THE contest between Great-Britain and her Colonies, being now arrived at a height that calls for some speedy decision, and this con­test having been represented as only a dispute between the administration and the colonies, the following short state of the case is submitted to the considera­tion of every candid Englishman; from which it will appear, how far the merchants and traders in the country are interested in it, and on which side they ought to wish the decision to fall.

It is admitted on the part of Great-Britain, that the Colonies are part of the dominions of the [...] and intitled, by birth, to all the rights and [...] of Englishmen, born within the Island of Great Bri­tain; and in consequence every native of the Colo­nies is eligible to, and many of them actually [...] [Page 4]offices and employments in the state, and seats in parliament, and may be the King's chief ministers in Great Britain. In all foreign countries, they have the same protection with the King's English subjects, and enjoy the same advantages of treaties and al­liances. Their persons and properties are equally protected by the laws of England, and they may, equally with the natives of Great Britain, become pro­prietors, by purchase or inheritance, of any lands within the island of Great Britain.

The possessions of the Crown in America are im­mensely extensive, and the island of Great Britain, compared with them, appears very inconsiderable. No art or power can enlarge Great Britain, but their is abundant scope in America for making additions, still more extensive, to what the Crown already pos­sesses there.

This most important difference in the circumstan­ces of the two territories requires a different plan of policy to be adopted in respect to the culture and improvement of each. But still the personal rights of the inhabitants ought to continue the same; And the prosperity and happiness of the subjects in the Colo­nies ought to be equally attended to, and promoted by government, as that of the subjects in England, for they are equally the King's subjects and Eng­lishmen.

The lands in America have been granted by the Crown on very cheap terms to the occupiers; and where a country is so very extensive, and the inha­bitants few, the lands must continue cheap for many ages, in comparison of the price of lands in Great Britain.—Should then the occupier of the Ameri­can lands cultivate the same products as are cultiva­ted in Great Britain, and have equal liberty to carry them to the same market, they must presently de­stroy [Page 5]the commerce and culture of Great Britain, by selling at a less price.—Now nothing could argue greater folly and wickedness, in any government, than the suffering the people of the ancient dominions to be destroyed, for the sake of raising a new Empire, and new subjects, in another part of the world.— Wisdom, justice and policy, therefore, required that the means to be used, to forward the prosperity of the new dominions, should be such as not to injure the old; and that, where all parts cannot have the same advantages, compensation should be made, for what is with held in one way, by the grant of superi­or advantages in another.

The right to the soil of America is allowed to have been in the Crown of England, antecedent to the set­tlement of any English subjects there; for the first, and all future adventurers carried with them grants from the Crown, of the lands on which they settled; and all the lands in the Colonies are at this day held by their occupiers, under titles derived from the Crown. The Crown had, therefore, a right to pre­scribe conditions to those who obtained those grants; and the grantees were bound, in law and equity, to a performance of those conditions. Moreover, the adventurers in this new country stood in need of the assistance and succour of their fellow subjects in Eng­land. They were unable to subsist, much less to protect themselves. The bounty, the confidence, and humanity of individuals in England were freely exercised towards them; and the power of the state, raised and maintained at the sole expence of the peo­ple of England, was fully exerted in their behalf. The people of England have, therefore, a right to reap advantage from the success of the adventurers.

Under these two titles, of a right to the soil in the Crown, and a right to compensation in the people of [Page 6]England, let us view the conduct of the Legislature (which comprehends both) towards the Colonies. In respect to the persons of the natives of the Colonies, no distinction or difference has ever been made. There is not a single Act of Parliament, from the first establishment of the Colonies to this day which makes a distinction between a man born in England and a man born in America. The original equality has been inviolably adhered to. The same law and rights are for a native of America in England, as for an Englishman. And an Englishman is, in America, subject to the same law, and claims no others than a native there.

The most violent partizan of the Colonies can here then have no ground of complaint; for neither the Crown or the people of England have here made any claim, or sought compensation.

The lands of America, and their products, have alone been the objects upon which they have made any demands, and whether they have asserted their claims in an arbitrary, cruel, and unjust manner, as the Colonies say they have, we shall soon see.

