found to recant and resign, and so many others to fly to the army,
is a mistake; for the same things would have taken place, if such a
committee had never been in being, and such persons would probably
have met with much rougher usage. This writer asks, "have not these
persons as good a right to think and act for themselves as the
whigs?" I answer yes. But if any man, whig or tory, shall take it
into his head to think for himself, that he has a right to take my
property, without my consent; however tender I may be of the right of
private judgment and the freedom of thought, this is a point in which
I shall be very likely to differ from him, and to think for myself,
that I have a right to resist him. If any man should think, ever
so conscientiously that the Roman Catholic religion is better than
the Protestant, or that the French government is preferable to the
British constitution in its purity; Protestants and Britons, will not
be so tender of that man's conscience as to suffer him to introduce
his favourite religion and government. So the well bred gentlemen,
who are so polite as to think, that the charter constitution of
this province ought to be abolished, and another introduced, wholly
at the will of a minister or the crown; or that our ecclesiastical
constitution is bad, and high church ought to come in, few people
will be so tender of these consciences or complaisant to such
polite taste, as to suffer the one or the other to be established.
There are certain prejudices among the people, so strong, as to be
irresistible. Reasoning is vain, and opposition idle. For example,
there are certain popular maxims and precepts called the ten
commandments. Suppose a number of fine gentlemen, superior to the
prejudices of education, should discover that these were made for the
common people, and are too illiberal for gentlemen of refined taste
to observe; and accordingly should engage in secret confidential
correspondences to procure an act of parliament, to abolish the whole
decalogue, or to exempt them from all obligation to observe it. If
they should succeed, and their letters be detected, such is the force
of prejudice, and deep habits among the lower sort of people, that
it is much to be questioned, whether those refined geniuses would
be allowed to enjoy themselves in the latitude of their sentiments.
I once knew a man, who had studied Jacob Beckman and other mystics
until he conscientiously thought the millenium commenced, and all
human authority at an end; that the saints only had a right to
property, and to take from sinners any thing they wanted. In this
persuasion, he very honestly stole a horse. Mankind pitied the poor
man's infirmity, but thought it however their duty to confine him
that he might steal no more.
The freedom of thinking was never yet extended in any country so far,
as the utter subversion of all religion and morality; nor as the
abolition of the laws and constitution of the country.
But "are not these persons as closely connected with the interest
of their country as the whigs?" I answer, they are not: they have
found an interest in opposition to that of their country, and are
making themselves rich and their families illustrious, by depressing
and destroying their country. But "do not their former lives and
conversations appear to have been regulated by principles, as much as
those of the whigs?" A few of them, it must be acknowledged, until
seduced by the bewitching charms of wealth and power, appeared to be
men of principle. But taking the whigs and tories on an average, the
balance of principle, as well as genius, learning, wit and wealth, is
infinitely in favour of the former. As to some of these fugitives,
they are known to be men of no principles at all, in religion, morals
or government.
But the "policy" is questioned, and you are asked if you expect to
make converts by it? As to the policy or impolicy of it, I have
nothing to say; but we do not expect to make converts of most of
those persons by any means whatever, as long as they have any hopes
that the ministry will place and pension them. The instant these
hopes are extinguished, we all know they will be converted of course.
Converts from places and pensions are only to be made by places and
pensions; all other reasoning is idle; these are the _penultima
ratio_ of the tories, as field pieces are the _ultima_.
That we are not "unanimous is certain." But there are nineteen on one
side to one on the other, through the province; and ninety-nine, out
of an hundred of the remaining twentieth part, can be fairly shewn
to have some sinister private view, to induce them to profess his
opinion.
Then we are threatened high, that "this is a changeable world, and
times rolling wheel may ere long bring them uppermost, and in that
case we should not wish to have them fraught with resentment."
To all this we answer, without ceremony, that they always have been
uppermost, in every respect, excepting only the esteem and affection
of the people; that they always have been fraught with resentment
(even their cunning and policy have not restrained them) and we know
they always will be; that they have indulged their resentment and
malice, in every instance in which they had power to do it; and we
know that their revenge will never have other limits, than their
power.
