LETTER I.

I AM a FARMER, settled after a variety of fortunes, near the banks, of the river Delaware, in the province of Pennsylvania. I received a liberal education, and have been engaged in the busy scenes of life: But am now convinced, that a man may be as happy without bustle, as with it. My farm is small, my servants are few, and good; I have a little money at interest; I wish for no more: my employment in my own af­fairs is easy; and with a contented grateful mind, I am compleating the number of days allotted to be my divine goodness.

Being master of my time, I spend a good deal of it in a library, which I think the most valuable part of my small estate; and [Page 6] being acquainted with two or three gentle­men of abilities and learning, who honour me with their friendship, I believe I have acquired a greater share of knowledge in history, and the laws and constitution of my country, than is generally attained by men of my class, many of them not being so fortunate as I have been in the opportuni­ties of getting information.

From infancy I was taught to love huma­nity and liberty. Inquiry and experience have since confirmed my reverence for the lessons then given me, by convincing me more fully of their truth and excellence. Benevolence towards mankind excites wishes for their welfare, and such wishes endear the means of fulfilling them. Those can be found in liberty alone, and therefore her sacred cause ought to be espoused by every man, on every occasion, to the utmost of his power: as a charitable but poor per­son does not withold his mite, because he cannot relieve all the distresses of the mise­rable, so let not any honest man suppress his sentiments concerning freedom, however small their influence is likely to be. Per­haps he may " ^(a) touch some wheel" that will have an effect greater that he expects.

These being my sentiments, I am encou­raged to offer to you, my countrymen, my thoughts on some late transactions, that in [Page 7] my opinion are of the utmost importance to you. Conscious of my defects, I have wait­ed some time, in expectation of seeing the subject treated by persons much better qua­lified for the task; but being therein disap­pointed, and apprehensive that longer delays will be injurious, I venture at length to re­quest the attention of the public, praying only for one thing,—that is, that these lines may be read with the same zeal for the hap­piness of British America, with which they were wrote.

With a good deal of surprise I have ob­served, that little notice has been taken of an act of parliament, as injurious in its principle to the liberties of these colonies, as the STAMP-ACT was: I mean the act for sus­pending the legislation of New-York.

The assembly of that government com­plied with a former act of parliament, re­quiring certain provisions to be made for the troops in America, in every particular, I think, except the articles of salt, pepper, and vinegar. In my opinion they acted imprudently, considering all circumstances, in not complying so far, as would have given satisfaction, as several colonies did: but my dislike of their conduct in that instance, has not blinded me so much, th [...] I cannot plainly perceive, that they have been punished in a manner pernicious to American freedom, and justly alarming to all the colonies.

[Page 8]If the BRITISH PARLIAMENT has a legal authority to order, that we shall fur­nish a single article for the troops here, and to compel obedience to that order; they have the same right to order us to supply those troops with arms, cloaths, and every necessary, and to compel obedience to that order also; in short, to lay any burdens they please upon us. What is this but taxing us at a certain sum, and leaving to us only the manner of raising it? How is this mode more tolerable than the STAMP ACT? Would that act have appeared more pleasing to AMERICANS, if being ordered thereby to raise the sum total of the taxes, the mighty privilege had been left to them, of saying how much should be paid for an instrument of writing on paper, and how much for another on parchment?

An act of parliament commanding us to do a certain thing, if it has any validity, is a tax upon us for the expence that accrues in complying with it, and for this reason, I believe, every colony on the continent, that chose to give a mark of their respect for GREAT-BRITAIN, in complying with the act relating to the troops, cautiously avoided the mention of that act, lest their conduct should be attributed to its supposed obliga­tion.

The matter being thus stated, the assembly of New-York either had, or had not a right to refuse submission to that act. If they [Page 9] had, and I imagine no AMERICAN will say, they had not, then the parliament had no right to compel them to execute it.—If they had not that right, they had no right to punish them for not executing it; and there­fore had no right to suspend their legislation, which is a punishment. In fact, if the people of New-York cannot be legally taxed but by their own representatives, they can­not be legally deprived of the privileges of making laws, only for insisting on that ex­clusive privilege of taxation. If they may be legally deprived in such a case of the privilege of making laws, why may they not, with equal reason, be deprived of every other privilege? Or why may not every colony be treated in the same manner, when any of them shall dare to deny their assent to any impositions that shall be di­rected? Or what signifies the repeal of the STAMP-ACT, if these colonies are to lose their other privileges, by not tamely sur­rendering that of taxation?

There is one consideration arising from this suspicion, which is not generally attended to, but shews it's importance very clearly. It was not necessary that this suspension should be caused by an act of parliament. The crown might have restrained the governor of New-York, even from calling the assembly toge­ther, by its prerogative in the royal govern­ments. This step, I suppose, would have [Page 10] been taken, if the conduct of the assembly of New-York, had been regarded as an act of disobedience to the crown alone: but it is regarded as an act of ‘disobedience to the authority of the BRITISH LEGISLA­TURE.’ This gives the suspension a consequence vastly more affecting. It is a parliamentary assertion of the supreme autho­rity of the British legislature over these colo­nies in the part of taxation; and is intend­ed to COMPEL New-York unto a submission to that authority. It seems therefore to me as much a violation of the liberty of the peo­ple of that province, and consequently of all these colonies, as if the parliament had sent a number of regiments to be quartered upon them till they should comply. For it is evi­dent, that the suspension is meant as a com­pulsion; and the method of compelling is to­tally indifferent. It is indeed probable, that the sight of red coats, and the beating of drums would have been most alarming, because people are generally more influenced by their eyes and ears than by their reason: But who­ever seriously considers the matter, must perceive, that a dreadful stroke is aimed at the liberty of these colonies: For the cause of one is the cause of all. If the parliament may lawfully deprive New-York of any of its rights, it may deprive any, or all the o­ther colonies of their rights; and nothing can possibly so much encourage such at­tempts, as a mutual inattention to the in­terst [Page 11] of eath other. To divide, and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attack­ing those who are powerful by their union. He certainly is not a wise man, who folds his arms and reposeth himself at home, seeing with unconcern the flames that have invaded his neighbour's house, without any endea­vours to extinguish them. When Mr. Hamp­den's ship money cause, for three shillings and four-pence, was tried, all the people of England, with anxious expectation, interest­ed themselves in the important decision; and when the slightest point touching the free­dom of a single colony is agitated, I earnest­ly wish, that all the rest may with equal ar­dour support their sister. Very much may be said on this subject, but I hope, more at present is unnecessary.

With concern I have observed that two assemblies of this province have sat and ad­journed, without taking any notice of this act. It may perhaps be asked, what would have been proper for them to do? I am by no means fond of inflammatory measures. I detest them.—I should be sorry that any thing should be done which might justly dis­please our sovereign or our mother-country. But a firm, modest exertion of a free spirit, should never be wanting on public occasions. It appears to me, that it would have been sufficient for the assembly, to have ordered our agents to represent to the King's mini­sters, their sense of the suspending act, and [Page 12] to pray for its repeal. Thus we should have borne our testimony against it; and might therefore reasonably expect that on a like occasion, we might rec [...]ive the same assist­ance from the other colonies.

LETTER II.

THERE is another late act of parlia­ment, which seems to me to be as destructive to the liberty of these colonies, as that inserted in my last letter; that is, the act for granting the duties on paper, glass, &c. It appears to me to be uncon­stitutional.

The parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to regulate the trade of Great-Britain, and all its colonies. Such an authority is essential to the relation be­tween a mother country and its colonies; and necessary for the common good of all. He, who considers these provinces as states distinct from the British Empire, has very slender notions of justice, or of their interests. We are but parts of a whole; and there­fore there must exist a power somewhere, to preside, and preserve the connection in due order. This power is lodged in the parlia­ment; and we are as much dependant on Great-Britain, as a perfectly free people can be on another.

I have looked over every statute relating to these colonies, from their first settlement [Page 14] to this time; and I find every one of them founded on this principle, till the STAMP-ACT administration. All before are cal­culated to preserve or promote a mu­tually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire; ^(a) [Page 15] and though many of them imposed du­ties on trade, yet those duties were always imposed with design to restrain the com­merce of one part, that was injurious to ano­ther, and thus to promote the general wel­fare. The raising a revenue thereby was [Page 16] never intended. Thus, the king by his judges in his courts of justice, imposes fines, which all together amount to a considerable sum, and contribute to the support of govern­ment: but this is merely a consequence a­rising from restrictions, which only meant to [Page 17] keep peace, and prevent confusion; and sure­ly a man would argue very loosely, who should [...] from hence, that the King has a [...] to levy money in general upon his subjects: Never did the British parliament, till the period abovementioned, think of im­posing duties in America, FOR THE PUR­POSE OF RASING A REVENUE. Mr. Green­ville's sagacity first introduced this language, in the preamble to the 4th of Geo. III. Ch. 15, which has these words— "And whereas it is just and necessary that A REVENUE BE RAISED IN YOUR MAJESTY'S SAID DOMI­ONS IN AMERICA, for defraying the ex­pences of defending, protecting, and securing the same: We your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, THE COMMONS OF GREAT BRITAIN, in parliament assembled, [Page 18] being desirous to make some provision in the present session of parliament, towards raising the said revenue in America, have resolved to give and grant unto your Ma­jesty the several rates and duties herein after mentioned," &c.

A few months after came the Stamp-act, which reciting this, proceeds in the same strange mode of expression, thus— "And whereas it is just and necessary, that pro­vision be made FOR RAISING A FURTHER REVE­NUE WITHIN YOUR MAJESTY's DOMINIONS IN AME­RICA, towards defraying the said expences, we your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal sub­jects, the COMMONS OF GREAT-BRITAIN, &c. GIVE and GRANT," &c. as before.

The last act, granting duties upon paper, &c. carefully pursues these modern prece­dents. The preamble is, "Whereas it is expedient that a revenue should be raised in your Majesty's dominions in America, for making a more certain and adequate pro­vision for the defraying the charge of the administration of justice, and the support of civil government in such provinces, where it shall be found necessary; and towards the further defraying the expences of de­fending, protecting and securing the said do­minions, we your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the COMMONS OF GREAT-BRITAIN, &c. give and grant," &c. as before.

Here we may observe an authority expresly claimed to impose duties on these colonies; [Page 19] not for the regulation of trade; not for the preservation or promotion of a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire, heretofore the sole objects of parliamentary institutions; but for the single purpose of levying money upon us.

This I call an ^(b) innovation; and a most dangerous innovation. It may perhaps be objected, that Great-Britain has a right to lay what duties she pleases upon her ^(c) ex­ports, and it makes no difference to us, whether they are paid here or there.

To this I answer. These colonies require many things for their use, which the laws of Great-Britain prohibit them from getting any where but from her. Such are paper and glass.

[Page 20]That we [...]ay be legally bound to pay any general duties on these commodities, relative to the regulation of trade, is granted; but we being obliged by her laws to take them from Great Britain, any special duties im­posed on their exportation to us only, with intention to raise a revenue from us only, are as much taxes upon us, as those imposed by the Stamp-act.

What is the difference in substance and right, whether the same sum is raised upon us by the rates mentioned in the Stamp-act, on the use of the paper, or by these duties, on the importation of it. It is nothing but the edition of a former book, with a new title page.

Suppose the duties were made payable in Great-Britain?

It signifies nothing to us, whether they are to be paid here or there. Had the Stamp-act directed, that all the paper should be landed in Florida, and the duties paid there, before it was brought to the British Colonies, would the act have raised less mo­ney upon us, or have been less destructive of our rights? By no means: For as we were under a necessity of using the paper, we should have been under the necessity of paying the duties. Thus, in the present case, a like necessity will subject us, if this act continues in force, to the payment of the duties now imposed.

[Page 21]Why was the Stamp-act then so pernicious to freedom? It did not enact, that every man in the colonies should buy a certain quantity of paper—No: It only directed, that no instrument of writing should be valid in law, if not made on stamp paper, &c.

The makers of that act knew full well, that the confusions that would arise upon the disuse of writings would COMPEL the colonies to use the stamp paper, and therefore to pay the taxes imposed. For this reason the Stamp-act was said to be a law THAT WOULD EXECUTE ITSELF. For the very same reason, the last act of parliament, if it is granted to have any force here, will execute itself, and will be attended with the very same consequences to American Liberty.

Some persons perhaps may say, that this act lays us under no necessity to pay the du­ties imposed, because we may ourselves ma­nufacture the articles on which they are laid; whereas by the Stamp-act no instru­ment of writing could be good, unless made on British paper, and that too stampt.

Such an objection amounts to no more than this, that the injury resulting to these colonies, from the total disuse of British pa­per and glass, will not be so afflicting as that which would have resulted from the total disuse of writing among them; for by that means even the stamp-act might have been eluded. Why then was it universally detes­ted [Page 22] by them as slavery itself? Because it presented to these devoted provinces nothing but a choice of calamities, imbittered by indignities, each of which it was unworthy of freemen to bear. But is no injury a vi­olation of right but the greatest injury? If the eluding the payment of the duties im­posed by the stamp-act, would have subject­ed us to a more dreadful inconvenience, than the eluding the payment of those imposed by the late act; does it therefore follow, that the last is no violation of our rights, though it is calculated for the same purpose that the other was, that is, to raise money upon us, WITHOUT OUR CONSENT?

This would be making right to consist, not in an exemption from injury, but from a certain degree of injury.

But the objectors may further say, that we shall sustain no injury at all by the disuse of British paper and glass. We might not, if we could make as much as we want. But can any man, acquainted with Ameri­ca, believe this possible? I am told there are but two or three glass-houses on this continent, and but very few paper-mills; and suppose more should be erected, a long course of years must elapse, before they can be brought to perfection. This continent is a country of planters, farmers, and fish­ermen; not of manufacturers. The diffi­culty of establishing particular manufactures in such a country, is almost insuperable▪ [Page 23] for one manufacture is connected with o­thers in such a manner, that it may be said to be impossible to establish one or two, without establishing several others. The experience of many nations may convince us of this truth.