The people of England and the American adven­turers being so differently circumstanced, it required no great sagacity to discover that, as there were many commodities which. America could supply on better terms than they could be raised in England, so must it be much more for the Colonies advantage to take others from England, than attempt to make them themselves. The American lands were cheap, covered with woods, and abounded with native commodities. The first attention of the settlers was necessarily engaged in cutting down the timber, and clearing the ground for culture; for before they had supplied themselves with provisions, and had hands to spare from agriculture, it was impossible they could [Page 7]set about manufacturing. England, therefore, under­took to supply them with manufactures, and either purchased herself, or found markets for the timber the Colonists cut down upon their lands, or the fish they caught upon their coasts. It was soon discover­ed that the tobacco plant was a native of, and flou­rished in Virginia. It had been also planted in Eng­land, and was found to delight in the soil. The Le­gislature, however, wisely and equitably considering that England had variety of products, and Virginia had no other to buy her necesseries with, passed an act prohibiting the people of England from planting tobacco, and thereby giving the monopoly of that plant to the Colonies. As the inhabitants increased, and the lands became more cultivated, further and new advantages were thrown in the way of the Ame­rican Colonies. All foreign markets, as well as Great Britain, were open for their timber and provisions, and the British West India Islands were prohibited from purchasing those commodities from any other than them. And since England has found itself in danger of wanting a supply of timber, and it has been judged necessary to confine the export from America to Great Britain and Ireland, full and ample indem­nity has been given to the Colonies for the loss of a choice of markets in Europe, by very large bounties paid out of the revenue of Great Britain, upon the importation of American timber. And as a further encouragement and reward to them for clearing their lands, bounties are given upon the tar and pitch, which are made from their decayed and useless trees; and the very ashes of their lops and branches, are made of value by the late bounty on American pot­ashes. The soil and climate of the Northern Colonies having been found well adapted to the culture of flax and hemp, bounties equal to half the first cost of those [Page 8]commodities have been granted by Parliament, pay­able out of the British revenue, upon their importa­tion into Great Britain. The growth of rice in the Southern Colonies has been greatly encouraged, by prohibiting the importation of that grain into the British dominions from other parts, and allowing it to be transported from the Colonies to the foreign territories in America, and even the southern parts of Europe. Indigo has been nurtured in those Colonies by great parliamentary bounties, which have been long paid upon the importation into Great Britain; and of late are allowed to remain, even when it is carried out again to foreign markets. Silk and wine have also been objects of parliamentary munificence; and will one day probably become considerable Amer­rican products under that encouragement.

In which of these instances, it may be demanded, has the Legislature shewn itself partial to the people of England and unjust to the Colonies? Or wherein have the Colonies been injured? We hear much of the restraints under which the trade of the Colonies is laid by Acts of Parliament, for the advantage of Great Britain, but the restraints under which the peo­ple of Great Britain are laid by Acts of Parliament for the advantage of the Colonies, are carefully kept out of sight; and yet upon a comparison, the one will be found full as grievous as the other. For, is it a greater hardship on the Colonies, to be confined in some instances to the markets of Great Britain for the sale of their commodities, than it is on the people of Great Britain to be obliged to buy those commodities from them only? If the Island Colonies are obliged to give the people of Great Britain the pre-emption of their sugar and coffee, is it not a greater hardship on the people of Great Britain to be restrained from pur­chasing sugar and coffee from other countries, where [Page 9]they could get those commodities much cheaper than the Colonies make them pay for them? Could not our manufacturers have indigo much better and cheap­er from France and Spain than from Carolina? and yet is there not a duty imposed by Acts of Parliament on French and Spanish indigo, that it may come to our manufacturers at a dearer rate than Carolina indi­go, tho' a bounty is also given out of the money of the people of England to the Carolina Planter, to enable him to sell his indigo upon a par with the French and Spanish? But the instance which has al­ready been taken notice of, the Act which prohibits the culture of the tobacco plant in Great Britain or Ireland, is still more in point, and a more striking proof of the justice and impartiality of the supreme Legislature; for what restraints, let me ask, are the Colonies laid under, which bear so strong marks of hardship, as the prohibiting the farmers in Great Bri­tain and Ireland from raising, upon their own lands, a product which is become almost a necessary of life to them and their families? And this most extraor­dinary restraint is laid upon them, for their avowed and sole purpose of giving Virginia and Maryland a monopoly of that commodity, and obliging the peo­ple of Great Britain and Ireland to buy all the tobacco they consume from them, at the prices they think sit to sell it for. The annals of no country that ever planted Colonies, can produce such an instance as this of regard and kindness to their Colonies, and of re­straint upon the inhabitants of the Mother Country for their advantage. Nor is there any restraint laid upon the inhabitants of the Colonies in return, which carries with it so great appearance of hardship, altho' the people of Great Britain and Ireland have, from their regard and affection to the Colonies, submitted to it without a murmer for near a century.