Then this consistent writer, begins to flatter the people; "he
appeals to their good sense, he knows they have it;" the same people,
whom he has so many times represented as mad and foolish.
"I know you are loyal and friends to good order." This is the
same people that, in the whole course of his writings, he has
represented as continuing for ten years together in a continual
state of disorder, demolishing the chair, board, supreme court, and
encouraging all sorts of riots, insurrections, treason and rebellion.
Such are the shifts to which a man is driven, when he aims at
carrying a point, not at discovering truth.
The people are then told that "they have been insidiously taught to
believe that Great Britain is rapacious, cruel and vindictive, and
envies us the inheritance purchased by the sweat and blood of our
ancestors." The people do not believe this--they will not believe it.
On the contrary, they believe, if it was not for scandals constantly
transmitted from this province by the tories, the nation would
redress our grievances. Nay as little as they reverence the ministry,
they even believe that the lords North, Mansfield and Bute would
relieve them, and would have done it long ago, if they had known
the truth. The moment this is done "long live our gracious king and
happiness to Britain," will resound from one end of the province to
the other; but it requires a very little foresight to determine, that
no other plan of governing the province and the colonies will ever
restore a harmony between the two countries, but desisting from the
plan of taxing them and interfering with their internal concerns,
and returning to that system of colony administration, which nature
dictated, and experience for one hundred and fifty years found useful.
NOVANGLUS.
ADDRESSED
_To the Inhabitants of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay_,
March 6, 1775.
MY FRIENDS,
Our rhetorical magician, in his paper of January the 9th continues
to _wheedle_. "You want nothing but to know the true state of facts,
to rectify whatever is amiss." He becomes an advocate for the poor
of Boston! Is for making great allowance for the whigs. "The whigs
are too valuable a part of the community to lose. He would not draw
down the vengeance of Great Britain. He shall become an advocate for
the leading whigs." &c. It is in vain for us to enquire after the
_sincerity_ or _consistency_ of all this. It is agreeable to the
precept of Horace. _Irritat, mulcet, falsis terroribus implet, ut
magus._ And that is all he desires.
After a long discourse, which has nothing in it, but what has been
answered already, he comes to a great subject indeed, the British
constitution; and undertakes to prove that "the authority of
parliament extends to the colonies."
Why will not this writer state the question fairly? The whigs
allow that from the necessity of a case not provided for by common
law, and to supply a defect in the British dominions, which there
undoubtedly is, if they are to be governed only by that law, America
has all along consented, still consents, and ever will consent, that
parliament being the most powerful legislature in the dominions,
should regulate the trade of the dominions. This is founding the
authority of parliament to regulate our trade, upon _compact_
and _consent_ of the colonies, not upon any principle of common
or statute law, not upon any original principle of the English
constitution, not upon the principle that parliament is the supreme
and sovereign legislature over them in all cases whatsoever.
The question is not therefore, whether the authority of parliament
extends to the colonies in any case; for it is admitted by the whigs
that it does in that of commerce: but whether it extends in all cases.
We are then detained with a long account of the three simple forms of
government; and are told that "the British constitution consisting of
king, lords and commons, is formed upon the principles of monarchy,
aristocracy and democracy, in due proportion; that it includes the
principal excellencies, and excludes the principal defects of the
other kinds of government--the most perfect system that the wisdom
of ages has produced, and Englishmen glory in being subject to and
protected by it."
Then we are told, "that the colonies are a part of the British
empire." But what are we to understand by this? Some of the colonies,
most of them indeed, were settled before the kingdom of Great Britain
was brought into existence. The union of England and Scotland, was
made and established by act of parliament in the reign of queen
Ann; and it was this union and statute which erected the kingdom
of Great Britain. The colonies were settled long before, in the
reigns of the Jameses and Charleses. What authority over them had
Scotland? Scotland, England, and the colonies were all under one
king before that; the two crowns of England and Scotland, united on
the head of James the first, and continued united on that of Charles
the first, when our first charter was granted. Our charter being
granted by him, who was king of both nations, to our ancestors, most
of whom were _post nati_, born after the union of the two crowns,
and consequently, as was adjudged in Calvin's case, free, natural
subjects of Scotland, as well as England; had not the king as good
a right to have governed the colonies by his Scottish, as by his
English parliament, and to have granted our charters under the seal
of Scotland, as well as that of England?
