address to the publick, recommended petitioning and humbly
representing the hardship of certain measures; and yet before he
finished his first paper, he pointed out to us the unhappy effects
in former times of the very method he had prescribed. Those
"intemperate patriots" it seems, the majority of both houses of the
general assembly, not hearkning to the cool advice of the few wise
men within and without doors, must needs make their humble
representations to the King and Council upon the claims of New-
Hampshire and Rhode-Island: And what was the consequence? Why, he
says the province lost ten times the value of the land in dispute.
Did Chronus mean by this and such like instances, to enforce the
measure which he had recommended? They certainly afford a poor
encouragement for us to persevere in the way of petitioning and
humble representation. But perhaps he will say, the General Assembly
had at that time no reason to complain of the incroachment of these
sister colonies their claims were just; and the discerning few who
were in that mind were in the right. Just so he says is the case
now. For he tells us that "no one has attempted to infringe the
peoples rights." Upon what principle then would he have us petition?
It is possible, for I would fain understand him, that what Candidus
and others call an invasion of our rights, he may choose to
denominate a Grievance; for if we suffer no Grievance, he can
certainly have no reason to advise us to represent the hardship of
certain measures. And I am the rather inclin'd to think, that this
is his particular humour, because I find that the stamp-act, which
almost every one looked upon as a most violent infraction of our
natural and constitutional rights, is called by this writer a
Grievance. And he is so singular as to enquire, "What Liberties we
are now deprived of," aitho' an act of parliament is still in being,
and daily executed, very similar to the stamp-act, and form'd for
the very same purpose, viz, the raising and establishing a revenue
in the colonies by virtue of a suppos'd inherent right in the
British parliament, where the colonies cannot be represented, and
therefore without their consent. The exercise of such a power
Chronus would have us consider as a Grievance indeed, but not by any
means a deprivation of our rights and liberties, or even so much as
the least infringement of them. Mr. Locke has often been quoted in
the present dispute between Britain and her colonies, and very much
to our purpose. His reasoning is so forcible, that no one has even
attempted to confute it. He holds that "the preservation of property
is the end of government, and that for which men enter into society.
It therefore necessarily supposes and requires that the people
should have property, without which they must be suppos'd to lose
that by entering into society, which was the end for which they
enter'd into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. Men
therefore in society having property, they have such a right to the
goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that no body
hath the right to take any part of their subsistence from them
without their consent: Without this, they could have no property at
all. For I truly can have no property in that which another can by
right take from me when he pleases, against my consent. Hence, says
he, it is a mistake to think that the supreme power of any
commonwealth can dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily,
or take any part of them at pleasure. The prince or senate can never
have a power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the
subjects property without their own consent; for this would be in
effect to have no property at all." - This is the reasoning of that
great and good man. And is not our own case exactly described by
him? Hath not the British parliament made an act to take a part of
our property against our consent? Against our repeated submissive
petitions and humble representations of the hardship of it? Is not
the act daily executed in every colony? If therefore the
preservation of property is the very end of government, we are
depriv'd of that for which government itself is instituted. - Tis
true, says Mr. Locke, "Government cannot be supported without great
charge; and tis fit that every one who enjoys a share in the
protection should pay his proportion for the maintenance of it. But
still it must be with their own consent, given by themselves or
their representatives." Chronus will not say that the monies that
are every day paid at the custom-houses in America for the express
purpose of maintaining all or any of the Governors therein, were
rais'd with the consent of those who pay them, given by themselves
or their representatives - "If any one, adds Mr. Locke, shall claim
a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority &
without such consent of the people, he thereby subverts the end of
government." - Will Chronus tell us that the British parliament doth
not claim authority to lay and levy such taxes, and doth not
actually lay and levy them on the colonies without their consent?
This is the case particularly in this province. If therefore it is a
subversion of the end of government, it must be a subversion of our
civil liberty, which is supported by civil government only. And this
I think a sufficient answer to a strange question which Chronus
thinks it "not improper for our zealous Patriots to answer, viz.