Inexpressible therefore must be our di­stresses in evading the late acts, by the dis­use of British paper and glass. Nor will this be the extent of our misfortunes, if we ad­mit the legality of that act.

Great-Britain has prohibited the manu­facturing iron and steel in these colonies, without any objection being made to her right of doing it. The like right she must have to prohibit any other manufacture a­mong us. Thus she is possessed of an undis­puted precedent on that point. This autho­rity, she will say, is founded on the original intention of settling these colonies; that is, that she should manufacture for them, and that they should supply her with materials. The equity of this policy, she will also say, has been universally acknowledged by the colonies, who never have made the least ob­jection to statutes for that purpose; and will further appear by the mutual benefits flowing from this usage, ever since the settlement of these colonies.

Our great advocate, Mr. PITT, in his speeches on the debate concerning the repeal of the Stamp-act, acknowledged, that Great Britain could restrain our manufactures. His [Page 24] words are these— "This kingdom, as the supreme governing and legislative power, has always bound the colonies by her regu­lations and restrictions in trade, in navigati­on, in manufactures—in every thing, ex­cept that of taking their money out of their pockets, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT." A­gain he says, "We may bind their trade, CONFINE THEIR MANUFACTURES, and exercise every power whatever, except that of taking money out of their pockets, WITH­OUT THEIR CONSENT.

Here then, let my countrymen, ROUSE yourselves, and behold the ruin hanging o­ver their heads. If they ONCE admit, that Great-Britain may lay duties upon her ex­portations to us, for the purpose of levying money on us only, she then will have nothing to do, but to lay those duties on the arti­cles which she prohibits us to manufacture— and the tragedy of American liberty is finish­ed. We have been prohibited from procuring manufactures, in all cases, any where but from Great-Britain, (excepting linens, which we are permitted to import directly from Ireland). We have been prohibited, in some cases, from manufacturing for ourselves; We are therefore exactly in the situation of a city besieged, which is surrounded by the works of the besiegers in every part but one. If that is closed up, no step can be taken, but to sur [...]nder at discretion. If Great-Briatain can order us to come to her for necessaries we [Page 25] want, and can order us to pay what taxes she pleases before we take them away, or when we have them here, we are as abject slaves, as France and Poland can shew in wooden shoes, and with uncombed hair. ^(c)

Perhaps the nature of the necessities of the dependant states, caused by the policy of a governing one, for her own benefit, may be elucidated by a fact mentioned in history. When the Carthaginians were possessed of the island of Sardinia, they made a decree, that the Sardinians should not get corn, any other way than from the Carthaginians. Then, by imposing any duties they would, they drained from the miserable Sardini­ans any sums they pleased; and whenever that oppressed people made the least move­ment to assert their liberty, their tyrants starved them to death or submission. This may be called the most perfect kind of po­litical necessity.

From what has been said, I think this un­controvertible conclusion may be deduced, that when a ruling state obliges a dependant state to take certain commodities from her alone, it is implied in the nature of that obli­gation; and is essentially requisite to give it the least degree of justice; and is inseparably [Page 26] united with it, in order to preserve any share of freedom to the dependant state; that those commodities should never be loaded with duties for the sole purpose of levying money on the dependant state.

The place of paying the duties imposed by the late act, appears to me therefore to be tot [...]lly immaterial. The single question is, whether the parliament can legally impose duties to be paid by the people of these colo­nies only FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF RAIS­ING A REVENUE, on commodities which she obliges us to take from her alone; or, in o­ther words, whether the parliament can le­gally take money out of our pockets, without our consent. If they can, our boasted liber­ty is but

LETTER III.

I REJOICE to find, that my two former letters to you, have been generally re­ceived with so much favour by such of you whose sentiments I have had an opportunity of knowing. Could you look into my heart, you would instantly perceive an ardent affec­tion for your persons, a zealous attachment to your interests, a lively resentment of e­very insult and injury offered to your honour or happiness, and an inflexible resolution to assert your rights, to the utmost of my weak power, to be the only motives that have engaged me to address you.

I am no further concerned in any thing affecting America, than any one of you, and when liberty leaves it I can quit it much more conveniently than most of you: but while divine providence, that gave me exis­tence in a land of freedom, permits my head to think, my lips to speak, and my hand to move, I shall so highly and grate­fully value the blessing received, as to take care that my silence and inactivity shall not give my implied assent to any act degrading my brethren and myself from the birthright [Page 28] wherewith heaven itself " hath made us free. ^(a)"

Sorry I am to learn, that there are some few persons, shake their heads with solemn motion, and pretend to wonder what can be the meaning of these letters. "Great-Britain, they say, is too powerful to con­tend with; she is determined to oppress us; it is in vain to speak of right on one side, when there is power on the other; when we are strong enough to resist, we shall attempt it; but now we are not strong enough, and therefore we had better be quiet; it signi­fies nothing to convince us that our rights are invaded, when we cannot defend them, and if we should get into riots and tumults about the late act, it will only draw down heavier displeasure upon us."

What can such men design? What do their grave observations amount to, but this — "that these colonies, totally regardless of their liberties, should commit them, with humble resignation, to chance, time, and the tender mercies of ministers."

Are these men ignorant, that usurpations, which might have been successfully opposed at first, acquire strength by continuance, and thus become irresistible? Do they con­demn the conduct of these colonies, concern­ing the Stamp-act? Or have they forgot its successful issue? Ought the colonies at that [Page 29] time, instead of acting as they did, to have trusted for relief, to the fortuitous events of futurity? If it is needless "to speak of rights" now, it was as needless then. If the behaviour of the colonies was prudent and glorious then, and successful too; it will be equally prudent and glorious to act in the same manner now, if our rights are equal­ly invaded, and may be as successful. Therefore it becomes necessary to enquire, whether "our rights are invaded." To talk of "defending" them, as if they could be no otherwise "defended" than by arms, is as much out of the way, as if a man having a choice of several roads to reach his journey's end, should prefer the worst, for no other reason, than because it is the worst.

As to "riots and tumults," the gentle­men who are so apprehensive of them, are much mistaken, if they think, that grievan­ces cannot be redressed without such assist­ance.

I will now tell the gentlemen, what is "the meaning of these letters." [...] of them is, to convince the peop [...] these colonies, that they are at this moment exposed to the most imminent dangers; and to persuade them immediately, vigourously, and unanimously, to exert themselves, in the most firm, but most peaceable manner for obtaining relief.

The cause of liberty is a cause of too much dignity, to be sullied by turbulence [Page 30] and tumult. It ought to be maintained in a manner suitable to her nature. Those who engage in it, should breathe a sedate, yet fervent spirit, animating them to actions of prudence, justice, modesty, bravery, hu­manity, and magnanimity.

To such a wonderful degree were the an­tient Spartans, as brave and as free a people as ever existed, inspired by this happy tem­perature of soul, that rejecting even in their battles the use of trumpets, and other instru­ments for exciting heat and rage, they march­ed up to scenes of havock and horror, with the sound of flutes, to the tunes of which their steps kept pace— ‘exhibiting, as Plu­tarch says, at once a terrible and delightful sight, and proceeding with a deliberate valour, full of hope and good assurance, as if some divinity had insensibly assisted them.’

I hope, my dear countrymen, that you will in every colony be upon your guard a­gainst those who may at any time endeavour to stir you up, under pretences of patriotism, to any measures disrespectful to our sovereign and our mother country. Hot, rash, disor­derly proceedings, injure the reputation of a people as to wisdom, valour and virtue, without procuring them the least benefit. I pray God, that he may be pleased to inspire you and your posterity to the latest ages with that spirit, of which I have an idea, but find a difficulty to express: to express in [Page 31] the best manner I can, I mean a spirit that shall so guide you, that it will be impossible to determine, whether an American's cha­racter is most distinguishable for his loyalty to his sovereign, his duty to his mother coun­try, his love of freedom, or his affection for his native soil.

Every government, at some time or other, falls into wrong measures; these may pro­ceed from mistake or passion.—But every such measure does not dissolve the obligati­on between the governors and the governed; the mistake may be corrected; the passion may pass over.

It is the duty of the governed, to endea­vour to rectify the mistake, and appease the passion. They have not at first any other right, than to represent their grievances, and to pray for redress, unless an emergence is so pressing, as not to allow time for receiv­ing an answer to their applications which rarely happens. If their applications are dis­regarded, then that kind of opposition be­comes justifiable, which can be made with­out breaking the laws, or disturbing the pub­lic peace. This consists in the prevention of the oppressors reaping advantage from their oppressions, and not in their punishment. For experience may teach them what reason did not; and harsh methods, cannot be proper, till milder ones have failed.

If at length it becomes undoubted, that an inveterate resolution is formed to annihi­late [Page 32] the liberties of the governed, the English history affords frequent examples of resistance by force. What particular circumstances will in any future case justify such resistance, can never be ascertained till they happen. Per­haps it may be allowable to say, generally, that it never can be justifiable, until the peo­ple are FULLY CONVINCED, that any fur­ther submission will be destructive to their happiness.

When the appeal is made to the sword, highly probable it is, that the punishment will exceed the offence; and the calamities attending on war out weigh those preceding it. These considerations of justice and pru­dence, will always have great influence with good and wise men.

To these reflections on this subject, it re­mains to be added, and ought for ever to be remembred; that resistance in the case of colonies against their mother country, is ex­tremely different from the resistance of a people against their prince. A nation may change their King or race of Kings, and re­tain their antient form of government, be gainers by changing. Thus Great-Britain, under the illustrious house of Brunswick, a house that seems to flourish for the happiness of mankind, has found a felicity, unknown in the reigns of the Stuarts. But if once we are separated from our mother country, what new form of government shall we accept, or when shall we find another Britain to supply [Page 33] our loss? Torn from the body to which we are united by religion, liberty, laws, affecti­ons, relations, language, and commerce, we must bleed at every vein.

In truth, the prosperity of these provinces is founded in their dependance on Great-Britain; and when she returns to "her old "good humour, and old good nature," as Lord Clerendon expresses it, I hope they will always esteem it their duty and interest, as it most certainly will be, to promote her welfare by all the means in their power.

We cannot act with too much caution in our disputes. Anger produces anger; and differences that might be accommodated by kind and respectful behaviour, may by imprudence be changed to an incurable rage.

In quarrels between countries, as well as in those between individuals, when they have risen to a certain heighth, the first cause of dissention is no longer remembred, the minds of the parties being wholly engaged in re­collecting and resenting the mutual expres­sions of their dislike. When feuds have reached that fatal point, all considerations of reason and equity vanish; and a blind fury governs, or rather confounds all things. A people no longer regards their interest, but the gratification of their wrath. The sway of the Cleon's, ^(b) and Clodius's, the de­signing [Page 34] and [...]etestable flatters of the prevail­ing passion, becomes confirmed.

Wise and good men in vain oppose the storm, and may think themselves fortunat [...] ▪ if, endeavouring to preserve their ungrateful fellow citizens, they do not ruin themselves. Their prudence will be called baseness; their moderation, guilt; and if their virtue does not lead them to destruction, as that of many other great and excellent persons has done, they may survive, to receive from their expiring country, the mournful glory of her acknowledgment, that their councils, if re­garded, would have saved her.

The constitutional modes of obtaining re­lief, are those which I would wish to see pursued on the present occasion, that is, by petitioning of our assemblies, or, where they are not permitted to meet, o [...] the people to the powers that can afford us relief.

We have an excellent prince, in whose good dispositions towards us we may confide. We have a generous, sensible, and humane nation, to whom we may apply. They may be deceived: they may, by artful men, be provoked to anger against us; but I can­not yet believe they will be cruel or unjust; or that their anger will be implacable. Let us behave like dutiful children, who have received unmerited blows from a beloved parent. Let us complain to our parents; but let our complaints speak at the same [Page 35] time, the language of affliction and venera­tion.

If, however, it shall happen by an unfortu­nate course of affairs, that our applications to his Majesty and the parliament for the redress, prove ineffectual, let us then take another step, by witholding from Great-Britain, all the advantages she has been used to receive from us. Then let us try, if our ingenuity, industry, and frugality, will not give weight to our remonstrances. Let us all be united with one spirit in one cause. Let us invent; let us work; let us save; let us at the same time, keep up our claims, and unceasingly repeat our complaints; but above all, let us implore the protection of that infinite good and gracious Being, ‘by whom kings reign and princes decree justice.’

LETTER IV.

AN objection, I hear, has been been made against what I offer in my second let­ter, which I would willingly clear up before I proceed. ‘There is,’ say these objec­tors ‘a material difference between the Stamp-act and the late act for laying a duty on paper, &c. that justifies the con­duct of those who opposed the former, and yet are willing to submit to the lat­ter. The duties imposed by the Stamp-act, were internal taxes, but the present are external, which therefore the parlia­ment may have a right to impose.’ — To this I answer, with a total denial of the power of parliament to lay upon these colo­nies any tax whatever.

This point being so important to this and to all succeeding generations, I wish to be clearly understood.

To the word "Tax," I annex that meaning which the constitution and history of England require to be annexed to it; that it is, an imposition on the subject for the sole purpose of levying money.

In the early ages of our monarchy, the services rendered to the crown, for the [Page 38] general good, were personal; ^(a) but in pro­gress of time, such institutions being found inconvenient, certain gifts and grants of their own property were made by the peo­ple, under the several names of aids, tal­lages, talks, taxes, subsidies, &c. These were made as may be collected even from the names for public service, "upon need and necessity," ^(b) all these sums were levied upon the people by virtue of their voluntary gift. ^(c) The design of them was to support [Page 39] the national honour and interest. Some of those grants comprehended duties arising from trade, being imports on merchandizes. These Chief Justice Coke classes "under "subsides" ^(d) and "parliamentary aids." They are also called "customs." But whatever the name was, they were always considered as gifts of the people to the crown, to be employed for public uses.