But to wave this. If the English parliament were to govern us, where
did they get the right, without our consent to take the Scottish
parliament into a participation of the government over us? When this
was done, was the American share of the democracy of the constitution
consulted? If not, were not the Americans deprived of the benefit of
the democratical part of the constitution? And is not the democracy
as essential to the English constitution, as the monarchy or
aristocracy? Should we have been more effectually deprived of the
benefit of the British or English constitution, if one or both houses
of parliament, or if our house and council had made this union with
the two houses of parliament in Scotland, without the king?
If a new constitution was to be formed for the whole British
dominions, and a supreme legislature coextensive with it, upon the
general principles of the English constitution, an equal mixture
of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, let us see what would be
necessary. England had six millions of people we will say: America
had three. England has five hundred members in the house of commons
we will say: America must have two hundred and fifty. Is it possible
she should maintain them there, or could they at such a distance
know the state, the sense or exigencies of their constituents?
Ireland, too, must be incorporated, and send another hundred or two
of members. The territory in the East Indies and West India Islands
must send members. And after all this, every navigation act, every
act of trade must be repealed. America and the East and West Indies
and Africa too must have equal liberty to trade with all the world,
that the favoured inhabitants of Great Britain have now. Will the
ministry thank Massachusettensis for becoming an advocate for such
an union and incorporation of all the dominions of the king of Great
Britain? Yet without such an union, a legislature which shall be
sovereign and supreme in all cases whatsoever, and coextensive with
the empire, can never be established upon the general principles
of the English constitution, which Massachusettensis lays down,
viz. an equal mixture of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. Nay
further, in order to comply with this principle, this new government,
this mighty Colossus, which is to bestride the narrow world, must
have an house of lords consisting of Irish, East and West Indian,
African, American, as well as English and Scottish noblemen; for the
nobility ought to be scattered about all the dominions, as well as
the representatives of the commons. If in twenty years more America
should have six millions of inhabitants, as there is a boundless
territory to fill up, she must have five hundred representatives.
Upon these principles, if in forty years she should have twelve
millions, a thousand; and if the inhabitants of the three kingdoms
remain as they are, being already full of inhabitants, what will
become of your supreme legislative? It will be translated, crown
and all, to America. This is a sublime system for America. It will
flatter those ideas of independency, which the tories impute to them,
if they have any such, more than any other plan of independency that
I have ever heard projected.
"The best writers upon the law of nations, tell us, that when a
nation takes possession of a distant country and settles there,
that country, though separated from the principal establishment, or
mother country, naturally becomes a part of the state, equal with
its ancient possessions." We are not told who these "best writers"
are: I think we ought to be introduced to them. But their meaning
may be no more, than that it is best they should be incorporated
with the ancient establishment by contract, or by some new law
and institution, by which the new country shall have equal right,
powers and privileges, as well as equal protection; and be under
equal obligations of obedience with the old. Has there been any such
contract between Britain and the colonies? Is America incorporated
into the realm? Is it a part of the realm? Is it a part of the
kingdom? Has it any share in the legislative of the realm? The
constitution requires that every foot of land should be represented
in the third estate, the democratical branch of the constitution.
How many millions of acres in America, how many thousands of wealthy
landholders, have no representatives there.
But let these "best writers" say what they will, there is nothing in
the law of nations, which is only the law of right reason, applied
to the conduct of nations, that requires that emigrants from a state
that should continue, or be made a part of the state.
The practice of nations has been different. The Greeks planted
colonies, and neither demanded nor pretended any authority over them,
but they became distinct independent commonwealths.
The Romans continued their colonies under the jurisdiction of
the mother commonwealth; but, nevertheless, she allowed them the
privileges of cities. Indeed that sagacious city seems to have been
aware of difficulties, similar to those, under which Great Britain is
now labouring; she seems to have been sensible of the impossibility
of keeping colonies, planted at great distances, under the absolute
controul of her _senatus consulta_. Harrington tells us, Oceana p.