What those liberties and rights are of which we have been deprived.
- If Chronus is really as ignorant as he pretends to be, of the
present state of the colonies, their universal and just complaints
of the most violent infractions of their liberties, and their
repeated petitions to the throne upon that account, I hope I shall
be excused in taking up any room in your valuable paper, with a view
of answering a question, which to him must be of the utmost
importance. - But if he is not, I think his question not only
impertinent, but a gross affront to the understanding of the public.
We have lost the constitutional right which the Commons of America
in their several Assemblies have ever before possessed, of giving
and granting their own money, as much of it as they please, and no
more; and appropriating it for the support of their own government,
for their own defence, and such other purposes as they please. The
great Mr. Pitt, in his speech in parliament in favor of the repeal
of the stamp-act, declared that "we should have been slaves if we
had not enjoy'd this right." This is the sentiment of that patriotic
member, and it is obvious to the comnmon sense of every man. -If the
parliament have a right to take as much of our money as they please,
they may take all. And what liberty can that man have, the produce
of whose daily labour another has the right to take from him if he
pleases, and which is similar to our case, takes a part of it to
convince him that he has the power as well as the pretence of right?
- That sage of the law Lord Camden declar'd, in his speech upon the
declaratory bill, that "his searches had more and more convinced him
that the British parliament have no right to tax the Americans. Nor,
said he, "is the doctrine new: It is as old as the constitution:
Indeed, it is its support." The taking away this right must then be
in the opinion of that great lawyer, the removal of the very support
of the constitution, upon which all our civil liberties depend. He
speaks in still stronger terms-" Taxation and representation are
inseparably united: This position is founded on the laws of nature:
It is more: It is itself an eternal law of nature - Whatever is a
man's own is absolutely his own; and no man has a right to take it
from him without his consent, either express'd by himself or his
representative - Whoever attempts to do it, attempts an injury:
Whoever does it, commits a ROBBERY: He throws down the distinction
between liberty and slavery" - Can Chronus say, that the Americans
ever consented either by themselves or their representatives, that
the British parliament should tax them? That they have taxed us we
all know: We all feel it: I wish we felt it more sensibly: They have
therefore, according to the sentiments of the last mention'd
Nobleman, which are built on nature and common reason, thrown down
the very distinction between liberty and slavery in America - And
yet this writer. like one just awoke from a long dream, or, as I
cannot help thinking there are good grounds to suspect, with a
design to "mislead his unwary readers (and unwary they must needs
be, if they are thus misled,) to believe that all our liberties are
perfectly secure, he calls upon us to show "which of our liberties
we are deprived of;" and in the face of a whole continent, as well
as of the best men in Europe, he has the effrontery to assert,
without the least shadow of argument, that "no one has attempted to
infringe them." One cannot after all this, be at a loss to conceive,
what judgment to form of his modesty, his understanding or
sincerity.