Commerce was at a low ebb, and most surprising instances may be produced, how little it was attended to, for a succession of ages. The terms that have been mentioned, and among the rest that of "tax," had [Page 40] obtained a national, parliamentary meaning, drawn from the principles of the constitu­tion, long before any Englishmen thought of regulations of trade "by imposing duties."

Whenever we speak of taxes among Englishmen, let us therefore speak of them with reference to the intentions with which, and the principles on which they have been established. This will give certainty to our expression, and safety to our conduct: but if when we have in view the liberty of these colonies, and the influence of "taxes" laid without our consent, we proceed in any other course, we pursue a Juno ^(e) indeed, but shall only catch a cloud.

In the national parliamentary sense in­sisted on, the word "tax" ^(f) was certainly understood by the congress at New-York, whose resolves may be said to form the Ame­rican "bill of rights." I am satisfied that the congress was of opinion, that no impo­sitions could be legally laid on the people of these colonies for the purpose of levying money, but by themselves or their represen­tatives.

The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth resolves are thus expressed.

[Page 41]III. "That it is inseperably 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."

IV. "That the people of the colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be represented in the House of Com­mons, in Great-Britain."

V. "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."

VI. "That all supplies to the crown being free gifts of the people, it is unrea­sonable and inconsistent with the principles and spirit of the British constitution, for the people of Great-Britain to grant to his Ma­jesty the property of the colonies."

Here is no distinction made, between in­ternal and external taxes. It is evident from the short reasoning thrown into these resolves that every imposition ‘to grant to his Majesty the property of the colonies,’ was thought a "tax;" and that every such imposition if laid any other way "but with their consent, given personally, or by their representatives," was not only ‘un­reasonable, and inconsistent with the prin­ciples and spirit of the British constitu­tion,’ [Page 42] but destructive ‘to the freedom of a people.’

This language is clear and important. A "tax" means an imposition to raise money. Such persons therefore as speak of internal and external "taxes," I pray may pardon me, if I object to that expression as applied to the privileges and interests of these colonies. There may be external and internal impositi­ons, founded on different principles, and hav­ing different tendencies; every "tax" be­ing an imposition, tho' every imposition is not a "tax." But all "taxes" are found­ed on the same principle, and have the same tendency.

"External impositions for the regulation of our trade, do not grant to his Majesty the property of the colonies." They only prevent the colonies acquiring property in things not necessary, and in a manner judged to b [...]jurious to the welfare of the whole empire. But the last statute respecting us, ‘grants to his Majesty the property of these colonies,’ by laying duties on manufac­tures of Great-Britain, which they must take, and which he settled them, in order that they should take.

What ^(g) "tax" can be more "internal" than this? Here is money drawn without [Page 43] their consent from a society, who have con­stantly enjoyed a constitutional mode of rais­ing all money among themselves. The payment of this tax they have no possible method of avoiding, as they cannot do with­out the commodities on which it is laid, and [Page 44] they cannot manufacture these commodities themselves; besides, if this unhappy country should be so lucky as to elude this act, by getting parchment enough to use in the place of paper, or reviving the antient method of writing on wax and bark, and by inventing something to serve instead of glass, her ingenuity would stand her in little stead; for then the parliament would have nothing to do, but to prohibit manufac­tures, or to lay a tax on hats and wollen cloths, which they have already prohibited the colonies from supplying each other with; or on instruments and tools of steel and iron, which they have prohibited the provincials [Page 45] from manufacturing at all ^(h) And then what little gol [...] [...] they have, must be torn [...]om thei [...] hands, or they will not be able in a short time, to get an ax ⁽ⁱ⁾ for cutting their firewood, nor a plough for raising their food.—In what respect there­fore, I beg leave to ask, is the late act pre­ferable to the Stamp-act, or more consistent with the liberties of the colonies? ‘I re­gard them both with equal apprehension, and think they ought to be in the same manner opposed.’

"Habemus quidem senatus consultum— tanquam gladium in vagina repositum"

We have a statute like a sword in the scabbard.

LETTER V.

PERHAPS the objection to the late act, imposing duties upon paper, &c. might have been safely rested on the arguments drawn from the universal conduct of parlia­ments and ministers, from the first existence of these colonies, to the administration of Mr. Grenville.

What but the indisputable, the acknow­ledged exclusive right of the colonies to tax themselves, could be the reason, that in this long period of more than one hundred and fifty years, no statute was ever passed for the sole purpose of raising a revenue on the co­lonies? And how clear, how cogent must that reason be, to which every parliament and every minister, for so long a time sub­mitted, without a single attempt to innovate?

England in part of that course of years, and Great Britain, in other parts, was en­gaged in fierce and expensive wars; troubled with some tumultuous and bold parliaments; governed by many daring and wicked mini­sters; yet none of them ever ventured to to touch the PALLADIUM OF AMERICAN LIBERTY, Ambition, avarice, faction, ty­ranny, all revered it. Whenever it was ne­cessary [Page 48] to raise money on the colonies, the requisitions of the crown were made, and dutifully complied with. The parliament from time to time regulated their trade, and that of the rest of the empire, to preserve their dependencies, and the connection of the whole in good order.

The people of Great-Britain in support of their privileges, boast much of their antiqui­ty. Yet it may well be questioned, if there is a single privilege of a British subject, sup­ported by longer, more solemn, or more un­interupted testimony, than the exclusive right of taxation in these colonies. The people of Great-Britain consider that kingdom as the sovereign of these colonies, and would now annex to that sovereignty a prerogative ne­ver heard of before. How would they bear this, was the case their own? What would they think of a new prerogative claimed by the crown? We may guess what their con­duct would be from the transports of passi­on into which they fell about the late em­bargo, laid to relieve the most emergent ne­cessities of state, admitting of no delay; and for which there were numerous precedents. Let our liberties be treated with the same tenderness, and it is all we desire.

Explicit as the conduct of parliaments, for so many ages, is, to prove that no money can be levied on these colonies, by parlia­ment for the purpose of raising a revenue; yet it is not the only evidence in our favour.

[Page 49]Every one of the most material arguments against the legality of the Stamp-act operates with equal force against the act now object­ed to; but as they are well known, it seems unnecessary to repeat them [...]ere.

This general one only shall be considered at present. That tho' these colonies are de­pendant on Great Britain; and tho' she has a legal power to make laws for preserving that dependance; yet it is not necessary for this purpose, nor essential to the relation be­tween a mother-country and her colonies, as was eagerly contended by the advocates for the Stamp-act, that she should raise mo­ney upon them without their consent.

Colonies were formerly planted by war­like nations, to keep their enemies in awe; to relieve their country overburthened with inhabitants; or to discharge a number of discontented and troublesome citizens. But in more modern ages, the spirit of violence being in some measure, if the expression may be allowed, sheathed in commerce, colonies have been settled by the nations of Europe for the purposes of trade. These purposes were to be attained by the colonies raising for their mother country those things which she did not produce herself; and by supply­ing thems [...]lves from her with things they wanted. These were the national objects in the commencement of our colonies, and have been uniformly so in their promotion.

[Page 50]To answer these grand purposes, perfect liberty was known to be necessary; all his­tory pro [...]ng, th [...]t trade and freedom are nearly rel [...]ted to each other. By a due re­gard to this wise and just plan, the infant co­lonies exposed in the unknown climates, and unexplored wildernesses of this new world, lived, grew, and flourished.

The parent country with undeviating pru­dence and virtue, attentive to the first prin­ciples of colonization, drew to herself the benefits she might reasonably expect, and preserved to her children the blessings, on which those benefits were founded. She made laws obliging her colonies to carry to her all those products which she wanted for her own use; and all those raw materials which she chose herself to work up. Besides this restriction, she forbad them to procure manufactures from any other part of the globe; or even the products of European countries, which alone could rival her, without being first brought to her. In short, by a variety of laws, she regulated their trade in such a manner, as she thought most conducive to their mutual advantage, and her own welfare. A power was reserved to the crown of repealing any laws that should be enacted. The executive authority of government was all lodged in the crown and its representatives; and an appeal was secured to the crown from all judgments in the administration of justice.

[Page 51]For all these powers established by the mother country over the colo [...]ies; for all these immense emoluments derived by her from them; for all their difficulties and dis­tresses in fixing themselves, what was the re­compense made them? A communication of her rights in general, and particularly of that [...]reat one, the foundation of all the rest—that their property, acquired with so much pain and hazard, should not be disposed of by ^(a) any one but themselves—or to use the beautiful and emphatic language of the sacred scriptures, "that they should sit every man under his vine, and under his fig tree, and none should make them afraid." ^(b)

Can any man of candour and knowledge deny, that these institutions, from an af­finity between Great-Britain and her colonies, that sufficiently secures their dependance upon her? or that for her to levy taxes upon them, is to reverse the nature of things? or that she can pursue such a measure, with­out reducing them to a state of vassalage?

If any person cannot conceive the supre­macy of Great-Britain to exist, without the power of laying taxes to levy money upon us, the history of the colonies and of Great-Britain since their settlement will prove the contrary. He will there find the amazing [Page 52] advantages arising to her from them—the constant exercise of her supremacy—and their filial submission to it, without a single rebellion, or even the thought of one, from the first emigration to this moment—and all these things have happened, without an instance of Great-Britain laying taxes to levy money upon them.

How many British authors ^(c) have remon­strated [Page 53] that the present wealth, power and glory of their country are founded on these colonies? As constantly as streams tend to the ocean, have they been pouring the fruits of all their labours into their mother's lap. Good Heaven! And shall a total oblivion of [Page 54] former tendernesses and blessings be spread over the minds of a wise people, by the sor­did acts of intriguing men, who covering their sel [...]i [...]h projects under pretences of public good, first enrage their countrymen into a frenzy of passion, and then advance their [Page 55] own influence and interest, by gratifying that passion, which they themselves have barely excited?

Hitherto Great-Britain has been contented with her prosperity. Moderation has been the rule of her conduct. But now a gene­rous and humane people that so often has [Page 56] protected the liberty of strangers, is inflamed into an attempt to tear a privilege from her own children, which, if executed, must in their opinion, sink them into slaves: And for what? For a pernicious power, not necessary to her, as her own experience may [Page 57] convince her; but horribly dreadful and de­testable to them.

It seems extremely probable, that when cool, dispassionate posterity shall consider the affectionate intercourse, the reciprocal benefits, and the unsuspecting confidence, [Page 58] that have subsisted between these colonies and their parent country, for such a length of time, they will execrate with the bitterest curses [...]he infamous memory of those men, whose pestilential ambition, unnecessarily, wantonly, first opened the sources of civil discord, between them; first turned their love into jealousy▪ and first taught these provinces, filled with grief and anxiety, to enquire,

"Mens ubi materna est?" Where is maternal affection.

LETTER VI.

IT may perhaps be objected against the ar­guments that have been offered to the public concerning the legal power of the parliament, that it has always exercised the power of imposing duties for the purposes of raising a revenue on the productions of these colonies carried to Great-Britain, which may be called a tax on them. To this I I answer; that is no more a violation of the rights of the colonies, than their being or­dered to carry certain of their productions to Great-Britain, which is no violation at all; it being implied in the relation between them, that the colonies should not carry such com­modities to other nations, as should enable them to interfere with the mother country. The duties imposed on these commodities when brought to her, are only a consequence of her paternal right; and if the point is thoroughly examined, will be found to be laid on the people of the mother country, and not at all dangerous to the liberties of the colonies. Whatever these duties are, they must proportionably raise the price of the goods, and consequently the duties must be paid by the consumers. In this light they were [Page 60] considered by the parliament in the 25 Char. II. Chap. 7. sec. 2. which says, that the pro­ductions of the plantations were carried from one to another free from all customs, ‘while the subjects of this your kingdom of Eng­land have paid great customs and impo­sitions for what of them have been spent here &c.’ Such duties therefore can ne­ver be injurious to the liberties of the colo­nies.

Besides, if Great-Britain exports these commodities again, the duties will injure her own trade, so that she cannot hurt us with­out plainly and immediately hurting herself; and this is our check against her acting arbi­tarily in this respect,

It ^(a) may, perhaps, be further objected, ‘that it being granted that statutes made [Page 61] for regulating trade are binding upon us, it will be difficult for any persons but the makers of the laws to determine, which of them are made for the regulating of trade, and which for raising a revenue; and that from hence may arise confusion.’

To this I answer, that the objection is of no force in the present case, or such as re­semble it, because the act now in question is formed expressly for the sole purpose of raising a revenue.

However, supposing the design of the par­liament had not been expressed, the objecti­on seems to me of no weight, with regard to the influence, which those who may make [Page 62] it, might expect it ought to have on the conduct of the colonies.

It is true, that impositions for raising a revenue, may be hereafter called regulations of trade, but names will not change the na­ture of things. Indeed we ought firmly to believe, what is an undoubted truth, confirm­ed by the unhappy experience of many states heretofore free, that unless the most watch­ful attention be exerted, a new servitude may be slipped upon us under the sanction of usual and respectable terms.

Thus the Caesars ruined Roman liberty, under the titles of tribunical and dictatorial authorities,—old and venerable dignities, known in the most flourishing times of free­dom. In imitation of the same policy, James II. when he meant to establish popery, talk­ed of liberty of conscicence, the most sacred of all liberties; and had thereby almost de­ceived the dissenters into destruction.

All artful rulers, who strive to extend their own power beyond its just limits, endeavour to give to their attempts, as much semblance of legality as possible. Those who succeed them may venture to go a little farther; for each new encroachment will be strengthened by a former, ^(b) ‘That which is now support­ed by examples, growing old, will be­come an example itself,’ and thus sup­port fresh usurpations.

[Page 63]A free people, therefore, can never be too quick in observing, nor too firm in op­posing the beginnings of alterations, either in form or reality, respecting institutions formed for their security. The first leads to the last; on the other hand nothing is more certain, than that forms of liberty may be retained, when the substance is gone. In government as well as in religion, ‘the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.’ ^(c)

I will beg leave to enforce this remark by a few instances. The crown, by the constitu­tion, has the prerogative of creating peers; the existence of that order in due number and dignity, is essential to the constitution; and if the crown did not exercise that pre­rogative, the peerage must have long since decreased so much, as to have lost its proper influence. Suppose a prince for some unjust purposes, should from time to time advance many needy pro [...]igate wretches, to that rank, that all the independance of the house of Lords should be destroyed, there would then be a manifest violation of the constituti­on, under the appearance of using legal pre­rogative.