43. that "the commonwealth of Rome, by planting colonies of its
citizens within the bounds of Italy, took the best way of propagating
itself, and naturalizing the country; whereas if it had planted such
colonies without the bounds of Italy, it would have alienated the
citizens, and given a root to liberty abroad, that might have sprung
up foreign, or savage and hostile to her; _wherefore it never made
any such dispersion of itself and its strength_, till it was under
the yoke of the emperors, who disburdening themselves of the people,
as having less apprehension of what they could do abroad than at
home, took a contrary course." But these Italian cities, although
established by decrees of the senate of Rome, to which the colonist
was always party, either as a Roman citizen about to emigrate, or as
a conquered enemy treating upon terms; were always allowed all the
rights of Roman citizens, and were governed by senates of their own.
It was the policy of Rome to conciliate her colonies, by allowing
them equal liberties with her citizens. Witness the example of the
Privernates. This people had been conquered, and complaining of
oppressions, revolted. At last they sent ambassadors to Rome to treat
of peace. The senate was divided in opinion. Some were for violent,
others for lenient measures. In the course of the debate, a senator,
whose opinion was for _bringing them to his feet_, proudly asked
one of the ambassadors, what punishment he thought his countrymen
deserved? _Eam inquit, quam merentur, qui se libertate dignos
censent._ That punishment which those deserve, who think themselves
worthy of liberty. Another senator, seeing that the _ministerial
members_ were exasperated with the honest answer, in order to divert
their anger, asks another question. What if we remit all punishment?
What kind of a peace may we hope for with you? _Si bonam dederitis,
inquit et fidam, et perpetuam; si malam, haud diuturnam._ If you give
us a just peace, it will be faithfully observed, and perpetually:
but if a bad one, it will not last long. The _ministerial_ senators
were all on fire at this answer, cried out sedition and rebellion;
but the wiser majority decreed, "_viri et liberi, vocem auditam, an
credi posse, ullum populum, aut hominem denique, in ea conditione,
cujus cum paeniteat, diutius, quam necesse sit, mansurum? Ibi pacem
esse fidam, ubi voluntarii pacati sint; neque eo loco, ubi servitutem
esse velint, fidem sperandam esse._" "That they had heard the voice
of a man and a son of liberty; that it was not natural or credible
that any people, or any man, would continue longer than necessity
should compel him, in a condition that grieved and displeased him.
A faithful peace was to be expected from men whose affections were
conciliated, nor was any kind of fidelity to be expected from
slaves." The consul exclaimed, "_Eos demum qui nihil, praeterquam de
libertate, existent, dignos esse qui Romani fiant._" That they who
regarded nothing so much as their liberty, deserved to be Romans.
"_Itaque et in senatu causam obtinuere, et ex auctoritate patrum,
latum ad populum est, ut Privernatibus civitas daretur._" Therefore
the Privernates obtained their cause in the senate, and it was by
the authority of those fathers, recommended to the people, that
the privileges of a city should be granted them. The practice of
free nations only can be adduced, as precedents of what the law of
nature has been thought to dictate upon this subject of colonies.
Their practice is different. The senate and people of Rome did not
interfere commonly by making laws for their colonies, but left them
to be ruled by their governors and senates. Can Massachusettensis
produce from the whole history of Rome, or from the Digest, one
example of a _Senatus consultum_ or a _Plebiscitum_ laying taxes on
the colony?
Having mentioned the wisdom of the Romans, for not planting colonies
out of Italy, and their reasons for it, I cannot help recollecting
an observation of Harrington, Oceana, p. 44. "For the colonies in
the Indies," says he, "they are yet babes, that cannot live without
sucking the breasts of their mother cities; but such as I mistake,
if, when they come of age, they do not wean themselves, which causes
me to wonder at princes that delight to be exhausted that way." This
was written 120 years ago; the colonies are now nearer manhood than
ever Harrington foresaw they would arrive, in such a period of time.
Is it not astonishing then, that any British minister should ever
have considered this subject so little, as to believe it possible
for him to new model all our governments, to tax us by an authority
that never taxed us before, and subdue us to an implicit obedience to
a legislature, that millions of us scarcely ever thought any thing
about?