It might be easy to show that there are other instances in which we
are deprived of our liberties. - I should think, a people would
hardly be perswaded to believe that they were in the full enjoyment of
their liberties, while their capital fortress is garrison'd by troops
over which they have no controul, and under the direction of an
administration in whom, to say the least, they have no reason to place
the smallest confidence that they shall be employ'd for their
protection, and not as they have been for their destruction - While
they have a governor absolutely independent of them for his support,
which support as well as his political being - depends upon that same
administration, tho' at the expence of their own money taken from them
against their consent - While their governor acts not according to the
dictates of his own judgment, assisted by the constitutional advice of
his council, if he thinks it necessary to call for it, but according
to the edicts of such an administration - Will it mend the matter that
this governor, thus dependent upon the crown, is to be the judge of
the legality of instructions and their consistency with the Charter,
which is the constitution? Or if their present governor should be
possess'd of as many angelic properties as we have heard of in the
late addresses, can they enjoy that tranquility of mind arising from
their sense of safety, which Montesquieu defines to be civil
liberty, when they consider how precarious a person a provincial
governor is, especially a good one? And how likely a thing it is, if
he is a good one, that another may soon be placed in his stead,
possessed of the principles of the Devil, who for the sake of
holding his commission which is even now pleaded as a weighty motive,
will execute to the full the orders of an abandon'd minister, to the
ruin of those liberties which we are told are now so secure - Will a
people be perswaded that their liberties are safe, while their
representatives in general assembly, if they are ever to meet
again, will be deprived of the most essential privilege of giving
and granting what part of their own money they are yet allowed to
give and grant, unless, in conformity to a ministerial instruction
to the governor, solemnly read to them for their direction, they
exempt the commissioners of the customs, or any other favorites or
tools of the ministry, from their equitable share in the tax? All
these and many others that might be mention'd, are the natural
effects of that capital cause of complaint of all North-America,
which, to use the language of those "intemperate patriots ", the
majority of the present assembly, is " a subjugation to as
arbitrary a TRIBUTE as ever the Romans laid upon the Jews, or
their other colonies" - What now is the advice of Chronus? Why,
"much may be done, says he, by humble petitions and
representations of the hardships of certain measures" - Ask him
whether the colonies have not already done it? Whether the
assembly of this province, the convention, the town of Boston,
have not petitioned and humbly represented the hardship of certain
measures, and all to no purpose, and he tells you either that he
is "a stranger to those petitions", or "that they were not duly
timed, or properly urged," or "that the true reason why ALL our
petitions and representations met with no better success was,
because they were accompanied with a conduct quite the reverse of
that submission and duty which they seem'd to express" - that "to
present a petition with one hand, while the other is held up in a
threatning posture to enforce it, is not the way to succeed" -
Search for his meaning, and enquire when the threatning hand was
held up, and you'll find him encountering the Resolves of the Town
of Boston to maintain their Rights, (in which they copied after
the patriotic Assemblies of the several Colonies) and their
Instructions to their Representatives. Here is the sad source of
all our difficulties. - Chronus would have us petition, and humbly
represent the hardships of certain measures, but we must by no
means assert our Liberties. We must acknowledge, at least tacitly,
that the Parliament of Great Britain has a constitutional
authority, "to throw down the distinction between Liberty and
slavery" in America. We may indeed, humbly represent it as a
hardship, but if they are resolved to execute the purpose, we must
submit to it, without the least intimation to posterity, that we
look'd upon it as unconstitutional or unjust. Such advice was
sagely given to the Colonists a few years ago, at second hand, by
one who had taken a trip to the great city, and grew wonderfully
acquainted, as he said, with Lord Hillsborough; but his foibles
are now "buried under the mantle of charity." Very different was
his advice from that of another of infinitely greater abilities,
as well as experience in the public affairs of the nation, and the
colonies: I mean Doctor Benjamin Franklin, the present agent of
the House of Representatives. His last letter to his constituents,
as I am well informed, strongly recommends the holding up our
constitutional Rights, by frequent Resolves, &c. This we know will
be obnoxious to those who are in the plan to enslave us: But
remember my countrymen, it will be better to have your liberties
wrested from you by force, than to have it said that you even
implicitly surrendered them.
I have something more to say to Chronus when leisure will admit of
it.
CANDIDUS.
TO HENRY MARCHANT.1
[MS., Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library.]
BOSTON Jan 7 1772
SIR
I wrote you soon after your departure from hence but am lately
informd by Mr F. Dana that you have not receivd my Letter; he has
put me in the way of a more sure direction under an Inclosure to
Mess Trecothick & Apthorp.
By our last Vessells from London we have an Account of the Choice
of Mr Nash for the Lord Mayor, & that he was brot in by
ministerial Influence. It gives great Concern to the Friends of
Liberty here that any Administration much more such as the present
appears to be, should have an Ascendency in the important
Elections of that City, which has heretofore by her Independency &
Incorruption been the great Security of the Freedom of the nation.