[Page 10] It is true the Legislature, in this as well as in other instances, has had a view to divert the Colonists from manufacturing; but has not that object been pur­sued by means the most generous and just? Ought the Colonists to complain that they are diverted from working up their flax or hemp, by getting a better price for it rough, than they could hope to obtain by manufacturing it? Or is it blamable in the Legislature to excite them to the culture of commodities which yield a better profit from their cheap lands, than they could have by employing their labor in manufactur­ing? But why do they not manufacture? They are not hindered from making any commodity they might think fit for their own use, or erecting any machine for the purpose except mills for slitting iron. The only reason is, that they find it more their inter­est to cultivate their lands, and attend the fishery, than to manufacture. Their interest it is alone which restrains them, and such is the wisdom, the equity, the bounty of that government, they are so impatient of, as to employ no other means to divert them from manufactures, than by giving them greater profits for their labour in other things. This is a point which cannot be too much inculcated, for it ought to be universally known and considered, especially by the trading part of this kingdom. I therefore repeat it, that the only means employed by the Legislature, for diverting the Colonies from manufacturing, is the giving them better prices for their labour in other things: and the Colonies well know this to be the case, and they conduct themselves according to that knowledge; for in every instance where they think they can employ their labour profitably in manufac­tures, they do it. This the people of England do not know, but they ought to be made acquainted with it. They imagine the inhabitants in the Colo­nies [Page 11]are prohibited from making any thing for them­selves, much more from trading in their own manu­factures: whereas the fact is, they are prohibited from making no one thing for their own use, or from exporting any one of their own manufactures; except hats, wool, and woollen goods. And they do make many things, and export several manufactures, to the exclusion of English manufactures of the same kinds. The New England people import from the foreign and the British Islands, very large quantities of cotton, which they spin and work up with linen yarn into a stuff, like that made in Manchester, with which they clothe themselves and their neighbours. Hats are manufactured in Carolina, Pennsylvania, and in other Colonies. Soap and candles, and all kinds of wood-work, are made in the Northern Co­lonies, and exported to the Southern. Coaches cha­riots, chaises, and chairs, are also made in the Nor­thern Colonies, and sent down to the Sourthern. Coach-harness, and many other kinds of leather manufactures, are likewise made in the Nothern Co­lonies, and sent down to the Southern; and large quantities of shoes have lately been exported from thence to the West India islands. Linens are made to a great amount in Pennsylvania; and cordage and other hemp manufactures are carried on in many places with great success: and foundery ware, axes, and other iron tools and utensils, are also become ar­ticles of commerce, with which the Southern Colonies are supplied from the Northern. Thus while the Le­gislature is paying the money of the people of Eng­land in bounties to one part of the American subjects, another is employed in rivalling the people of Eng­land in several of their most valuable manufactures.

Thus far, at least, the conduct of Great Britain to­wards the Colonies cannot justly be taxed with op­pression, [Page 12]nor the comparative situation of America deemed unequal and disadvantageous: But we are told by the advocates for American claims, that the profit of all their labors centers here, and that the in­habitants of America are condemned to work for the people of England; let us therefore examine the truth of these two propositions.—If it be true that the inhabitants of America are condemned to work for the people of England, is it not equally true that the people of England are condemned to work for the people of the Colonies? Nay, not for their fel­low-subjects there only, but for the slaves of their fel­low subjects! If a planter in Virginia raises tobacca for the English merchant, does not the English ma­nufacturer make him clothing for himself and his ne­groes in return; and wherein can the one be said to work for the other's advantage, more than the other does for his? Do any of the Colonies send their pro­ducts to England for nothing, or do they take any thing from England in payment which they do not want? Does England fix prices upon their products, and say, You shall sell them to us for so much; or does she insist upon their buying her commodities at higher prices than her own natives pay, or than she sells them for to other countries? Nothing of all this is pretended to be the case; then pray in what sense is it that the people of the Colonies can be said to work for the people of England, other than that in which the people of England work for them? The thresher may be said, it is true, to work for the mil­ler; but does not the miller work also for the thresh­er? But the profit of all the labour of the Colonies centers in England. If this be true, the consequence will plainly shew it; for no state or society of men was ever known to thrive by unprofitable labour. Whence then arises the present wealth and greatness [Page 13]of America, (of which we hear so much upon other occasions) if England has reaped the fruit of all the labour of the Colonies? The settlers, we all know, did not carry great riches with them, and whence could they have acquired them, but from the profits of their labour? But the trade of England, say they, has been greatly augmented by the Colonies. It is by no means clear that the same increase would not have happened if the Colonies had never existed; for Eng­land had many avenues open for her commercial indu­stry. But without pursuing that consideration, from what source did the Colonies derive the ability, and the means of trading with England? Who paid for the axe and the saw with which they cut down the tree, and made it into boards, to cover their huts at their first landing? or through whose credit have they since built towns, improved their farms, and erected for themselves stately houses? Is it not to the Eng­lish merchants they are indebted for all their opulence? We see a recent instance of this in the Ceded Islands; whilst the English merchants gave them credit the ad­ventures were making large strides to wealth and grandeur. The value of lands was every day raising, plantations were settling, and towns springing out of the woods; but the instant that credit was with-held, the bubble burst, and the airy scene vanished like a dream; distress and calamity succeeded to opulence and parade, and the highest estimated lands can no longer find purchasers at any price: now, had the English merchants continued to give credit, and make advan­ces for these adventurers, their is no doubt their pro­jects would at length have succeeded; they would have raised products, and, by industry and good ma­nagement, acquired fortunes. What then should we have thought of them, or what ought we to have thought of them, if, when they came to make remit­tances to the English merchants, they should have com­plained, [Page 14]that it was hard they should be condemned to work for the people of England; that England reaped all the fruits of their labour and industry, and that it was the highest cruelty and injustice to oblige them to send their products to England, that the English merchants might gain a commission on the sale of them?