I have said, that the practice of free governments alone can be
quoted with propriety, to shew the sense of nations. But the sense
and practice of nations is not enough. Their practice must be
reasonable, just and right, or it will not govern Americans.
Absolute monarchies, whatever their practice may be, are nothing to
us. For as Harrington observes, "Absolute monarchy, as that of the
Turks, neither plants its people at home nor abroad, otherwise than
as tenants for life or at will; wherefore its national and provincial
government is all one."
I deny, therefore, that the practice of free nations, or the opinions
of the best writers upon the law of nations, will warrant the
position of Massachusettensis, that when a nation takes possession
of a distant territory, that becomes a part of the state equally
with its ancient possessions. The practice of free nations, and the
opinions of the best writers, are in general on the contrary.
I agree, that "two supreme and independent authorities cannot exist
in the same state," any more than two supreme beings in one universe.
And therefore I contend, that our provincial legislatures are the
only supreme authorities in our colonies. Parliament, notwithstanding
this, may be allowed an authority supreme and sovereign over the
ocean, which may be limited by the banks of the ocean, or the bounds
of our charters; our charters give us no authority over the high
seas. Parliament has our consent to assume a jurisdiction over them.
And here is a line fairly drawn between the rights of Britain and
the rights of the colonies, viz. the banks of the ocean, or low
water mark; the line of division between common law and civil, or
maritime law. If this is not sufficient--if parliament are at a loss
for any principle of natural, civil, maritime, moral or common law,
on which to ground any authority over the high seas, the Atlantic
especially, let the Colonies be treated like reasonable creatures,
and they will discover great ingenuity and modesty. The acts of trade
and navigation might be confirmed by provincial laws, and carried
into execution by our own courts and juries, and in this case illicit
trade would be cut up by the roots forever. I knew the smuggling
tories in New-York and Boston would cry out against this, because
it would not only destroy their profitable game of smuggling, but
their whole place and pension system. But the whigs, that is a vast
majority of the whole continent, would not regard the smuggling
tories. In one word, if public principles and motives and arguments,
were alone to determine this dispute between the two countries,
it might be settled forever, in a few hours; but the everlasting
clamours of prejudice, passion and private interest, drown every
consideration of that sort, and are precipitating us into a civil war.
"If then we are a part of the British empire, we must be subject to
the supreme power of the state, which is vested in the estates in
parliament."
Here again we are to be conjured out of our senses by the magic in
the words "British empire," and "supreme power of the state." But
however it may sound, I say we are not a part of the British empire;
because the British government is not an empire. The governments of
France, Spain, &c. are not empires, but monarchies, supposed to be
governed by fixed fundamental laws, though not really. The British
government is still less intitled to the style of an empire: it is
a limited monarchy. If Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington knew what a
republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic,
than an empire. They define a republic to be _a government of laws,
and not of men_. If this definition is just, the British constitution
is nothing more nor less than a republic, in which the king is first
magistrate. This office being hereditary and being possessed of such
ample and splendid prerogatives, is no objection to the government's
being a republic, as long as it is bound by fixed laws, which the
people have a voice in making, and a right to defend. An empire is a
despotism, and an emperor a despot, bound by no law or imitation, but
his own will: it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy.
For although the will of an absolute monarch is law, yet his edicts
must be registered by parliaments. Even this formality is not
necessary in an empire. There the maxim is _quod principi placuit,
legis habet vigorem_, even without having that will and pleasure
recorded. There are but three empires now in Europe, the German, or
holy Roman, the Russian and the Ottoman.
There is another sense indeed, in which the word empire is used, in
which it may be applied to the government of Geneva, or any other
republic, as well as to monarchy, or despotism. In this sense it is
synonimous with government, rule, or dominion. In this sense, we are
within the dominion, rule, or government of the king of Great Britain.
The question should be, whether we are a part of the kingdom of Great
Britain: this is the only language, known in English laws. We are not
then a part of the British kingdom, realm or state; and therefore
the supreme power of the kingdom, realm or state, is not upon these
principles, the supreme power of us. That "supreme power over America
is vested in the estates in parliament," is an affront to us; for
there is not an acre of American land represented there--there are no
American estates in parliament.