It is questionable however
1 Attorney-General of Rhode Island. The letter was addressed to
Marchant at London, where he was acting as the agent of Rhode
Island. He left Rhode Island in July, 1771, and returned in the
autumn of 1772. Cf., Records of the Colony of Rhode Island, vol. vii.,
pp. 27-31, 197.
whether the Ministry would have gaind their point, if they had not
according to the Machiavellian plan accomplishd a Division among
those who profess to be Patriots. The same Art is now practicd by
their Tools & Dependents on this side the Water. They have been
endeavoring to excite a Jealousy among the Colonies, each one of
the others, & in a great measure brought it about by the
unfortunate failure of the Nonimportation Agreement. Perhaps every
Colony was faulty in that matter in some degree but neither chose
to take any of the Blame of it to its self, & to shift it off each
cast the whole upon the others. The Truth is there were so many of
the Merchants under the Court Influence in all of them as that
they were able to defeat the plan, & for that Reason I was
doubtful from the beginning of the Success of it. The Agents of
the Ministry have since been trying to perswade the people to
believe that they are sick of their measures & would be glad to
recede, but cannot consistent with their own honor while the
Colonies are clamoring against them - they would therefore have us
to be quite silent as tho we enjoyd our Rights & Liberties to the
full, & trust that those who have discoverd the greatest
perseverance in every Measure to enslave us, will of their own
Accord & without the least Necessity give up their Design. This
soothing & dangerous Doctrine I fear has had an effect in some of
the Colonies, but I am in hopes that those who have been ready to
trust to the false promises of Courtiers begin to see through the
Delusion. It was impossible that many persons could be catchd in
such a Snare in this province, where absolute Despotism appears to
be continually making large Strides with barefaced Impudence. It
will not be easy to convince this people that the Ministry have in
their hearts any favor towards them, while they are taking their
money out of their pockets, & appropriating it for the maintenance
of a Governor who because of his absolute Dependence upon them
will always yield obedience to their Instructions, and a standing
Army in their Capital fortress, over which that Governor I presume
to say dares not exercise any Authority, tho invested with it by
the Charter, without express Leave from his Masters.
Administration must be strangely blind indeed, or they must think
us the most foolish and ductile people under Heaven (in which they
are greatly mistaken) to imagine that in such a Condition we are
to be flatterd with hopes of any kind Disposition of theirs
towards us. The Governor & other Friends to the Ministry or rather
friends to themselves would fain have it thought in England, that
the People in general are easy & contented or to use the Words of
his Speech at the opening of the last Session, that they are
returnd to Good order & Government1 this may tend to establish him
in his Seat as one who can carry the most favorite points but
Nothing can afford greater Evidence to the Contrary than the
general Contempt and Indignation with which his proclamation for
an annual Thanksgiving was treated, because we were therein
exhorted to return Thanks to Almighty God that "our religious &
civil privileges were continued to us" & that "our Trade was
enlargd" - It is said & I believe it to be a fact, that full two
thirds of the congregational Clergy refusd to read the proclamation, &
perhaps not more of them than appeard the last Spring in favor [of]
the pompous congratulatory Address, that is not a Sixth part of them
took any notice of those Clauses in the religious Services of the
day. It is for the Interest of the Crown Officers here who are
dependent upon the Ministers to make them believe that they have
by their Art & policy reconciled the people to their Measures, &
if the Nation is so far misled as to believe so, the Ministry may
avail themselves of it, but if the Contrary should happen to be
true, as it appears to me to be, such Events may sooner than we
are aware of it take place, as may afford the Nation Grounds to
repent of her Credulity. It may be thought arrogant for an
American thus to express himself, but let Britain consider that
her own & her Colonies dependence is at present mutual which may
not & probably will not be the Case in some hereafter. Why should
either side hasten on the alarming Crisis. I am a friend to both,
but I confess my friendship to the latter is the most ardent -
they have in time past and if by the severe treatment which the
Colonies have receivd, Confidence in the Mother Country is not in
too great a Degree lost, they may still for some time to come
administer to each others Happiness & Grandeur. This in my humble
Opinion greatly depends upon a Change of Ministers & Measures
which it is not in my power & I presume not in yours however
earnestly we both may desire it, to accomplish.
I wait in daily Expectation of a Letter from you.
