gives this reason for its establishment, and for laying taxes thereby
imposed on the carriage of letters in Great Britain and Ireland, the
colonies and plantations in North America and the West Indies, and
all other her majesty's dominions and territories, "that the business
may be done in such manner as may be most beneficial to the people
of these kingdoms, and her majesty may be supplied, and the revenue
arising by the said office, better improved, settled, and secured to
her majesty, her heirs, and successors." The celebrated patriot, Dr.
Franklin, was till lately one of the principal collectors of it. The
merit in putting the post-office in America upon such a footing as to
yield a large revenue to the crown, is principally ascribed to him by
the whigs. I would not wish to detract from the real merit of that
gentleman, but had a tory been half so assiduous in increasing the
America revenue, Novanglus would have wrote parricide at the end of
his name. By an act of the sixth of George 2d. a duty is laid on all
foreign rum, molasses, syrups, sugars, and paneles, to be _raised,
levied, collected, and paid unto, and for the use of his majesty,
his heirs, and successors_. The preamble of an act of the fourth
of his present majesty declares, "that _it is just and necessary
that a revenue in America for defraying the expences of defending,
protecting, and securing the same_," &c. by which act duties are laid
upon foreign sugars, coffee, Madeira wine; upon Portugal, Spanish,
and all other wine, except French wine, imported from Great Britain;
upon silks, bengals, stuffs, calico, linen cloth, cambric, and lawn,
imported from particular places.
Thus, my friends, it is evident, that the parliament has been in the
actual, uninterrupted use and exercise of the right claimed by them,
to raise a revenue in America, from a period more remote than the
grant of the present charter, to this day. These revenue acts have
never been called unconstitutional till very lately. Both whigs and
tories acknowledged them to be constitutional. In 1764, Governor
Bernard wrote and transmitted to his friends, his polity alluded
to, and in part recited by Novanglus, wherein he asserts the right
or authority of the parliament to tax the colonies. Mr. Otis, whose
patriotism, sound policy, profound learning, integrity and honour,
is mentioned in strong terms by Novanglus, in the self-same year, in
a pamphlet which he published to the whole world, asserts the right
or authority of parliament to tax the colonies, as roundly as ever
Governor Bernard did, which I shall have occasion to take an extract
from hereafter. Mr. Otis was at that time the most popular man in the
province, and continued his popularity many years afterwards.
Is it not a most astonishing instance of caprice, or infatuation,
that a province, torn from its foundations, should be precipitating
itself into a war with Great Britain, because the British parliament
asserts its right of raising a revenue in America, inasmuch as the
claim of that right is as ancient as the colonies themselves; and
there is at present no grievous exercise of it? The parliaments
refusing to repeal the act is the ostensible foundation of our
quarrel. If we ask the whigs whether the pitiful three penny duty
upon a luxurious, unwholesome, foreign commodity gives just occasion
for the opposition; they tell us it is the precedent they are
contending about, insinuating that it is an innovation. But this
ground is not tenable; for a total repeal of the tea act would not
serve us upon the score of precedents. They are numerous without
this. The whigs have been extremely partial respecting tea. Poor
tea has been made the shibboleth of party, while molasses, wine,
coffee, indigo, &c. &c. have been unmolested. A person that drinks
New England rum, distilled from molasses, subject to a like duty,
is equally deserving of a coat of tar and feathers, with him that
drinks tea. A coffee drinker is as culpable as either, viewed in a
political light. But, say our patriots, if the British parliament
may take a penny from us, without our consent, they may a pound, and
so on, till they have filched away all our property. This incessant
incantation operates like a spell or charm, and checks the efforts of
loyalty in many an honest breast. Let us give it its full weight. Do
they mean, that if the parliament has a right to raise a revenue of
one penny on the colonies, that they must therefore have a _right_
to wrest from us all our property? If this be their meaning, I deny
their deduction; for the supreme legislature can have no right to
tax any part of the empire to a greater amount, than its just and
equitable proportion of the necessary, national expence. This is
a line drawn by the constitution itself. Do they mean, that if we
admit that the parliament may constitutionally raise one penny upon
us for the purposes of revenue, they will probably proceed from
light to heavy taxes, till their impositions become grievous and
intolerable? This amounts to no more than a denial of the right,
lest it should be abused. But an argument drawn from the actual
abuse of a power, will not conclude to the illegality of such power,
much less will an argument drawn from a capability of its being
abused. If it would, we might readily argue away all power, that
man is entrusted with. I will admit, that a power of taxation is
more liable to abuse, than legislation separately considered; and
it would give me pleasure to see some other line drawn; some other
barrier erected, than what the constitution has already done, if it
be possible, whereby the constitutional authority of the supreme
legislature, might be preserved entire, and America be guaranteed
in every right and exemption, consistent with her subordination and
dependance. But this can only be done by parliament. I repeat I am
no advocate for a land tax, or any other kind of internal tax, nor