The house of Commons claim the privi­lege of forming all money-bills, and will not suffer either of the other branches of the legislature to add to or alter them; contend­ing that their power, simply extends to an [Page 64] acceptance or rejection of them. This privi­lege appears to be just; but under pretence of this just privilege, the house of Commons has claimed a licence of tacking to money bills, clauses relating many things of a total­ly different kind, and have thus forced them, in a manner, on the crown and lords. This seems to be an abuse of that privilege, and it may be vastly more abused. Suppose a future house; influenced by some displaced discontented demagogues, in a time of dan­ger, should tack to a money bill something so injurious to the king and peers, that they would not assent to it and yet the Commons should obstinately insist on it; the whole king­dom would be exposed to ruin, under the ap­pearance of maintaining a valuable privilege.

In these cases it might be difficult for a while to determine, whether the King in­tended to exercise his prerogative in a con­stitutional manner or not; or whether the Commons insisted on the demand factitiously, or for the public good: But surely the con­duct of the crown, or of the house, would in time sufficiently explain itself.

Ought not the people therefore to watch to observe facts? to search into causes? to investigate designs? and have they not a right of judging from the evidence before them, on no slighter points than their liber­ty and happiness? It would be less than trif­ling, wherever a British government is esta­blished, to make use of any other arguments [Page 65] to prove such a right. It is sufficient to re­mind the reader of the day on which King William landed at Torbay. ^(d)

I will now apply what has been said to the present question The nature of any im­positions laid by parliament on the colonies, must determine the design in laying them. It may not be easy in every instance to dis­cover that design. Whenever it is doubtful, I think submission cannot be dangerou [...]; nay, it must be right: for, in my opinion, there is no privilege the colonies claim, which they ought, in duty and prudence, more earnestly to maintain and defend, than the authority of the British parliament to regu­late the trade of all her dominions. Without this authority, the benefits she enjoys from our commerce, must be lost to her: The blessings we enjoy from our dependance up­on her, must be lost to us; her strength must decay; her glory vanish; and she cannot suf­fer, without our partaking in her misfortune. — ‘Let us therefore cherish her interest as our own, and give her every thing that it becomes FREEMEN to give or to receive.’

The nature of any impositions she may lay upon us, may in general be known, con­sidering how far they relate to the preserv­ing, in due order, the connexion between the [Page 66] several parts of the British empire. One thing we may be assured of, which is this; when­ever a statute imposes duties on commodities, to be paid only upon their exportation from Great-Britain to these colonies, it is not a regulation of trade, but a design to raise revenue upon us. Other instances may hap­pen, which it may not be necessary to dwell on. I hope these colonies will never, to their latest existence, want understanding suffici­ent to discover the intentions of those who rule over them, nor the resolution necessary for asserting their interests. They will al­ways have the same right that all free states have, of judging when their privileges are invaded, and of using all prudent measures for preserving them.

Wherefore keep up your spirits, and gal­lantly oppose t [...]is [...]erse course of affairs.

LETTER VII.

THIS letter is intended more particularly for such of you, whose employment in life may have prevented your attending to the [...]deration of some points that are of [...] and public importance. For many such persons there must be even in these co­lonies, where the inhabitants in general are more intelligent than any other people, as has been remarked by strangers, and it seems with reason.

Some of you perhaps, filled as I know your breasts are with loyalty to our most excellent prince, and with love to our dear mother country, may feel yourselves inclined by the affections of your hearts, to approve every action of those whom you so much venerate and esteem.

A prejudice thus flowing from goodness of disposition is amiable indeed. I wish it could be indulged without danger. Did I think this possible, the error should have been adopted, not opposed by me. But in truth, all men are subject to the passions and frailties of nature; and therefore whatever re­gard we entertain for the persons of those who govern us, we should always remem­ber [Page 68] that their conduct as rulers may be in­fluenced by human infirmities.

When any laws injurious to these colonies are passed, we cannot, with the least propri­ety, suppose that any injury was intended us by his M [...]jesty or the Lords. For the assent of the crown and peers to law seems, as far as I am able to judge, to have been vested in them, more for their own security than for any other purpose. On the other hand, it is the particular business of the people to en­quire and discover what regulations are use­ful for themselves, and to digest and present them in the form of bills to the other orders, to have them enacted into laws—Where these laws are to bind themselves, it may be expected that the house of Commons will very carefully consider them: But when they are making laws, that are not designed to bind themselves, we cannot imagine that their deliberations will be as cautious and scrupulous as in their own case. ^(a)

[Page 69]I am told that there is a wonderful ad­dress frequently used in carrying points in the house of commons, by persons experien­ced in these affairs—that opportunities are watched—and sometimes votes are past, that if all the members had been present, would [Page 70] have been rejected by a great majority. Certain it is, that when a powerful and art­ful man has determined on any measure a­gainst these colonies, he has always succeed­ed in his attempt. Perhaps therefore it will be proper for us, whenever any oppres­sive act affecting us is past, to attribute it to the inattention of the members of the house of commons, and to the malevolence or ambition of some factious great man, rather than to any other cause.

Now I do verily believe, that the late act of parliament imposing duties on paper, &c. was formed by Mr. Grenville and his party, because it is evidently a part of that plan, by which be endeavoured to render himself popular at home; and I do also believe that not one half of the members of the house of commons, even of those who heard it read, did perceive how destructive it was to American freedom.

For this reason, as it is usual in Great-Britain, to consider the King's speech, as the speech of the ministry, it may be right here to consider this act as the act of a party. —Perhaps I should speak more properly if I was to use another term.—

[Page 71]There are two ways of laying taxes.— One is by imposing a certain sum on parti­cular kinds of property, to be paid by the user or consumer, or by taxing the person at a certain sum; the other is, by imposing a certain sum on particular kinds of property to be paid by the seller.

When a man pays the first sort of tax, he knows with certainty that he pays so much money for a tax. The confideration for which he pays it is remote, and it may be does not occur to him. He is sensible too that he is commanded and obliged to pay it as a tax; and therefore people are apt to be dis­pleased with this sort of tax.

The other sort of tax is submitted to in a very different manner. The purchaser of any article very seldom reflects that the seller raises his price so as to indemnify him for the tax he has paid. He knows the prices of things are continually fluctuating, and if he thinks about the tax, he thinks at the same time in all probability, that he might have paid as much, if the article he buys had not been taxed. He gets some­thing visible and agreeable for his money, and tax and price are so confounded toge­ther, that he cannot seperate, or does not chuse to take the trouble of seperating them.

This mode of taxation therefore is the mode suited to arbitrary and oppressive go­vernments. The love of liberty is so natural [Page 72] to the human heart, that unfeeling tyrants think themselves obliged to accommodate their schemes as much as they can to the appearance of justice and reason, and to deceive those whom they resolve to destroy or oppress, by presenting to them a misera­ble picture of freedom, when the inestimable original is lost.

This policy did not escape the cruel and rapacious Nero. That monster, apprehen­sive that his crimes might endanger his au­thority and life, thought proper to do some popular acts to secure the obedience of his subjects. Among other things, says ^(b) Tacitus, ‘he remitted the twenty-fifth part of the price on the sale of slaves, but rather in shew than reality; for the seller being ordered to pay it, it became a part of the price to the buyer.’

This is the reflection of the judicious his­torian: but the deluded people gave their infamous emperor full credit for his false generosity. Other nations have been treated in the same manner the Romans were. The honest industrious Germans who are settled in different parts of this continent can in­form us, that it was this sort of tax that drove them from their native land to our woods, at that time the seats of perfect and undisturbed freedom.

Their princes inflamed by the lust of power and the lust of avarice, two furies, [Page 73] that the more hungery they grow, transgres­sed the bounds they ought in regard to them­selves to have observed. To keep up the decep­tion in the minds of subjects "there must be," says a very learned author ^(d) "some proportion between the impost and the value of the commodity; wherefore there ought not to be an excessive duty upon merchan­dizes of little value. There are countries in which the duty exceeds seventeen or eigh­teen times the value of the commodity. In this case the prince removes the illusion. His subjects plainly see they are dealt with in an unreasonable manner, which renders them most exquisitely sensible of their slavi [...]h situation."

From hence it appears that subjects may be ground down into misery by this sort of taxation as well as the other. They may be as much impoverished if their money is taken from them in this way, as in the other; and that it will be taken, may be more evi­dent, by attending to a few more considera­tions.

The merchant, or importer who pays the duty at first, will not consent to be so much money out of pocket. He, therefore, pro­portionably raises the price of his goods. It may then be s [...]id to be a contest between him and the person offering to buy, who shall lose the duty. This must be decided by the nature of the commodities and the purchasers demand for them. If they are [Page 74] mere luxuries, he is at liberty to do as he pleases, and if he buys, he does it voluntari­ly: But if they are absolute necessaries, or conveniencies which use and custom have made requisite for the comfort of life, and which he is not permitted, by the power imposing the duty, to get elsewhere, there the seller has a plain advantage, and the buyer must pay the duty. In fact, the seller is nothing less than the collector of the tax for the power that imposed it. If these duties then are extended to necessaries and conveniences of life in general, and enor­mously increased, the people must at length become indeed "most exquisitely sensible of their slavish situation."

Their happiness, therefore, intirely de­pends on the moderation of those who have authority to impose the duties.

I shall now apply these observation to the late act of parliament. Certain duties are thereby imposed on paper and glass, &c. im­ported into these colonies. By the laws of Great-Britain we are prohibited to get these articles from any other part of the world. We cannot at present, nor for many years to come, though we should apply ourselves to these manufactures with the utmost industry, make enough ourselves for our own use. That paper and glass are not only convenient, but absolutely necessary for us, I imagine ve­ry few will contend. Some, perhaps, who think mankind grew wicked and luxurious as soon as they found out another way of com­municating [Page 75] their sentiments than by speech, and another way of dwelling than in caves, may advance so whimsical an opinion. But I presume nobody will take the unnecessary trouble of refuting them.

From these remarks I think it evident, that we must use paper and glass, that what we use must be British, and that we must pay the duties imposed, unless those who sell these articles are so generous as to make us presents of the duties they pay, which is not to be expected.

Some persons may think this act of no con­sequence, because the duties are so small. A fatal error. That is the very circum­stance most alarming to me. For I am con­vinced that the authors of this law, would ne­ver have obtained an act to raise so tri [...]ling a sum, as it must do, had they not intend­ed by it to establish a precedent for future use. To console ourselves with the smallness of the duties, is to walk deliberately into the s [...]are that is set for us, praising the neatness of the workmanship. Suppose the duties, imposed by the late act, could be paid by these dissressed colonies, with the utmost ease, and that the purposes, to which they are to be applied, were the most reasonable and e­quitable that could be conceived, the contra­ry of which I hope to demonstrate before these letters are concluded, yet even in such a supposed case, these colonies ought to re­gard the act with abhorrence. For who are a free people? not those over whom govern­ment is reasonably and equitably exercised [Page 76] but those who live under a government, so constitutionally checked and controuled, that proper provision is made against its being o­therwise exercised. The late act is founded on the destruction of this constitutional security.

If the parliament have a right to lay a duty of four shillings and eight pence on a hun­dred weight of gl [...]ss, or a ream of paper, they have a right to lay a duty of any other sum on either. They may raise the duty as the author before qoted says, has been done in some countries, till it ‘exceeds se­venteen or eighteen times the value of the commodity.’ In short, if they have a right to levy a tax of one penny upon us, they have a right to levy a million upon us. For where does their right stop? At any gi­ven number of pence, shillings, or pounds? To attempt to limit their right, after grant­ing it to exist at all, is as contrary to reason, as granting it to exist at all is contrary to justice. If they have any right to tax us, then, whether our own money shall continue in our own pockets, or not, depends no long­er on us, but on them. ‘There is nothing which we can call our own,’ or to use the words of Mr. Locke, ‘What property have’ we ‘in that, which another may, by right, take, when he pleases, to him­self.’ ^(e)

These duties, which will inevitably be le­vied upon us, and which are now levying up­on us, are expressly laid for the sole purpose of taking money. This is the true definiti­on [Page 77] of taxes. They are therefore taxes. This money is to be taken from us. We are therefore taxed. Those who are taxed with­out their own consent, given by themselves, or their representatives, are slaves. ^(f) We are [Page 78] taxed without our own consent given by ourselves, or our representatives. We are therefore—I speak it with grief—I speak it with indignation—we are slaves.

LETTER VIII.

IN my opinion, a dangerous example is set in the last act relating to these colo­nies. The power of parliament to levy money upon us for raising a revenue, is therein avowed and exerted. Regarding the act on this single principle, I must again repeat, and I think it my duty to repeat, that to me it appears to be unconstitutional.

No man, who considers the conduct of parliament since the repeal of the Stamp-act, and the disposition of many people at home, can doubt, that the chief object of attention there, is, to use Mr. Grenville's expression, "providing that the dependance and obedi­ence of the colonies be asserted and main­tained."

Under the influence of this notion, instant­ly on repealing the Stamp-act, an act passed, declaring the power of parliament to bind these colonies in all cases whatever. This, however, was only planting a barren tree, that cast a shade indeed over the colonies, but yielded no fruit. It being determined to enforce the authority on which the Stamp-act was founded, the parliament having never renounced the right, as Mr. Pitt ad­vised them to do; and it being thought [Page 80] proper to disguise that authority in such a manner, as not again to alarm the colo­nies; some little time was required to find a method, by which both these points should be united. At la the ingenuity of Mr. Greenville and his party accomplished the matter, as it was thought, in "An act for granting certain duties in the British colo­nies and plantations in America, for allow­ing drawbacks, &c. which is the title of the act laying duties on paper, &c.