1 May 30, 1771. Massachusetts State Papers, p. 300.
TO ARTHUR LEE.
[R. H. Lee, Life of Arthur Lee, vol. ii., pp., 189-192; a draft is
in the Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library]
BOSTON, January 14th, 1772.
SIR, -
Your latest letter to me is of the 10th June,1 since which I have
several times written to you and have been impatiently waiting for
your farther favours. I suppose by this time the parliament is
sitting for the despatch of business, and we shall soon discover
whether administration have had it in their hearts, as we have
been flattered, to recede from their oppressive measures, and
repeal the obnoxious revenue acts. Is it not a strange mode of
expression of late years made use of, that administration intends
that this law shall be enacted, or that repealed? It is language
adapted to the infamy of the present times, by a nation which
boasts of the freedom and independency of her parliaments. I
believe almost any of the American assemblies would highly resent
such an imperious tone, even in the honourable board of
commissioners of the customs, who I dare say think themselves
equal in dignity, at least in proportion to the different
countries, to his majesty's ministers of state. A Bostonian, I
assure you, would blush with indignation to hear it said that his
majesty's commissioners of the customs (though perhaps they are of
his excellency's privy council) had held a consultation at
Butcher's Hall, upon the affairs of the province, and that they
had come to a conclusion that the house of representatives should
rescind their late protest against any doctrines which tend to give
royal instructions to the governor, the force of laws. This protest it
is said, his majesty's wise ministers were so hugely affronted at,
as to alter their determination upon a question, in which the fate
of the British nation was involved, namely, whether our general
assembly should sit at Cambridge or in Boston. I confess this was
a question of such astonishing importance to the millions of
Britons and their descendants, and decided no doubt with such
refined discrimination of judgment, that is not so much to be
wondered at, if all national wisdom is to be ascribed to such a
bed of counsellors, who seem to have possessed themselves of all
national power. But as the circumstances of things may alter, and
his majesty may be obliged through necessity to have recourse to
men of common understanding, when these are gone to receive their
just rewards in another life, would it not be most proper that the
parliament should be at least the ostensive legislature, for there
is danger in precedents, and in time to come the supreme power of
the nation may be the dupes of a ministry, who may have no more
understanding than themselves. It has been said that the king's
ministers have for years past received momentary hints respecting
the fabrication of American revenue laws and other regulations,
from some very wise heads on this side of the water, and
particularly of this place; and perhaps Great Britain may be more
indebted to some Bostonians or residents in Boston than she may
imagine, however reproachfully she may have spoken of them.
Bernard publicly declared that he did not obtrude his advice on
his majesty's ministers unasked; and therefore we may naturally
conclude that my lord of Hillsborough, (sublime as his
understanding is) the minister in the department, stood in need of
and asked his advice, when the baronet journalized the necessary
measures of administration for the colonies, which he retailed in
weekly and sometimes daily letters to his lordship. On his
departure he recommended Mr Hutchinson, though a Bostonian, "born
and educated" as one upon whom his lordship might depend as much
as upon himself; and in this one thing I believe Bernard wrote the
truth, for if they have not equal merit for their faithful
services to administration, Mr. Hutchinson, I verily believe, has
the greatest share. It is whispered here that the honourable board
of commissioners have represented to administration that the
present revenue is not sufficient to answer all demands, which are
daily increasing, and therefore it will be necessary for their
lordships to establish an additional fund. This is an important
hint, which may relieve their lordships, unless a new manoeuvre
should succeed, of which we have an account in the Boston Gazette
enclosed. By a vessel just arrived from London, the friends of
government, as they call themselves, pretend that they have
certain assurances from administration, that in three months we
shall not be troubled with commissioners or standing armies. This,
if we could depend upon court promises, would afford an agreeable
prospect. But the root of all our grievances is the parliament's
taxing us, which they cannot do, but upon principles repugnant to
and subversive of our constitution. If their lordships, the
ministry, would be pleased to repeal the revenue acts, they would
strike a blow at the root.