do I think we were in any danger of them. I have not been able to
discover one symptom of any such intention in the parliament, since
the repeal of the stamp-act. Indeed, the principal speakers of the
majority, that repealed the stamp-act drew the line for us, between
internal and external taxation, and I think we ought, in honour,
justice, and good policy, to have acquiesced therein, at least until
there was some burdensome exercise of taxation. For there is but
little danger from the latter, that is from duties laid upon trade,
as any grievous restriction or imposition on American trade, would
be sensibly felt by the British; and I think with Dr. Franklin, that
"they (the British nation) have a natural and equitable right to some
toll or duty upon merchandizes carried through that part of their
dominions, viz: the American seas, towards defraying the expence they
are at in ships to maintain the safety of that carriage." These were
his words in his examination at the bar of the house, in 1765. _Sed
tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis._ Before we appeal to heaven
for the justice of our cause, we ought to determine with ourselves,
some other questions, whether America is not obliged in equity to
contribute something toward the national defence: whether the present
American revenue, amounts to our proportion: and whether we can, with
any tolerable grace, accuse Great Britain of _injustice_ in imposing
the late duties, when our assemblies were previously called upon, and
refused to make any provision for themselves. These, with several
imaginary grievances, not yet particularly remarked upon, I shall
consider in reviewing the publications of Novanglus; a performance
which, though not destitute of ingenuity, I read with a mixture of
grief and indignation, as it seems to be calculated to blow up every
spark of animosity, and to kindle such a flame, as must inevitably
consume a great part of this once happy province, before it can be
extinguished.
MASSACHUSETTENSIS.
ADDRESSED
_To the Inhabitants of the Province of Massachusetts Bay_,
March 6, 1775.
MY DEAR COUNTRYMEN,
Novanglus, and all others, have an indisputable right to publish
their sentiments and opinions to the world, provided they conform
to truth, decency, and the municipal laws, of the society of which
they are members. He has wrote with a professed design of exposing
the errors and sophistry which he supposes are frequent in my
publications. His design is so far laudable, and I intend to correct
them wherever he convinces me there is an instance of either. I
have no objection to the minutest disquisition; contradiction and
disputation, like the collision of flint and steel, often strike
out new light; the bare opinions of either of us, unaccompanied
by the grounds and reasons upon which they were formed, must be
considered only as propositions made to the reader, for him to adopt,
or reject as his own reason may judge, or feelings dictate. A large
proportion of the labours of Novanglus consist in denials of my
allegations in matters of such public notoriety, as that no reply
is necessary. He has alleged many things destitute of foundation;
those that affect the main object of our pursuit, but remotely, if
at all, I shall pass by without particular remark; others, of a more
interesting nature, I shall review minutely. After some general
observations upon Massachusettensis, he slides into a most virulent
attack upon particular persons, by names, with such incomparable
ease, that shews him to be a great proficient in the modern art
of detraction and calumny. He accuses the late governor Shirley,
governor Hutchinson, the late lieutenant governor Oliver, the late
judge Russell, Mr. Paxton, and brigadier Ruggles, of a conspiracy to
enslave their country. The charge is high coloured; if it be just,
they merit the epithets dealt about so indiscriminately, of enemies
to their country. If it be groundless, Novanglus has acted the part
of an assassin, in thus attempting to destroy the reputation of the
living; and of something worse than an assassin, in entering those
hallowed mansions, where the wicked commonly cease from troubling,
and the weary are at rest, to disturb the repose of the dead. That
the charge is groundless respecting governor Bernard, governor
Hutchinson, and the late lieutenant governor, I dare assert, because
they have been acquitted of it in such a manner, as every good
citizen must acquiesce in. Our house of representatives, acting as
the grand inquest of the province, presented them before the king in
council, and after a full hearing, they were acquitted with honour,
and the several impeachments dismissed, as groundless, vexatious,
and scandalous. The accusation of the house was similar to this of
Novanglus; the court they chose to institute their suit in, was of
competent and high jurisdiction, and its decision final. This is
a sufficient answer to the state charges made by this writer, so
far as they respect the governors Bernard, Hutchinson and Oliver,
whom he accuses as principals; and it is a general rule, that
if the principal be innocent, the accessary cannot be guilty. A
determination of a constitutional arbiter ought to seal up the lips
of even prejudice itself, in silence; otherwise litigation must be
endless. This calumniator, nevertheless, has the effrontery to renew
the charge in a public news paper, although thereby he arraigns our
most gracious Sovereign, and the lords of the privy council, as well
as the gentlemen he has named. Not content with wounding the honour
of judges, counsellors and governors, with missile weapons, darted
from an obscure corner, he now aims a blow at majesty itself. Any one
may accuse; but accusation, unsupported by proof, recoils upon the
head of the accuser. It is entertaining enough to consider the crimes
and misdemeanors alleged, and then examine the evidence he adduces,
stript of the false glare he has thrown upon it.