The Northern Colonies, it is true, have not had such ample credit with the English merchants as the Islands, but the circumstances under which the plan­ters in both made their settlements, are not so dissimi­lar as to render what has been stated respecting the one, inapplicable to the other. The great amount of their debt to the English merchants, is a full proof that it was upon the stock of the people of England they have hitherto subsisted.

The merchants in the Colonies, no more than the planters in the continent, are wealthy men. They buy their goods in England, upon nine months cre­dit at least; the planter is supplied by them, through­out the year, upon the credit of his crop as the end of it. The planter has his house to build, or improve­ments to make, or new land to clear and take in, all which requires ready money, and therefore, when his first crop comes, he must sell it for cash, and cannot pay the merchant any thing towards the reduction of his debt that year. The acquisition of the next year's crop requires a fresh advance; hence the planter be­comes indebted to the merchant for two year's supply before he makes him any payment; and as it very sel­dom happens that at the end of the second year he pays the expence of one, he goes on increasing his debt, but at the same time increasing his estate in a much greater proportion; and all this time the English merchant, who supports the whole, is without any returns.

[Page 15] Thus it is that England reaps the advantage of all the toil and labor of the Colonies. She pays for the purchase of the land, for the labor employed in clear­ing it, for the maintaining the stock necessary for its cultivation; her return is a commission upon the sale of the produce, with a moderate interest, not very well paid, upon the capital advanced, while all the benefit of the increased value belongs solely to the Americans.

The truth of what has been advanced will be still more evident from a comparison of the state of the Colonies of other nations with our own. We have seen the slow progress the French made in Canada the many years they had it; and the large strides it is making to wealth and importance since it became a British colony. Grenada too has flourished in a still greater degree, and the same cause has wrought the happy change in the circumstances of both, which is no other than the superior credit given to the planters by the English merchants, to what they had from the French merchants. Now if we inquire into the cause of this unbounded confidence and credit given by the English merchants to the Colonies, from which the Colonies have reaped so great advantage, it will come out to be the security which they have for the property by the operation of the laws of England in the Colonies; they give no such credit to the subjects of other states, either in Europe or America; and yet there are countries in which they might lay out their money to greater profits than in the British Colonies; but in foreign countries they cannot be certain of a legal security for their property, or a fair and effectual means of recovering it; whereas in the British Colonies they know the laws of England follow their property, and secures it for them in the [Page 16]security, and there is an end of their confidence, and consequently an effectual check to the prosperity of the Colonies. And indeed good reason it should be so, for their is no want of evidence to shew how willing the Colonies are to avail themselves of Acts of their own Assemblies to injure their British credi­tors; witness the attempts in Jamaica and Virginia to make the lands and negroes freehold, and not liable to the payment of book debts; so that a Planter might buy lands and negroes on English credit, and leave them to his children, without paying a shilling to the English merchant, with whose money he bought them; and witness also a late Act of the Assembly of Grenada, postponing the payments due to their English creditors for eighteen months. These and such like practices in the Colonies gave occasion to the act of Parliament the 5th of George the Second, for subjecting lands and negroes in the Colonies to the payment of English book debts, which may truly be called the Palladium of Colony credit, and the English merchant's grand security; and yet this Act of Parliament is one of those which are now com­plained of by the Colonies, and the British merchants are modestly desired to apply to Parliament for its repeal, and thus ruin their trade and fortunes with their own hands ^*. But indeed a repeal of this or any [Page 17]other Act, would not be necessary to destroy their security, if the Colonies attain their avowed and main object, the setting aside the authority of Parliament; for if it be once admitted, that Parliament has no authority to make laws to bind the Colonies, and its Acts instantly become waste-paper, and the merchants can no longer apply to parliament to give them re­dress against any unjust proceedings of an American Assembly. Whoever, therefore, goes about to over­throw the authority of Acts of Parliament in the Colonies, ought to be considered as the assassins of the British merchant's security, and, by destroying their confidence in the Colonies, force them to with­hold their credit, and thereby do the greatest injury to the Colonies themselves.