The parliament having several times be­fore imposed duties to be paid in America, it was expected no doubt, that the repeti­tion of such a measure would be passed over as an usual thing. But to have done this, without expressly asserting and maintaining "the power of parliament to take our mo­ney without our consent," and to apply it as they please, would not have been sufficiently declarative of its supremacy, nor sufficiently depressive of American freedom.

Therefore it is, that in this memorable act we find it expressly "provided" that money shall be levied upon us without our consent, for purposes, that render it, if possible, more dreadful than the Stamp-act.

That act, alarming as it was, declared, the money thereby to be raised, should be applied ‘towards defraying the expences of defending, protecting and securing the British colonies and plantations in Ameri­ca:’ And it is evident from the whole act, that by the word "British" were in­tended [Page 81] colonies and plantations settled by British people, and not generally, those sub­ject to the British crown. That act therefore seemed to have something gentle and kind in its intention, and to aim only at our own wel­fare: But the act now objected to, imposes duties upon the British colonies, "to defray the expences of defending, protecting and securing his Majesty's dominions in America."

What a change of words! What an incom­putable addition to the expences intended by the Stamp-act! "His Majesty's dominions" comprehend not only the British colonies; but also the conquered provinces of Canada and Florida, and the British garrisons of Nova-Scotia; for these do not deserve the name of colonies.

What justice is there in making us pay for "defending, protecting and securing" these places? What benefit can we, or have we ever derived from them? None of them was con­quered for us; nor will "be defended, pro­tected and secured" for us.

In fact, however advantageous the subduing or keeping any of these countries may be to Great-Britain, the acquisition is greatly inju­rious to these colonies. Our chief property consists in lands. These would have been of a much greater value, if such prodigious ad­ditions had not been made to the British ter­ritories on this continent. The natural in­crease of our own people, if confined within [Page 82] the colonies, would have raised the value still higher and higher, every fifteen or twenty years. Besides, we should have lived more compactly together, and have been therefore more able to resist any enemy,

But now the inhabitants will be thinly scattered over an immense region, as those who want settlements, will chuse to make new ones, rather than pay great prices for old ones.

These are the consequences to the colonies of the hearty assistance they gave to Great-Britain in the late war.—A war, underta­ken solely for her own benefit. The objects of it were, the securing to herself the rich tracts of land on the back of these colonies, with the Indian trade, and Nova-Scotia with the fishery. These, and much more has that kingdom gained; but the inferior animals that hunted with the Lion, have been amply rewarded for all the sweat and blood their loyalty cost them, by the honour of having sweated and bled in such company.

I will not go so far as to say, that Cana­da and Nova-Scotia are curbs on New-Eng­land; the chain of forts through the back woods, on the middle provinces; and Flori­da, on the rest: but I will venture to say, that if the products of Canada, Nova-Scotia and [...]lorida, deserve any consideration, the two first of them are only rivals of our northern colonies, and the other of our southern.

[Page 83]It has been said, that without the conquest of these countries, the colonies could not have been "protected, defended, and secur­ed;" If that is true, it may with as much propriety be said, that Great-Britain could not have been "defended, protected, and secured" without that conquest: for the colonies are parts of her empire, which it is as much concerns her as them to keep out of the hands of any other power.

But these colonies when they were much weaker, defended themselves, before this conquest was made; and could again do it, against any that might properly be called their enemies. If France and Spain indeed should attack them, as members of the Bri­tish empire perhaps they might be distressed; but it would be in a British quarrel.

The largest account I have seen of the num­ber of people in Canada, does not make them exceed 90,000. Florida can hardly be said to have any inhabitants—It is computed that there are in our colonies, 3,000,000.—Our force therefore must encrease with a dispro­portion to the growth of their strength, that would render us very safe.

This being the state of the case, I cannot think it just, that these colonies, labouring under so many misfortunes, should be loaded with taxes, to maintain countries not only not useful, but hurtful to them. The sup­port of Canada and Florida cost yearly, it is said, half a million sterling. From hence we [Page 84] may make some guess of the load that is to be laid upon us: for we are not only to "de­fend, protect, and secure" them, but also to make ‘an adequate provision for defray­ing the charge of the administration of justice and the support of civil govern­ment, in such provinces where it shall be found necessary.’

Not one of the provinces of Canada, Nova-Scotia, or Florida, has ever defrayed these expences within itself: And if the duties im­posed by the last statute are collected, all of them together, according to the best in­formation I can get, will not pay one quar­ter as much as Pennsylvania alone. So that the British colonies are to be drained of the rewards of their labour, to cherish the scorching sands of Florida, and the icy rocks of Canada and Nova-Scotia, which never will return to us one farthing that we send to them.

Great-Britain—I mean the ministry in Great-Britain, has cantoned Canada and Florida out into five or six governments, and may form as many more. She now has fourteen or fifteen regiments on this conti­nent; and may send over as many more. To make "an adequate provision" for all these expences, is, no doubt, to be the inhe­ritance of the colonies.

Can any man believe that the duties upon paper, &c. are the last that will be laid for these purposes? It is in vain to hope, that because it is imprudent to lay duties on the [Page 85] exportation of manufactures from a mother country to colonies, as it may promote ma­nufactures among them, that this considera­tion will prevent them.

Ambitious, artful men have made the measure popular, and whatever injustice or destruction will attend it in the opinion of the colonists, at home it will be thought just and salutary. ^(a)

The people of Great-Britain will be told, and they have been told, that they are sink­ing under an immense debt—that great part of this debt has been contracted in defend­ing the colonies—that these are so ungrate­ful and undutiful, that they will not contri­bute one mite to its payment—nor even to the support of the army now kept up for their "protection and security"—that they are rolling in wealth, and are of so bold and republican a spirit, that they are aiming at independance—that the only way to re­tain them in "obedience" is to keep a strict watch over them, and to draw off part of their riches in taxes—and that every bur­den laid upon them is taking off so much from Great-Britain—These assertions will be generally believed, and the people will be persuaded that they cannot be too angry with their colonies, as that anger will be profitable to themselves.

[Page 86]In truth, Great-Britain alone receives any benefit from Canada, Nova-Scotia, and Florida; and therefore she alone ought to maintain them.—The old maxim of the law is drawn from reason and justice, and never could be more properly applied, than in this case.

"Qui sentit, commodum, sentire debet et onus."

They who feel the benefit, ought to feel the burden.

LETTER IX.

I HAVE made some observations on the purposes for which money is to be levied upon us by the late act of parliament. I shall now offer to your consideration some further reflections on that subject; and, un­less I am greatly mistaken, if these purpos­es are accomplished, according to the ex­prest intention of the act, they will be found effectually to supersede that authority in our respective assemblies, which is most essential to liberty. The question is not whether some branches shall be lopt off—The ax is laid to the root of the tree; and the whole body must infallibly perish, if we remain idle spectators of the work.

No free people ever existed, or ever can exist, without, keeping, to use a common but strong expression, "the purse strings" in their own hands. Where this is the case, they have a constitutional check upon the administration, which may thereby be brought into order without violence: but where such a power is not lodged in the people, oppression proceeds uncontrouled in its career, till the governed, transported [Page 88] into rage, seeks redress in the midst of blood and confusion.

The elegant and ingenious Mr. Hume, speaking of the Anglo-Norman government, says ‘princes and ministers were too igno­rant to be themselves sensible of the ad­vantages attending an equitable admini­stration; and there was no established council or assembly which could protect the people, and, by withdrawing sup­plies, regularly and peaceably admonish the King of his duty, and ensure the ex­ecution of the laws’

Thus this great man, whose political re­flections are so much admired, makes this power one of the foundations of liberty.

The English history abounds with instan­ces, proving that this is the proper and suc­cessful way to obtain redress of grievances. How often have Kings and ministers endea­voured to throw off this legal curb upon them, by attempting to raise money by a variety of inventions, under pretence of law, without having recourse to parliament? And how often have they been brought to reason, and peaceably obliged to do justice, by the exertion of this constitutional authori­ty of the people, vested in their representa­tives?

The inhabitants of these colonies have on inumberless occasions, reaped the benefits of this authority lodged in their assemblies.

[Page 89]It has been for a long time, and now is, a constant instruction to all governors, to obtain a permanent support for the offices of government. But as the author of the administration of the colonies says, ‘this order of the crown is generally, if not universally, rejected by the legislatures of the colonies.’

They perfectly know how much their grie­vances would be regarded, if they had no o­ther method of engaging attention, than by complaining. Those who rule, are ex­tremely apt to think well of the constructi­ons made by themselves, in support of their own power. These are frequently errone­ous and pernicious to those they govern— Dry remonstrances, to shew that such con­structions are wrong and oppressive, carry very little weight with them, in the opinion of persons, who gratify their own inclinati­ons in making these constructions. They cannot understand the reasoning that opposes their power and desire: but let it be made their interest to understand such reasoning— and a wonderful light is instantly thrown on the matter; and then rejected remonstran­ces become as clear as "proof of holy "writ." ^(a)

The three most important articles, that our assemblies, or any legislatures can pro­vide for, are, first the defence of the socie­ty: [Page 90] secondly—the administration of justice: and, thirdly, the support of civil government.

Nothing can properly regulate the ex­pence of making provision for these occasi­ons, but the necessities of the society; its a­bilities; the conveniency of the modes of levying money among them; the manner in which the laws have been executed; and the conduct of the officers of government; all which are circumstances that cannot pos­sibly be properly known, but by the society itself; or, if they should be known, will not, probably, be properly considered, but by that society.

If money may be raised upon us, by o­thers, without our consent, for our "de­fence," those who are the judges in levy­ing it, must also be the judges in applying it. Of consequence, the money said to be taken from us for our defence, may be em­ployed to our injury. We may be chained in by a line of fortifications: obliged to pay for building and maintaining them; and be told that they are for our defence. With what face can we dispute the fact, after having granted, that those who apply the money, had a right to levy it; for, surely, it is much easier for their wisdom to understand how to apply it in the best manner, than how to levy it in the best manner. Besides, the right of levying is of infinitely more consequence, than that of applying. The people of England, that would burst out in­to [Page 91] fury, if the crown should attempt to le­vy money by its own authority, have assign­ed to the crown the application of money.

As to "the administration of justice"—the judges ought, in a well regulated state, to be equally independant of the legislative powers. Thus, in England, judges hold their commissions from the crown "during good behaviour;" and have salaries, suit­able to their dignity, settled on them by parliament. The purity of the courts of law, since this establishment, is a proof of the wisdom with which it was made.

But, in these colonies, how fruitless has been every attempt to have the judges ap­pointed during good behaviour; yet whoe­ver considers the matter will soon perceive, that such commissions are beyond all com­parison more necessary in these colonies, than they are in England.

The chief danger to the subject there, a­rose from the arbitrary designs of the crown; but here, the time may come, when we may have to contend with the designs of the crown, and of a mighty kingdom. What then will be our chance, when the laws of life and death, are to be spoken by judges, totally dependant on that crown and king­dom—sent over, perhaps, from thence— filled with British prejudice—and backed by a standing army, supported out of our own pockets, to "assert and maintain" our own "dependance and obedience?

[Page 92]But supposing, that through the extreme lenity that will prevail in the government, through all future ages, these colonies never will bohold any thing like the campaign of chief justice Jeffereys, yet what innumerable acts of injustice may be committed, and how fatally may the principles of liberty be s [...]pped by a succession of judges uterly in­dependant of the people? Before such judges, the supple wretches, who chearfully join in avowing sentiments inconsistent with freedom, will always meet with smiles: while the ho­nest and brave men, who disdain to sacrifice their native land to their own advantage, but on every occasion, boldly vindicate her cause, will constantly be regarded with frowns.

There are two other considerations, re­lating to this head, that deserve the [...]ost serious attention.

By the late act the officers of the customs are impowered ‘to enter into any house, warehouse, shop, cellar, or other place in the British colonies or plantations in America, to search for, or seize prohibited or unaccustomed goods,’ &c. on ‘writs granted by the inferior or supreme court of justice, having jurisdiction within such colony or plantation respectively.’

If we only reflect that the judges of these courts are to be during pleasure—that they are to have " adequate provision" [...] for them, which is to continue during their complisant behaviour—that they may be [Page 93] strangers to these colonies—what an engine of oppression may this authority be in such hands?

I am well aware that writs of this kind may be granted at home, under the seal of the court of exchequer: But I know also that the greatest asserters of the rights of Englishmen, have always strenuously contend­ed, that such a power was dangerous to free­dom, and expressly contrary to the common law, which ever regarded a man's house, as his castle, or a place of perfect security.

If such a power is in the least degree dan­gerous there, it must be utterly destructive to liberty here.—For the people there have two securities against the undue exercise of this power by the crown, which are want­ing with us, if the late act takes place. In the first place, if any injustice is done there, the person injured may bring his action against the offender, and have it tried by independant judges, who are ^(b) no parties in committing the injury. Here he must have it tried before dependant judges, being the men who granted the writ.

To say that the cause is to be tried by a jury can never reconcile men, who have any idea of freedom to such a power.—For we know, that sheriffs in almost every colony [Page 94] on this continent, are totally dependant on the crown; and packing of juries has been frequently practised even in the capital of of the British empire. Even if juries are well inclined, we have too many instances of the influence of overbearing unjust judges upon them. The brave and wise men who accomplished the revolution, thought the independency of judges essential to freedom.

The other security which the people have at home, but which we shall want here, is this.—If this power is abused there, the par­liament, the grand resource of the opprest people, is ready to afford relief. Redress of grievances must precede grants of money. But what regard can we expect to have paid to our assemblies, when they will not hold even the puny privilege of French par­liaments—that of regestering the edicts, that take away our money, before they are put in execution.