The crimes are these; the persons named by him conspired together
to _enslave_ their country, in consequence of a plan, the outlines
of which have been drawn by sir Edmund Andross and others, and
handed down by tradition to the present times. He tells us that
governor Shirley, in 1754, communicated the profound secret, the
great design of taxing the colonies by act of parliament, to the
sagacious gentleman, eminent philosopher, and distinguished patriot,
Dr. Franklin. The profound secret is this; after the commencement
of hostilities between the English and French colonies in the last
war, a convention of committees from several provinces were called by
the king, to agree upon some general plan of defence. The principal
difficulty they met with was in devising means whereby each colony
might be obliged to contribute its proportionable part. General
Shirley proposed _that application should be made to parliament to
impower the committees of the several colonies to tax the whole
according to their several proportions_. This plan was adopted by the
convention, and approved of by the assembly in New York, who passed a
resolve in these words: "That the scheme proposed by governor Shirley
for the defence of the British colonies in North America, is well
concerted, and that this colony joins therein." This however did not
succeed, and he proposed another, viz. for the parliament to assess
each one's proportion, and in case of failure to raise it on their
part, that it should be done by parliament. This is the profound
secret. His assiduity, in endeavouring to have some effectual plan
of general defence established, is, by the false colouring of this
writer, represented as an attempt to aggrandise himself, family and
friends; and that gentleman, under whose administration the several
parties in the province were as much united, and the whole province
rendered as happy as it ever was, for so long a time together, is
called a "crafty, busy, ambitious, intriguing, enterprizing man."
This attempt of Governor Shirley for a parliamentary taxation,
is however a circumstance strongly militating with this writer's
hypothesis, for the approbation shewn to the Governor's proposal
by the convention, which consisted of persons from the several
colonies, not inferior in point of discernment, integrity, knowledge
or patriotism to the members of our late _grand_ congress, and the
vote of the New York assembly furnishes pretty strong evidence that
the authority of parliament, even in point of taxation, was not
doubted in that day. Even Dr. Franklin, in the letter alluded to,
does not deny the right. His objections go to the inexpediency of the
measure. He supposes it would create uneasiness in the minds of the
colonists should they be thus taxed, unless they were previously
allowed to send representatives to parliament. If Dr. Franklin really
supposes that the parliament has no constitutional right to raise a
revenue in America, I must confess myself at a loss to reconcile his
conduct in accepting the office of post-master, and his assiduity
in increasing the revenue in that department, to the patriotism
predicated of him by Novanglus, especially as this unfortunately
happens to be an internal tax. This writer then tells us, that the
plan was interrupted by the war, and afterwards by Governor Pownal's
administration. That Messieurs Hutchinson and Oliver, stung with envy
at Governor Pownal's favourites, propagated slanders respecting him
to render him uneasy in his seat. My answer is this, that he that
publishes such falsehoods as these in a public newspaper, with an air
of seriousness, insults the understanding of the public, more than he
injures the individuals he defames. In the next place we are told,
that Governor Bernard was the proper man for this purpose, and he
was employed by the junto to suggest to the ministry the project of
taxing the colonies by act of parliament. Sometimes Governor Bernard
is the arch enemy of America, the source of all our troubles, now
only a tool in the hands of others. I wish Novanglus's memory had
served him better, his tale might have been consistent with itself,
however variant from truth. After making these assertions with equal
gravity and assurance, he tells us, he does not advance this without
evidence. I had been looking out for evidence a long time, and was
all attention when it was promised, but my disappointment was equal
to the expectation he had raised, when I found the evidence amounted
to nothing more than Governor Bernard's letters and principles of
law and polity, wherein he asserts the supremacy of parliament over
the colonies both as to legislation and taxation. Where this writer
got his logic, I do not know. Reduced to a syllogism, his argument
stands thus; Governor Bernard, in 1764, wrote and transmitted to
England certain letters and principles of law and polity, wherein
he asserts the right of parliament to tax the colonies; Messieurs
Hutchinson and Oliver were in unison with him in all his measures;
therefore Messieurs Hutchinson and Oliver employed Governor Bernard
to suggest to the ministry the project of taxing the colonies by
act of parliament. The letters and principles are the whole of the
evidence, and this is all the appearance of argument contained in
his publication. Let us examine the premises. That Governor Bernard
asserted the right of parliament to tax the colonies in 1764, is
true. So did Mr. Otis, in a pamphlet he published the self-same year,
from which I have already taken an extract. In a pamphlet published
in 1765, Mr. Otis tells us, "it is certain that the parliament of
Great Britain hath a just, clear, equitable and constitutional right,
power and authority to bind the colonies by all acts wherein they are
named. Every lawyer, nay every Tyro, knows this; no less certain is
it that the parliament of Great Britain has a just and _equitable_
right, power and authority to impose taxes on the colonies _internal
and external, on lands as well as on trade_." But does it follow from
Governor Bernard's transmitting his principles of polity to four
persons in England, or from Mr. Otis's publishing to the whole world
similar principles, that either the one or the other suggested to the
ministry the project of taxing the colonies by act of parliament?
