, among the whigs, nor ever was, who harbours
a wish of that sort. Does he mean that the people were flattered
with the idea of total independence on parliament? If he does,
this is equally malicious and injurious; because he knows that the
equity and necessity of parliament's regulating trade has always
been acknowledged, our determination to consent and submit to such
regulations constantly expressed, and all the acts of trade in fact,
to this very day, much more submitted to and strictly executed in
this province, than any other in America.
There is equal ambiguity in the words "degree of subordination."
The whigs acknowledge a subordination to the king, in as strict and
strong a sense as the tories. The whigs acknowledge a voluntary
subordination to parliament, as far as the regulation of trade. What
degree of subordination then do the tories acknowledge? An absolute
dependance upon parliament as their supreme legislative, in all cases
whatever, in their internal polity as well as taxation? This would
be too gross and would lose him all his readers; for there is nobody
here who will expose his understanding so much, as explicitly to
adopt such a sentiment. Yet it is such an absolute dependance and
submission, that these writers would persuade us to, or else there is
no need of changing our sentiments and conduct. Why will not these
gentlemen speak out, shew us plainly their opinion that the new
government, they have fabricated for this province, is better than
the old, and that all the other measures, we complain of, are for our
and the public good, and exhort us directly to submit to them? The
reason is, because they know they should lose their readers.
"The whigs were sensible that there was no oppression that could be
seen or felt." The tories have so often said and wrote this to one
another, that I sometimes suspect they believe it to be true. But
it is quite otherwise. The castle of the province was taken out of
their hand and garrisoned by regular soldiers: this they could see,
and they thought it indicated an hostile intention and disposition
towards them. They continually paid their money to collectors of
duties: this they could both see and feel. An host of placemen, whose
whole business it was to collect a revenue, were continually rolling
before them in their chariots. These they saw. Their governor was no
longer paid by themselves, according to their charter, but out of the
new revenue, in order to render their assemblies useless and indeed
contemptible. The judges' salaries were threatened every day to be
paid in the same unconstitutional manner. The dullest eye-sight could
not but see to what all this tended, viz.; to prepare the way for
greater innovations and oppressions. They knew a minister would never
spend his money in this way, if he had not some end to answer by it.
Another thing they both saw and felt. Every man, of every character,
who by voting, writing, speaking, or otherwise, had favoured the
stamp act, the tea act, and every other measure of a minister or
governor, who they knew was aiming at the destruction of their form
of government, and introducing parliamentary taxation, was uniformly,
in some department or other, promoted to some place of honour or
profit for ten years together: and, on the other hand, every man who
favoured the people in their opposition to those innovations, was
depressed, degraded and persecuted, as far as it was in the power of
the government to do it.
This they considered as a systematical means of encouraging every
man of abilities to espouse the cause of parliamentary taxation, and
the plan of destroying their charter privilege, and to discourage
all from exerting themselves, in opposition to them. This they
thought a plan to enslave them, for they uniformly think that the
destruction of their charter, making the council and judges wholly
dependant on the crown, and the people subject to the unlimited power
of parliament, as their supreme legislative, is slavery. They were
certainly rightly told, then, that the ministry and their governors
together had formed a design to enslave them; and that when once this
was done, they had the highest reason to expect window taxes, hearth
taxes, land taxes and all others: and that these were only paving the
way for reducing the country to lordships. Were the people mistaken
in these suspicions? Is it not now certain that governor Bernard
in 1764, had formed a design of this sort? Read his principles of
polity--And that lieutenant governor Oliver as late as 1768 or 9,
inforced the same plan? Read his letters.
Now if Massachusettensis will be ingenuous, avow this design, shew
the people its utility, and that it ought to be done by parliament,
he will act the part of an honest man. But to insinuate that there
was no such plan, when he knows there was, is acting the part of one
of the junto.
It is true that the people of this country in general, and of this
province in special, have an hereditary apprehension of and aversion
to lordships, temporal and spiritual. Their ancestors fled to this
wilderness to avoid them--they suffered sufficiently under them in
England. And there are few of the present generation, who have not
been warned of the danger of them by their fathers or grandfathers,
and injoined to oppose them. And neither Bernard nor Oliver ever
dared to avow, before them, the designs which they had certainly
formed to introduce them. Nor does Massachusettensis dare to avow
his opinion in their favour. I do not mean that such avowal would
expose their persons to danger, but their characters and writings to
universal contempt.
When you were told that the people of England were depraved, the
parliament venal, and the ministry corrupt, were you not told most
melancholy truths? Will Massachusettensis deny any of them? Does
not every man, who comes from England, whig or tory, tell you the
same thing? Do they make any secret of it, or use any delicacy about
it? Do they not most of them avow that corruption is so established
there, as to be incurable, and a necessary instrument of government?
Is not the British constitution arrived nearly to that point, where
the Roman republic was, when Jugurtha left it, and pronounced it a
venal city ripe for destruction, if it can only find a purchaser? If
Massachusettensis can prove that it is not, he will remove from my
mind, one of the heaviest loads which lies upon it.
Who has censured the tories for remissness, I know not. Whoever
it was, he did them great injustice. Every one that I know of
that character has been through the whole tempestuous period, as
indefatigable as human nature will admit, going about seeking whom
he might devour, making use of art, flattery, terror, temptation and
allurements in every shape, in which human wit could dress it up, in
public and private. But all to no purpose. The people have grown more
and more weary of them every day, until now the land mourns under
them.
Massachusettensis is then seized with a violent fit of anger at the
clergy. It is curious to observe the conduct of the tories towards
this sacred body. If a clergyman preaches against the principles of
the revolution, and tells the people that upon pain of damnation,
they must submit to an established government, of whatever character
the tories cry him up, as an excellent man, and a wonderful preacher,
invite him to their tables, procure him missions from the society,
and chaplainships to the navy, and flatter him with the hopes of lawn
sleeves. But if a clergyman preaches christianity, and tells the
magistrates that they were not distinguished from their brethren, for
their private emolument, but for the good of the people; that the
people are bound in conscience to obey a good government, but are
not bound to submit to one, that aims at destroying all the ends of
government--Oh Sedition! Treason!
The clergy in all ages and countries, and in this in particular,
are disposed enough to be on the side of government, as long as
it is tolerable. If they have not been generally, in the late
administrations, on that side, it is a demonstration that the late
administration has been universally odious.
The clergy of this province are a virtuous, sensible and learned set
of men; and they do not take their sermons from newspapers, but the
bible; unless it be a few, who preach passive obedience. These are
not generally curious enough to read Hobbs.