The second consideration above hinted at, is this—There is a confusion in our laws that is quite unknown in Great-Britain. As this cannot be described in a more clear or ex­act manne [...] ▪ than has been done by the inge­nious author of the history of New-York, I beg leave to use his words. "The state of our laws opens a door to much controversy. The uncertainty which respect them, ren­ders property precarious, and greatly expo­ses us to the arbitary decision of unjust judg­es. [Page 95] The common law of England is gene­rally received, together with such statutes, as were enacted before we had a legislature of our own; but our courts exercise a sove­reign authority, in determining what parts of the common and statute law ought to be extended: For it must be admitted, that the difference of circumstances necessarily requires us, in some cases, to reject the determinati­on of both. In many instances they have al­so extended even acts of parliament, passed since we had a distinct legislature, which is greatly adding to our confusion. The prac­tice of our courts is no less uncertain than the law. Some of the English rules are a­dopted, others rejected. Two things there­fore seem to be absolutely necessary for the public security. First the passing an act for settling the extent of the English laws. Se­condly, that the courts ordain a general set of rules for the regulation of the practice."

How easy will it be under this "state of our laws" for an artful judge to act in the most arbitary manner, and yet cover his conduct under specious pretences, and how difficult will it be for the injured people to obtain redress, may be readily perceived. We may take a voyage of three thousand miles to complain; and after the trouble and ha­zard we have undergone, we may be told, that the collection of the revenue and main­tenance of the prerogative, must not be dis­couraged.—And if the misbehaviour is so [Page 96] gross as to admit of no justification, it may be said that it was an error in judgment on­ly, arising from the confusion of our laws, and the zeal of the King's servants to do their duty.

If the commissions of judges are during the pleasure of the crown, yet if their sala­ries are during the pleasure of the people, there will be some check upon their conduct. Few men will consent to draw on themselves the hatred and contempt of those among whom they live, for the empty honour of being judges. It is the sordid love of gain that tempts men to turn their backs on virtue, and pay their homage where they ought not.

As to the third particular, the "support "of civil government," few words will be sufficient. Every man of the least under­standing must know, that the executive power may be exercised in a manner so disagreeable and harassing to the people, that it is absol­utely requisite, they should be enabled by the gentlest method which human policy has yet been ingenious enough to invent, that is by the shutting their hands, to "admonish" (as Mr. Hume says) certain persons "of "their duty,"

What shall we now think, when, upon looking into the late act, we find the assem­blies of these [...]ovinces thereby stript of their authority on [...]hes [...] s [...]v [...]ral heads? The de­clared intention of that ac [...] i [...], "that a reve­nue [Page 97] should be raised in his M [...]jesty's domini­ons in America, for making a more certain and adequ [...]te provision for defraying the charge of the administration of ju [...]tice, and the support of civil government, in such pro­vinces where it shall be found necessary; and towards further defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the said dominions," &c.

Let the reader pause here one moment, and reflect—whether the colony in which he lives, has not made such "certain and ade­quate "provisions" for these purposes, as is by the colony judged suitable to its abili­ties, and all other circumstances. Then let him reflect—whether, if this act takes place, money is not to be raised on that colony without its consent to make provision for these purposes, which it does not judge to be suitable to its abilities, and all other cir­cumstances. Lastly, let him reflect—whe­ther the people of that country are not in a state of the most abject, slavery, whose property may be taken from them under the notion of right, when they have refused to give it. For my part, I think I have good reason for vindicating the honour of the as­semblies on this continent, by publicly assert­ing, that they have made as "certain and "adequate provsion" for the purposes a­bove-mentioned, as they [...]ught to have made; and that it should not be [...]esume [...], that they will not do it hereaft [...]r. Why then [Page 98] should these most important truths be wrested out of their hands? Why should they not now be permitted to enjoy that authority, which they have exercised from the first settlement of these colonies? Why should they be scandalized by this innovati­on, when their respective provinces are now, and will be for several years, labouring un­der load [...] of debts imposed on them for the very purposes now spoken of? Why should the inhabitants of all these colonies be with the utmost indignity treated, as a herd of despicable wretches, so utterly void of com­mon sense, that they will not even make "adequate provision" for the "admini­stration "of justice" and "the support of "civil government" among them, for their "own defence"—though without such "provision" every people must inevitably be overwhelmed with anarchy and destructi­on? Is it possible to form an idea of slavery more complete, more miserable, more dis­graceful, than that of a people, where jus­tice is administred, government exercised, and a standing army maintained, at the ex­pence of the people, and yet without the least dependance upon them? If we can find no relief from this infamous situation, let Mr. Grenville set his fertile fancy again to work, and as by one exertion of it, he has stripped us of our property and liberty, let him by another deprive us of our understand­ing too, that unconscious of what we have [Page 99] been or are, and ungoaded by tormenting reflections, we may tamely bow down our necks with all the stupid serenity of servitude, to any drudgery, which our lords and ma­sters may please to command.—

When the "charges of the administration of justice,"—"the support of civil govern­ment;"—and "the expences of defending protecting and securing" us, are provid­ed for, I should be glad to know upon what occasion the crown will ever call our assem­blies together. Some few of them may meet of their own accord, by virtue of their charters: But what will they have to do when they are met? To what shadows will they be reduced? The men, whose delibera­tions heretofore had an influence on every matter relating to the liberty and happiness of themselves and their constituents, and whose authority in domestic affairs, at least, might well be compared to that of Roman senators, will now find their deliberations of no more consequence than those of consta­bles.—They may perhaps be allowed to make laws for yoking of hogs, or pounding of stray cattle. Their influence will hardly be permitted to extend so high as the keep­ing roads in repair, as that business may more properly be executed by those who receive the public cash.

One most memorable example in history is so applicable to the point now insisted on, [Page 100] that it will form a just conclusion of the ob­s [...]rvations that have been made.

Spain was once free. Their Cortes resem­bled our parliament. No money could be raised on the subject, without their consent. One of their Kings having received a grant from them to maintain a war against the Moors, desired, that if the sum which they [...]ad given, should not be suff [...]cient, he might be allowed for that emergency only, to have more money, without assembling the Cortes. The request was violently opposed by the best and wisest men in the as [...]mbly. It was however, complied with by the votes of a majority; and this single concession was a precedent for other concessions of the like kinds, until, at last, the crown obtained a general power for raising money in cases of necessity. From that period the Cortes ceased to be useful, and the people ceased to be free.

LETTER X.

THE consequences, mentioned in the last letter, will not be the utmost limits of our misery and infamy. We feel too sensibly that any ^(a) ministerial measures, relating to these colonies, are soon carried successfully thro' the parliament. Certain prejudices o­perate there so strongly against us, that it might justly be questioned, whether all the provinces united, will ever be able affectually to call to an account, before the parliament, any minister who shall abuse the power by the late act given to the crown in America. He may divide the spoils torn from us, in what manner he pleases; and we shall have no way of making him responsible. If he should order, that every Governor, should have a yearly salary of 5000 l, sterling, eve­ry chief justice of 3000 l. every inferior offi­cer [Page 102] in proportion; and should then reward the most profligate, ignorant, or needy de­pendants on himself, or his friends with pla­ces of the greatest trust because they were of the greatest profit, this would be called an arangement in consequence of the ‘a­dequate provision for defraying the charge of the administration of justice, and the sup­port of the civil government.’ And if the taxes should prove at any time insufficient to answer all the expences of the numberless offices, which ministers may please to create, surely the house of Commons would be too "modest" to contradict a minister who should tell them, it was become necessary to lay a new tax upon the colonies, for the laudable purpose of ‘defraying the charges of the administration of justice, and the support of civil government’ among them. Thus in fact we shall be taxed by ministers. ^(b)

We may perceive, from the example of Ireland, how eager ministers are to seize up­on any settled revenue, and apply it in sup­porting their own power.—Happy are the men, and happy are the people, who grow wise by the misfortune of others. Earnest­ly, my dear countrymen, do I beseech the author of all good gifts, that you may grow wise in this manner: And, if I may be al­lowed [Page 103] to take the liberty, I beg leave to re­commend to you in general, as the best me­thod of obtaining wisdom, diligently to stu­dy the histories of other countries. You will there find all the arts, that can possibly be practised by cunning rulers, or false patri­ots among yourselves, so fully delienated, that changing names, the account would serve for your own times.

It is pretty well known on this continent, that Ireland has, with a regular consistence of injustice, been cruelly treated by ministers, in the article of pensions; but there are some alarming circumstances relating to that subject, which I wish to have better known among us.

^(c) The revenue of the crown there, arises principally from the excise granted ‘for pay of the army, and defraying other public charges in defence and preservation of the kingdom’ —from the tonnage and additional poundage granted ‘for protect­ing the trade of the kingdom at sea, and augmenting the public revenue’ from the hearth-money granted, as a ‘public re­venue for public charges and expences.’ There are some other branches of the reve­nue, concerning which there is not any ex­press appropriation of them for public ser­vice, but which were plainly so intended.

[Page 104]Of these branches of the revenue, the crown is only a trustee for the public. They are unalienable; [...]hey are inapplicable to any other purposes, but those for which they were established; and therefore are not legally chargeable with pensions.

There is another kind of revenue, which is a private revenue. This is not limited to any public uses; but the crown has the same property in it, that any person has in his estate. This does not amount at the most to fifteen thousand pounds a year, probably not to seven; and it is the only revenue that can legally be charged with pensions. If mini­sters were accustomed to regard the rights or happiness of the people, the pensions in Ireland would not exceed the sum just menti­oned: but long since have they exceeded that limit, and in December, 1765, a moti­on was made in the House of Commons in that kingdom, to address his Majesty, on the great increase of pensions on the Irish establishment, amounting to the sum of £. 158, 685 in the last two years.

Attempts have been made to gloss over these gross incroachments, by this specious argument,— ‘That expending a competent part of the public revenue in pensions, from a principle of charity or generosity, adds to the dignity of the crown, and is, therefore, useful to the public.’ To give this argument any weight, it must appear that the pensions proceed from "charity [Page 105] "or generosity" only—And that it "adds "to the dignity of the crown" to act di­rectly contrary to law.

From this conduct towards Ireland, in open violation of law, we may easily [...]ore­see what we may expect, when a minister will have the whole revenue of America, in his own hands, to be disposed of at his own pleasure. For all the monies raised by the late act are to be ‘applied, by virtue of warrants under the sign manual, coun­tersigned by the high treasurer, or any three of the commissioners of the trea­sury.’ The "residue" indeed, is to be paid ‘into the receipt of the exchequer, and to be disposed of by parliament.’ So that a minister will have nothing to do but to take care that there shall be no "re­sidue," and he is superior to all controul.

Besides the burden of pensions in Ireland, which have enormously encreased within these few years, almost all the offices, in that poor kingdom, have, since the com­mencement of the present century, and now are bestowed upon strangers. For though the merit of those born there justly raises them to places of high trust, when they go abroad, as all Europe can witness, yet he is an uncommonly lucky Irishman, who can get a good post in his native country.

[Page 106]When I consider the ^(d) manner in which that island has been uniformly depressed for so many years past, with this pernicious parti­cu [...]arity [Page 107] of their parliament continuing ^(e) as long as the crown pleases, I am astonished to observe such a love of liberty still animat­ing that loyal and generous nation; and nothing can raise higher my idea of the integrity and public spirit of the people ^(f) [Page 108] who have preserved the sacred fire of free­dom from being extinguished though the altar, on which it burned, has been thrown down.

In the same manner shall we unquestion­ably be treated, as soon as the late taxes, l [...]id upon us, shall make posts in the "go­vernment," and the "administration of "justice, here, worth the attention of per­sons of influence in Great-Britain. We know enough already to satisfy us of this truth. But this will not be the worst part of our case.

The principals in all great offices will re­side in England, make some paltry allowance to deputies for doing the business here. Let any man consider what an exhausting drain this must be upon us, when ministers are possessed of the power of affixing what [Page 109] salaries they please to posts, and he must be convinced how destructive the late act must be. The injured kingdom, lately mention­ed, can tell us the mischiefs of absenters; and we may perceive already the same dis­position taking place with us. The govern­ment of New-York has been exercised by a deputy. That of Virginia is now held so; and we know of a number of secre­taryships, collectorships, and other officers held in the same manner.

True it is, that if the people of Great-Britain were not too much blinded by the passions, that have been artfully excited in their breasts, against their dutiful children, the colonists, these considerations would be nearly as alarming to them as to us. The influence of the crown was thought, by wise men many years ago, too great, by reason of the multitude of pensions and places be­stowed by it; these have vastly increased since ^(g) and perhaps it would be no difficult [Page 110] matter to prove that the people have de­creased.

Surely, therefore, those who wish the wel­fare of their country, ought seriously to re­flect what may be the consequence of such a new creation of offices, in the disposal of the crown. The army, the administration of justice, and the civil government here, with such salaries as the crown shall please to an­nex, will extend ministerial influence, as much beyond its former bounds, as the late war did the British dominions.

But whatever the people of Great-Britain may think on this occasion, I hope the peo­ple of these colonies will unanimously join in this sentiment, that the late act of parlia­ment is injurious to their liberty; and that this sentiment will unite them in a firm op­position [Page 111] to it, in the same manner as the dread of the Stamp-act did.

Some persons may imagine the sums to be raised by it, are but small, and therefore may be inclined to acquiesce under it. A conduct more dangerous to freedom, as be­fore has been observed, can never be adopt­ed. Nothing is wanted at home but a pre­cedent, the force of which shall be establish­ed, by the tacit submission of the colonies. With what zeal was the statute erecting the post-office, and another relating to the reco­very of debts in America, urged and tortur­ed, as precedents in the support of the Stamp-act, though wholly inapplicable. If the par­liament succeeds in this attempt, other sta­tutes will impose other duties. Instead of taxing ourselves as we have been accustomed to do from the first settlement of these pro­vinces; all our useful taxes will be convert­ed into parliamentary taxes on our importa­tions; and thus the parliament will levy up­on us such sums of money as they chuse to take, without any other limitation than their pleasure.

We know how much labour and care have been bestowed by these colonies, in lay­ing taxes in such a manner, that they should be most easy to the people, by being laid on the proper articles; most equal, by being proportioned to every man's circumstances; and cheapest by the method directed for collecting them.