Hardly, supposing the transmission and publication had been prior to
the resolution of parliament to that purpose; but very unfortunately
for our reasoner, they were both subsequent to it, and were the
effect and not the cause.
The history of the stamp act is this. At the close of the last war,
which was a native of America, and increased the national debt
upwards of sixty millions, it was thought by parliament to be but
equitable, that an additional revenue should be raised in America,
towards defraying the necessary charges of keeping it in a state
of defence. A resolve of this nature was passed, and the colonies
made acquainted with it through their agents, in 1764, that their
assemblies might make the necessary provision if they would. The
assemblies neglected doing any thing, and the parliament passed the
stamp act. There is not so much as a colourable pretence that any
American had a hand in the matter. Had governor Bernard, governor
Hutchinson, or the late lieutenant governor been any way instrumental
in obtaining the stamp act, it is very strange that not a glimpse
of evidence should ever have appeared, especially when we consider
that their private correspondence has been published, letters which
were written in the full confidence of unsuspecting friendship. The
evidence, as Novanglus calls it, is wretchedly deficient as to fixing
the charge upon governor Bernard; but, even admitting that governor
Bernard suggested to the ministry the design of taxing, there is no
kind of evidence to prove that the junto, as this elegant writer
calls the others, approved of it, much less that they employed him to
do it. But, says he, no one can doubt but that Messieurs Hutchinson
and Oliver were in unison with governor Bernard, in all his measures.
This is not a fact, Mr. Hutchinson dissented from him respecting the
alteration of our charter, and wrote to his friends in England to
prevent it. Whether governor Bernard wrote in favour of the stamp
act being repealed or not I cannot say, but I know that governor
Hutchinson did, and have reason to think his letters had great weight
in turning the scale, which hung doubtful a long time, in favour of
the repeal. These facts are known to many in the province, whigs as
well as tories, yet such was the infatuation that prevailed, that
the mob destroyed his house upon supposition that he was the patron
of the stamp act. Even in the letters wrote to the late Mr. Whately,
we find him advising to a total repeal of the tea act. It cannot be
fairly inferred from persons' intimacy or mutual confidence that
they always approve of each others plans. Messieurs Otis, Cushing,
Hancock and Adams were as confidential friends, and made common cause
equally with the other gentlemen. May we thence infer, that the three
latter hold that the parliament has a just and _equitable right_
to impose taxes on the colonies? Or, that "the time may come, when
the real interest of the whole may require an act of parliament to
annihilate all our charters?" For these also are Mr. Otis's words.
Or may we lay it down as a principle to reason from, that these
gentlemen never disagree respecting measures? We know they do often,
very materially. This writer is unlucky both in his principles and
inferences. But where is the evidence respecting brigadier Ruggles,
Mr. Paxton, and the late judge Russel? He does not produce even the
shadow of a shade. He does not even pretend that they were in unison
with governor Bernard in all his measures. In matters of small moment
a man may be allowed to amuse with ingenious fiction, but in personal
accusation, in matters so interesting both to the individual and to
the public, reason and candour require something more than assertion,
without proof, declamation without argument, and censure without
dignity or moderation: this however, is characteristic of Novanglus.
It is the stale trick of the whig writers feloniously to stab the
reputation, when their antagonists are invulnerable in their public
conduct.