The grand design of our adversaries is to lull us into security,
and make us easy while the acts remain in force, which would prove
fatal to us.
I have written in great haste, and am sincerely your friend and
humble servant,
1 R. H. Lee, Life of Arthur Lee, vol. i., pp. 215-219.
ARTICLE SIGNED "CANDIDUS."
[Boston Gazette, January 20, 1772.]
Messieurs EDES & GILL,
IN the Massachusetts-Gazette of the 9th instant, Chronus attempts
to prove that "the Parliament's laying duties upon trade, for the
express purpose of raising a revenue, is not repugnant to and
subversive of our constitution." In defence of this proposition,
he proceeds to consider the nation as commercial, and from thence
to show the necessity of laws for the regulation of trade. - In
the nation he includes Great-Britain and all the Colonies, and
infers that these acts for the regulation of trade, "should extend
to all the British dominions, to prevent one part of the national
body from injuring another." And, says he, "If laws for the
regulation of trade are necessary, who so proper to enact them,
&c. as the British parliament, or to dispose of the fines &
forfeitures arising from the breach of such acts?" And then he tells
us, that as a number of preventive officers will hereupon become
necessary, the parliament have thought proper to assign to his
Majesty's revenue "the profits arising on the duties of importation
for the payment of those officers ". This is Chronus's "method of
reasoning ", to prove that because it is necessary that the parliament
should enact laws for the regulation of trade, about which there has
as yet been no dispute that I know of, and because it is proper that
such preventive officers as shall be found needful to carry those
laws into execution, should be paid out of the fines and
forfeitures arising from the breach of them, Therefore, the
parliament hath a right to make laws imposing duties or taxes, for
the express purpose of raising a revenue in the colonies without
their consent; and that this is not (as is alledg'd by our
Patriots ") "repugnant to or subversive of our constitution ".
Every one may easily see how Chronus evades the matter in dispute,
and aims at amusing his readers according to his usual manner, by
endeavouring, and that without a shadow of argument, to prove one
point, instead of another which is quite distinct from it, and
which he ought to prove, but cannot. He is indeed sensible that
his artifice is seen through; that it will be urged that "he has
evaded the chief difficulties," and that "the objection doth not
lie against the regulation of trade, but against the imposing
duties for the express purpose of raising a revenue." And he is
full ready to remove this objection. But how? Why, by asking a
question, which he often substitutes in the room of argument. Are
we not, says he, "fellow-subjects with our brethren at home, and
consequently bound to bear a part according to our ability, in
supporting the honor & dignity of the crown?" It is allow'd that
we are the subjects of the same prince with our brethren at home,
and are in duty bound, as far as we are able, to support the honor
and dignity of our Sovereign, while he affords us his protection.
But does Chronus from thence infer an obligation on us to yield
obedience to the acts of the British parliament imposing taxes
upon us with the express intention of raising a revenue, to be
appropriated for such purposes as that legislative thinks proper,
without our consent? 0, says he, "there is good reason for this."
What is the good reason? Why "if we will not consent to do
anything ourselves ", "our money will be taken from us without our
consent." This is conclusive argument indeed. And then he, as it
were, imperceptibly glides into that which has ever appeared to be
his favorite topick, however impertinent to the present point,
viz, an independent support for the governor. He boldly affirms,
what is a notorious untruth, that "we are unwilling to pay his
Majesty's substitute in such a manner as should leave him that
freedom and independency which is necessary to his station, and
with which he is vested by the constitution:" And therefore the
parliament hath a right to enable his Majesty to pay his
substitute, out of a revenue extorted from us against our consent.
If his premises were well grounded, his conclusion would not
follow: And the question would still remain, to which Chronus has
not attempted to give any rational answer, namely, By what
authority doth the parliament these things, and who gave them this
authority? Thus we still continue to dispute the authority of the
parliament to lay duties and taxes upon us, with the express
purpose of raising a revenue, as "repugnant to, and subversive of
our constitution;" and for a reason which I dare say Chronus will
never get over, namely, because as he himself allows," we are not
represented in it." -