[Page 112]But parliamentary taxes will be laid on u [...] without any consideration, whether there is any easier mode. The only point regarded will be, the certainty of levying the taxes, and not the convenience of the people, on whom they are to be levied, and therefore all statutes on this head will be such as will be most likely, according to the favourite phrase, "to execute themselves."

Taxes in every free state have been, and ought to be as exactly proportioned, as is possible, to the abilities of those who are to pay them. They cannot otherwise be just. Even a Hottentot could comprehend the un­reasonableness, of making a poor man pay as much for defending the property of a rich man, as the rich man pays himself.

Let any person look into the late act of parliament, and he will immediately perceive, that the immense estates of Lord Fairfax, Lord Baltimore, and our proprietors, which are amongst "his Majesty's other domini­ons" to be "defended, protected and se­cured" by that act will not pay a single farthing of the duties thereby imposed, ex­cept Lord Fairfax wants some of his win­dows glazed. Lord Baltimore, and our pro­prietors ^(h) [Page 113] are quite secure, as they live in England.

I mention these particular cases as strik­ing instances, how far the late act is a devi­ation from that principle of justice, which has so constantly distingui [...]ed our own laws on this continent.

The third consideration with our conti­nental assemblies in laying taxes has been the method of collecting them. This has been done by a few officers under the inspec­tion of the respective assemblies, with mo [...]e­rate allowances. No more was raised from the subject, than was used for the intended purposes. But by the late act, a minister may appoint as many officers as he pleases for collecting the taxes; may assign them what salaries he thinks "adequate" and they are to be subject to no inspection but his own.

In short, if the late act of parliament takes effect, these colonies must dwindle down into "common corporations," as their e­nemies in the debates concerning the repeal of the Stamp-act, strenuously insisted they were: and it is not improbable, that some future historians will thus record our fall.

"The eighth year of this reign was dis­tinguished by a very memorable event, the American colonies then submitting for the fir [...]t time, to be taxed by the Briti [...]h parli [...] ­ment. An attempt of this kind had be [...]n made two years before, but was de [...]eated by [Page 114] [...]he vigorous [...] of the several provinces in defence of their liberties. Their behavi­viour on that occasion rendered their name very celebrated for a short time all over Eu­rope; all states being extremely attentive to a dispute between Great-Britain and so considerable a part of her dominions. For as she was thought to be grown too power­ful by the successful conclusion of the late war she had been engaged in, it was hoped by many, that as it had h [...]ened before to other kingdoms, civil discords would afford opportunities of revenging all the injuries supposed to be received from her. How­ever the cause of dissention was removed by a repeal of the statute, that had given of­fense. This affair rendered the submissive conduct of the colonies so soon after, the more extraordinary; there being no differ­ence between the modes of taxation which they opposed, and that to which they sub­mitted, but this, that by the first, they were to be continually reminded that they were taxed, by certain marks stampt on every piece of paper or parchment, they used. The authors of that statute triumphed greatly on this conduct of the colonies, and insisted that if the people of Great-Britain, had persisted in enforcing it, the Americans would have been in a few months so fatigued with the efforts of patriotism, that they would quickly have yielded obedience.

[Page 115] "Certain it is, that though they had be­fore their eyes so many illustrious examples in their mother country, of the constant suc­cess attending firmness and perseverance in opposition to dangerous encroachments on liberty, yet they quietly gave up a point of the last importance. From thence the de­cline of their freedom began, and its decay was extremely rapid; for as money was al­ways raised upon them by the parliament, their assemblies grew immediately useless and in a short time contemptible; and in less than one hundred years, the people sunk down into that tameness and supineness of spirit by which they still continue to be dis­tinguished."

LETTER XI.

I HAVE several times, in the course of these letters, mentioned the late act of parliament, as being the foundation of fu­ture measures injurious to these colonies; and the belief of this truth I wish to pre­vail, because I think it necessary to our safety.

A perpetual jealousy respecting liberty, is absolutely requisite in all free states. The very texture of their constitution, in mixt governments, demands it. For the cautions with which power is distributed a­mong the several orders, imply, that each has that share which is proper for the gene­ral welfare, and therefore, that any further imposition must be pernicious. ^(a) Machiavel employs a whole chapter in his discourses, to prove that a state, to be long lived, must be frequently corrected, and reduced to its first principles. But of all states that have existed, there never was any, in which this jealousy could be more proper than in these colonies. For the government here is not only mixt, but dependant, which circum­stance [Page 118] occasions a peculiarity in its form, of a very delicate nature.

Two reasons induce me to desire, that this spirit of apprehension may be always keept up among us, in its utmost vigilance. The first is this, that as the happiness of these provinces indubitably consists in their con­nection with Great-Britain, any separation between them is less likely to be occasioned by civil discords, if every disgusting mea­sure is opposed singly, and while it is new: for in this manner of proceeding, every such measure is most likely to be rectified. On the other hand, oppressions and dissatisfac­tions being permitted to accumulate—if ever the governed throw off the load, they will do more. A people does not reform with moderation. The rights of the sub­ject therefore cannot be too often consider­ed, explained, or asserted: and whoever attempts to do this, shews himself, what­ever may be the rash and peevish reflections of pretended wisdom, and pretended duty, a friend to those who injudiciously exercise their power, as well as to them, over whom it is so exercised.

Had all the points of prerogative claimed by Charles I. been separately contested and settled in preceeding reigns, his fate would in all probability have been very different, and the people would have been content with that liberty which is compatible with regal [Page 119] authority. But ^(b) he thought, it would be as dangerous for him to give up the powers which at any time had been by usurpation ex­ercised by the crown, as those that were legally vested in it. This produced an equal excess on the part of the people. For when their passions were excited by multiplied grievances, they thought it would be as dangerous for them, to allow the powers that were legally vested in the crown, as those which at any time had been by usur­pation exercised by it. Acts, that might by themselves have been upon many con­siderations excused or extenuated, derived a contagious malignancy and odium from other acts, with which they were connected. They were not regarded according to the simple force of each, but as parts of a system of oppression. Every one therefore, however small in itself, being alarming, as an additional evidence of tyrannical designs. It was in vain for prudent and moderate men to insist, that there was no necessity to abolish royalty. Nothing less than the utter [Page 120] destruction of monarchy, could satisfy those who had suffered, and thought they had rea­son to believe, they always should suffer un­der it.

The consequences of these mutual dis­trusts are well known: But there is no other people mentioned in history, that I recollect, who have been so constantly watchful of their liberty, and so successful in their strug­gles for it, as the English. This considera­tion leads me to the second reason, why I "desire that the spirit of apprehension may be always kept up among us in its utmost vigilance."

The first principles of government are to be looked for in human nature. Some of the best writers have asserted, and it seems with good reason, that "government is founded on ^(c) opinion.

Custom undoubtedly has a mighty force in producing opinion, and reigns in nothing [Page 121] more arbitrarily than in public affairs. It gradually reconciles us to objects even of dread and detestation; and I cannot but think these lines of Mr. Pope, as applicable to vice in politics, as to vice in ethics.

When an act injurious to freedom has been once done, and the people bear it, the re­petition of it is most likely to meet with submission. For as the mischief of the one was found to be tolerable, they will hope that of the second will prove so too; and they will not regard the infamy of the last, because they are stained with that of the first.

Indeed, nations in general, are not apt to think until they feel; and therefore na­tions in general have lost their lib [...]rty: For as violations of the rights of the governed, are commonly not only specious, ^(d) but small at the beginning, they spread over the mul­titude in such a manner, as to touch indivi­duals but slightly. Thus they are disre­garded. ^(e) The power or profit that arises [Page 122] from these violations, centering in few per­sons, is to them considerable. For this rea­son the governors having in view their par­ticular purposes, succes [...]vely preserve an uniformity of conduct for attaining them. They regularly increase and [...]ultiply the first injuries, till at length the inattentive people are compelled to perceive the heavi­ness of their burdens.—They begin to com­plain and enquire—but too late.—They find their oppressors so strengthened by success, and themselves so entangled in examples of express authority on the part of their rulers, and of tacit recognition on their own part, that they are quite confounded: For millions entertain no other idea of the legality of power, than that it is founded on the exer­cise of power. They voluntarily fasten their chains, by adopting a pusillanimous opinion, "that there will be too much dan­ger in attempting a remedy," or another opinion no l [...]ss fatal, "that the govern­ment has a right to treat them as it does." [Page 123] They then seek a wretched relief for their minds, by persuading themselves, that to yield their obedience is to discharge their duty. The deplorable poverty of spirit, that prostrates all the dignity bestowed by divine providence on our nature—of course succeeds.

From these reflections I conclude, that every free state should incessantly watch, and instantly take alarm on any addition being made to the power exercised over them, in­numerable instances might be produced to shew, from what slight beginnings the most extensive consequences have flowed: but I shall select two only from the history of England.

Henry the seventh was the first monarch of that kingdom, who established a standing body of armed men. This was a band of 50 archers, called yeomen of the guard: And this institution, notwithstanding the smallness of the number, was, to prevent discontent, ^(f) "disguised under the pretence of majesty and grandeur." In 1684, the standing forces were so much augmented, that Rapin says— "The King, in order to make his people fully sensible of their new slavery, affected to muster his troops, which amounted to 4000 well armed and disciplined men." I think our army, at this time, consists of more than seventy regiments.

[Page 124]The method of taxing by excise was first introduced amidst the convulsions of civil wars. Extreme necessity was pretended, and its short continuance promised. After the restoration, an excise upon beer, ale and other liquors, was granted to the ^(g) King, one half in fee, the other for life, as an e­quivalent for the court of wards. Upon James the second's accession, the parlia­ment ^(h) gave him the first excise, with an ad­ditional duty on wine, tobacco, and some other things. Since the revolution it has been extended to salt, candles, leather, hides, hops, soap, paper, paste-board, mill-boards▪ scaleboards, vellum, parchm [...]t, [...]arch, silks, calicoes, linens, stuffs, printed, stained, &c. wire, wrought plate, coffee, tea, chocolate, &c.

Thus a standing army and excise have, from the first slender origins, tho' always hated, always feared, always opposed, at length swelled up to their vast present bulk.

These facts are sufficient to support what I have said. 'Tis true that all the mischiefs apprehended by our ancestors from a stand­ing army and excise, have not yet happen­ed: but it does not follow from thence, that they will not happen. The inside of a house may catch fire, and the most valuable apartments be ruined, before the flames [Page 125] burst out. The question in these cases is not, what evil has actually attended parti­cular measures—but what evil, in the nature of things, is likely to attend them. Cer­tain circumstances may for some time delay effects, that were reasonably expected, and that must ensue. There was a long period, after the Romans had prorogued the com­mand to ⁽ⁱ⁾ Q Publilius Philo, before that example destroyed their liberty. All our kings, from the revolution to the present reign have been foreigners. Their ministers generally continued but a short time in au­thority; ^(k) and they themselves were mild and virtuous princes.

A bold, ambititious Prince, possessed of great abilities, firmly fixed in the throne by descent, served by ministers like himself, and rendered either venerable or terrible by the glory of his successes, may execute what his [Page 126] predecessors did not dare to attempt. Henry IV. tottered in his seat during his whole reign. Henry V. drew the strength of the kingdom into France, to carry on his wars there, and left the Commons at home, pro­testing, ‘that the people were not bound to serve out of the realm.’

It is true, that a strong spirit of liberty subsists at present in Great-Britain, but what reliance is to be placed in the temper of a people, when the prince is possessed of an un­constitutional power, our own history can suf­ficiently inform us. When Charles II. had strengthened himself by the return of the garrison of Tangier, "England (says Rapin) saw on a sudden an amazing revolution; saw herself stripped of all her rights and privi­leges, excepting such as the King should vouchsafe to grant her; and what is more astoni [...]hing, the English themselves delivered up these very rights, and privileges to Char­les II. which they had so passionately, and, if I may say it, furiously defended against the designs of Charles I." This happened only thirty six years after this last prince had been beheaded.

Some persons are of opinion, that liberty is not violated, but by such open acts of force; but they seem to be greatly mista­ken. I could mention a period within these forty years, when almost as great a change of disposition was produced by the secret measures of a long administration, as by [Page 127] Charles's violence, Liberty, perhaps, is ne­ver exposed to so much da [...]ger, as when the people believe there is the le [...]t; for it may be subverted, and yet they not think so.

Pu [...]lic disgusting acts are seldom practised by the ambitious, at the beginning of their designs. Such conduct silences and discou­rages the weak, and the wicked, who would otherways have been their advocates or ac­complices, It is of great consequence, to allow those, who, upon any account, are in­clined to favour them, something specious to say in their defence. The power may be fully establi [...]hed, though it would not be safe for them to do whatever they please. For there are things, which, at some times, even slaves will not bear. Julius Caesar and Oli­ver Cromwell, did not dare to assume the title of King. The grand Seignior dares not lay a new tax. The King of France dares not be a protestant. Certain popular points may be left untouched, and yet freedom be extinguished. The commonality of Venice i­magine themselves free, because they are permitted to do, what they ought not. But I quit a subject, that would lead me too far from my purpose.

By the late act of parliament, taxes are to be levied upon us, for "defraying the charge of the administration of justice the support of civil government—and the expences of de­fending his Majesty's dominions in America."

[Page 128]If any man doubts what ought to be the conduct of these colonies on this occasion, I would ask them these questions.

Has not the parliament expresly avowed their intention of raising money from us for certain purposes? Is not this scheme popu­lar in Great-Britain? Will the taxes, impos­ed by the late act, answer those purposes? If it will, must it not take an immense sum from us? If it will not, is it to be expected, that the parliament will not fully execute their intention, when it is pleasing at home, and not opposed here? Must not this be done by imposing new taxes? Will not every ad­dition, thus made to our taxes, be an addition to the power of the British legislature, by increasing the number of officers employ­ed in the collection? Will not every additi­onal tax therefore render it more diffi­cult to abrogate any of them? When a branch of revenue is once established, does it not appear to many people invidious and undutiful, to attempt to abolish it? If tax­es, sufficie [...]t to accomplish the intention of the Parliament, are imposed by the Parlia­ment, what taxes will remain to be imposed by our assemblies? If no material taxes re­main to be imposed by them, what must be­come of them, and the people they repre­sent?

^(l) "If any person considers, these things, [Page 129] and yet not thinks our liberties are in dan­ger, I wonder at that person's security."

One other argument is to be added, which, by itself, I hope, will be suffici [...]nt to convince the most incredulous man on this continent, that the late act of Parliament is only designed to be a precedent, whereon the future vassalage of these colonies may be established.

Every duty thereby laid on articles of British manufacture, is laid on some com­modity upon the exportation of which from Great-Britain, a drawback i [...] payable. Those drawbacks in most of the articles, are ex­actly double to the duties given by the late act. The Parliament therefore might in half a dozen lines have raised much more money only by stopping the drawbacks in the hands of the officers at home, on exportation to these colonies, than by this solemn imposi­tion of taxes upon us, to be collected here. Probably, the artful contrivers of this act formed it in this manner, in order to reserve to themselves, in c [...]se of any objections be­ing made to it, this specious pretence— ‘That the drawbacks are gifts to the co­lonies; and that the act only lessens those gifts.’ But the truth is, that the draw­backs are intended for the encourage­ment and promotion of Briti [...]h manufactures and commerce, and are allowed on exporta­tion to any foreign parts, as well as on ex­portation to these provinces. Besides, care [Page 130] has been taken to slide into the act ^(m) some ar­ticles on which there are no drawbacks. However, the whole duties laid by the late [...] on all the articles therein specified, are so small, that they will not amount to as much as the drawbacks which are allowed on part of them only. If, therefore, the sum to be obtained by the late act had been the sole object in forming it, there would not have been any occasion for the ‘Com­mons of Great-Britain to give and grant to his Majesty, rates and duties for raising a revenue in his Majesty's dominions in America, for making a more certain and adequate provision for defraying the charge of the administration of justice, the support of civil government, and the expences of defending the said domini­ons’ —Nor would there have been any occasion for an ⁽ⁿ⁾ expensive board of commis­sioners, [Page 131] and all the other new charges to which we are made liable.

Upon the whole, for my part, I regard the late act as an experiment made of our disposition. It is a bird sent over the wa­ters, to discover, whether the waves, that lately agitated this part of the world with such violence, are yet subsided. If this ad­venturer gets footing here, we shall quickly be convinced, that it is not a phenix; for we shall soon see it followed by others of the same kind. We shall find it rather to be of of the ^(o) breed described by the poet—

"Infelix vates"
A direful foreteller of future calamities.

LETTER XII.

SOME states have lost their liberty by particular accidents; but this calamity is generally owing to the decay of virtue. A people is travelling fast to destruction, when individuals consider their interests as distinct from those of the public. Such no­tions are fatal to their country, and to them­selves. Yet how many are there so weak, and sordid as to think they perform all the offices of life, if they earnestly endeavour to increase their own wealth, power, and credit, without the least regard for the soci­ety, under the protection of which they live; who, if they can make an immediate pro­fit to themselves, by lending their assistance to those, whose projects plainly tend to the injury of their country, rejoice in their dex­terity, and believe themselves intitled to the character of able politicians. Miserable men! of whom it is hard to say, whether they ought to be most the objects of pity or contempt, but whose opinions are certainly as detestable as their practices are destructive.

Though I always reflect with a high plea­sure on the integrity and understanding of [Page 134] my countrymen, which, joined with a pure and humble devotion to the great and gra­cious author of every blessing they enjoy, will, I hope, ensure to them, and their pos­terity, all temporal and eternal happiness; yet when I consider, that in every age and country there have been bad men, my heart, at this threatening period, is so full of [...]p­prehension, as not to permit me to [...], but that there may be some on this conti­nent, against whom you ought to be upon your guard. Men, who either ^(a) hold or ex­pect [Page 135] to hold certain advantages by setting examples of servility to their countrymen— Men who trained to the employment, or self-taught by a natural versatility of geni­us, serve as decoys for drawing the innocent and unwary into snares. It is not to be [Page 136] doubted but that such men will diligently bestir themselves, on this and every like oc­casion, to spread the infection of their mean­ness as far as they can. On the plans they have adopted, this is their course. This is the method to recommend themselves to their patrons.

They act consistently, in a bad cause.

They run well in a mean race.

From them we shall learn, how pleasant and profitable a thing it is, to be, for our submissive behaviour, well spoken of in St. James's, or St. Stephen's; at Guildhall, or the Royal Exchange. Specious fallacies will be drest up with all the arts of delu­sion, to persuade one colony to distinguish herself from another, by unbecoming conde­scensions, which will serve the ambitious purpose of great men at home, and there­fore will be thought by them to entitle their assistants in obtaining them, to considerable rewards▪

Our fears will be excited; our hopes will be awakened. It will be insinuated to us with a plausible affectation of wisdom and concern, how prudent it is to please the powerful—how dangerous to provoke them —and then comes in the perpetual incanta­tion, that freezes up every generous purpose of the soul, in cold—inactive—expectation ‘that if there is any request to be made, compliance will obtain a favourable atten­tion.’

[Page 137]Our vigilance and our union are success and safety. Our negligence and our divi­sion are distress and death. They are worse —they are shame and slavery.

Let us equally shun the benumbing still­ness of overweening sloth, and the feveri [...]h activity of that ill-informed zeal, which bu­sies itself in maintaining little, mean, and narrow opinions. Let us, with a truly wise generosity and charity, bani [...]h and dis­courage all illiberal distinctions, which may arise from differences in situation, forms o [...] government, or modes of religion. L [...]t us consider ourselves as men—Freemen— Christian men—seperated from the rest of the world, and firmly bound together by the same rights, interests, and dangers. Let these keep our attention inflexibly fixed on the great objects, which we must con­tinually regard, in order to preserve those rights, to promote those interests, and to avert those dangers.

Let these truths be indelibly impressed on our minds—that we cannot be happy with­out being free—that we cannot be free with­out being secure in our property—that we cannot be secure in our property, if, with­out our consent, others may, as by right, take it away—that taxes imposed on us by parliament, do thus take it away—that du­ties laid for the sole purposes of raising mo­ney, are taxes—that attempts to lay su [...]h [Page 138] duties should be instantly and firmly oppos­ [...]—that this oppo [...]tion can nev [...]r be [...]ec­tu [...]l, unl [...]ss it is the united e [...]ort of these p [...]ovi [...]c [...]s—that, therefore▪ ben [...]vol [...]nce of t [...]mp [...]r toward each other, and unanimity o [...] counsels are es [...]ential to the welfare of the whol [...]—and lastly, that, for this reason, every man amongst us, who, in any manner, would encourage either dissention, di [...]idence, [...]r in [...]i [...]erence between these colonies, is an enemy to himself and to his country.

The belief of these truths, I verily think, my countrymen, is indispens bly nece [...]ary to your happiness I beseech you, there­fore, ‘Teach them diligently unto your children, and talk of them when you sit in your houses, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up.’

What have these colonies to ask, while they continue free? Or what have they to dread, but insi [...]ious attempts to subvert their freedom? Their prosperity does not depend on ministerial favours doled out to particular provinces. They form one poli­t [...]l body, of which each colony is a mem­ber. Their happiness is founded on their constitution; and is to be promoted by preserving that constitution in unabated vi­gour throughout every part. A spot, a speck of decay, however small the limb on ^(b) [Page 139] which it appears, and however remote it may seem from the vitals, should be alarm­ing. We have all the rights requisite for our prosperity. The legal authority of Great-Britain may indeed lay hard restricti­ons upon us; but, like the spear of Tele­phus, it will cure as well as wound. Her unkindness will instruct and compel us, af­ter some time, to discover, in our indus [...]ry and frugality, surprising remedies—if our rights continue inviolated. For as long as the products of our labours and the rewards of our care, can properly be called our own, so long will it be worth our while to be in­dustrious and frugal. [...]ut if when we plow— sow—reap—gather—and thresh, we find, that we plow—sow—re [...]p—gather—and thresh for others, whose ple [...]sure is to be the sole limitation, how much th [...]y shall take, and how much they sh [...]ll leave, why should we repeat the unprofitable to [...]l? Horses and oxen are content with that portion of the fruits of their work, whi [...]h their owners as­sign to them, in order to keeep them strong enough to raise successive crops; but even these beasts will not submit to draw for their masters, until they are subdued with whips and goads. Let us take care of our rights, and we therein take care of our property. "Slavery is ever preceded by sleep." In­dividuals may be dependant on ministers, if ^(c) [Page 140] they please. States should scorn it—And, if you are not wanting to yourselves, you will have a proper regard paid you by those, to whom if you are not respectable, you will infallibly be contemptible. But if we have already forgot the reasons that urge us, with unexampled unanimity, to exert our­selves two years ago; if our zeal for the pub­lic good is worn out before the homespun cloaths which it caused us to have made— if our resolutions are so faint, as by our present conduct to condemn our own late successful example—if we are not affected by any reverence for the memory of our an­cestors, who transmitted to us that freedom in which they had been bles [...]—if we are not animated by any regard for posterity, to whom, by the most sacred obligations, we are bound to deliver down the the inva­luable inheritance—Then▪ indeed, any mi­nister—or any tool of a minister—or any creature of a tool of a minister—or any lower ^(d) instrument of administration, if low­er [Page 141] there may be, is a personage, whom it may be dangerous to offend.

I shall be extremely sorry if any man mis­takes my meaning in any thing I have said. Officers employed by the crown, are, while according to the laws they conduct them­selves, [Page 142] entitled to legal obedience and sincere respect. These it is a duty to render them, and these no good or prudent person will withhold. But when these officers, thro' rashness or design, endeavour to enlarge their authorit [...] beyond [...]ts due limits, and ex­pect improper concessions to be made to them, from regard for the employments they bear, their attempts should be considered as equal injuries to the crown and people, and should be courageously and constantly op­posed. To su [...]er our ideas to be confound­ed by names, on such occasions, would cer­tainly be an inexcusable weakness, and pro­bably, an i [...]remediable error.

We have reason to believe, that several of his Majesty's present ministers are good men, and friends to our country; and it seems not unlikely, that by a particular con­currence of events, we have been treated a little more severely than they wished we [Page 143] should be. They might not think it pru­dent to stem a torrent. But what is the difference to us, whether arbitrary acts take their rise from ministers, or are per­permitted by them? Ought any point to be allowed to a good minister, that should be denied to a bad one? The mortality of ministers is a very frail mortality. A *** may succeed a Shelburne—a *** may suc­ceed a Conway.

We find a new kind of minister lately spo­ken of at home— ‘The minister of the house of Commons.’ The term seems to have particular propriety when referred to these colonies, with a different meaning annexed to it, from that in which it is ta­ken there. By the word "minister" we may understand not only a servant of the crown, but a man of influence among the Commons, who regard themselves as having a share of the sovereignty over us. The mi­nister of the house may, in a point respe [...] ­ing the colonies, be so strong, that the mini­ster of the crown in the house, if he is a dis­tinct person, may [...]ot chuse, even where his sentiments are favourable to us, to come to a pitched battle upon our account. [...]or tho' I have the highest opinion of the d [...]f [...]r [...]nce of the house for the King's minister; yet he ^(e) [Page 144] may be so good natured as not put it to the test, except it be for the mere and immedi­ate profit of his master or himself.

But whatever kind of minister he is, that attempts to innovate a single iota in the pri­vileges of these colonies, him I hope you will undauntedly oppose, and that you will never suffer yourselves to be either cheated or frightened into any unworthy obsequiousness. On such emergencies you may surely with­out presumption believe that ALMIGHTY GOD himself will look down upon your righteous contest with gracious approbation. You will be a "Band of brother's" cement­ed by the dearest ties—and strengthened with inconceivable supplies of force and constancy, by that sympathetic ardour which animates good men, confederated in a good cause. Your honour and welfare will be, as they now are, most intimately concerned; and besides—you are assigned by Divine Provi­dence, in the appointed order of things, the protectors of unborn ages, whose fate de­pends upon your virtue. Whether they shall arise the noble and indisputable heirs of the richest patrimonies, or the dastardly and he­reditary drudges of imperious task-masters, you must determine.

To discharge this double duty to yourselves and to your posterity; you have nothing to do, but to call forth into use the good sense and spirit, of which you are possessed. You have nothing to do, but to conduct your [Page 145] affairs peaceably—prudently—firm­ly—jointly. By these means you will support the character of freemen, without losing that of faithful subjects—a good cha­racter in any government—one of the best under a British government. You will prove that Americans have that true magnanimity of soul, that can resent injuries without falling into rage; and that tho' your devotion to Great-Britain is the most affectionate, yet you can make proper distinctions, and know what you owe to yourselves as well as to her —you will, at the same time that you ad­vance your interests, advance your reputati­on—you will convince the world of the jus­tice of your demands, and the purity of your intentions—while all mankind must with un­ceasing applauses confess, that you indeed deserve liberty, who so well understand it, so passionately love it, so tem [...]erately enjoy it, and so wisely, bravely, and virtuously, as­sert, maintain, and defend it.

‘Certe ego libertatem quae mihi a parente meo tradita est, experiar, verum id frus­tra, an ob rem faciam, in vestra manu situm est, quirites.’

‘For my part, I am resolved strenuously to contend for the liberty delivered down to me from my ancestors; but whether I shall do this effectually or not, depends on you, my countrymen.’

[Page 146]How little soever one is able to write, ye [...] when the liberties of one's country are threat­ened, it is still more difficult to be silent.

Is there not the greatest reason to hope, if the universal sense of the colonies is immedi­ately exprest, by resolves of the assemblies, in support of their rights; by instructions to their agents on the subject; and by petitions to the crown and parliament for redress; that those measures will have the same success now that they had in the time of the Stamp-act.