[Page 18] The right of the Parliament to impose taxes, or [...] exercising it over the Colonies, is [...] the subject of dispute. All the late declarations of the Colonies, deny, inexpress terms, the authority of the Legislature to bind them in any case whatsoever. This is the avowed purpose of their opposition to the execution of Acts of Parlia­ment, and of their obstruction of the commerce of the people of England.

I acquit them of any intention of separating from Great Britain; for I believe them too wise to re­nounce all the advantages of being treated as Eng­lishmen in Great Britain and throughout the world; of enjoying the protection of her fleet and armies equally with the people of England; and at the same time, neither contributing revenue to their support, or dealing with her for any thing which they can buy cheaper, or sell dearer elsewhere. They would no doubt like to continue to have the monopoly of supplying the British West India Islands with lumber and provisions; to have the monopoly of supplying Great Britain and Ireland with tobacco; to receive large bounties upon other of their products out of the revenue of England; to have the advantage of fishing on the English fishing banks of Newfound­land; and in the gulph and river of the English con­quered Colony of Quebec, provided they continued to pay no revenue, were subject to no restraints upon their trade, but might carry their commodities wher­ever they thought fit, import all sorts of goods from all countries, and lay out their money wherever they found they could buy cheapest. This is all very na­tural, and no one can blame the Colonies for seek­ing what is so evidently for their own interest; but that they should expect the people of England, the [...] to countenance them in their [Page 19]pursuits of a plan so manifestly ruinous to them, is indeed such a proof of their contempt for our under­standings as no people ever gave before. They plainly tell the British merchants, ‘Gentlemen, we have now made fortunes out of your capital, and we find that the people in England pay such heavy taxes for the payment of the interest of a debt, which they contracted in our defence; and for the maintenance of a military force, of which we enjoy the protection; that some of their manufac­tures come higher charged to us, than we can get the like for from Holland or France: we also find, that from the same cause they cannot afford to give as high prices for some of our commodities, as we can sell them for in other countries. Now there are certain Acts of Parliament, which oblige us to come to you for what we want; and to carry to you many of our commodities in pay­ment, we desire therefore that you will assist us in our endeavours to set aside the authority of these laws, that we may trade where we will; and come no more to you but when we cannot do so well elsewhere. There is another thing too which we want you join to us in; we are prevented by an Act of Parliament from entailing our estates to the prejudice of our English creditors; we now owe them about four millions, and it this Act was out of our way, we could make all our families rich at once, by purchasing lands, and building houses, with this money, and settling them upon children, instead of paying our English creditors: but as we are afraid the Parliament might perceive our drift, in applying for repeals of these laws, or if they even repealed them now, they might here­after re-enact them; or others of a like nature, which would defeat [...] [Page 20]ruins of England; we have taken up a resolution of getting rid of all these acts at once, and at the same time making ourselves secure against all fu­ture Acts that might be made to our prejudice, or for your benefit. This resolution is no other than to deny the authority of the Legislature to make any Acts whatever to bind us. In this our grand purpose, we hope you will do all you can by petitioning, instructing, and remonstrating in our behalf; for if you do not join us in destroy­ing yourselves, we tell you once for all, that we will neither buy goods of you, nor pay you for those we have already bought, for we are deter­mined to carry our point by one means or ano­ther.’

I appeal to the understandings of my countrymen whether this is an exaggerated representation of the Colony claims, as set forth and stated in their several pamphlets, and the Resolutions of their public As­semblies. And I think I need not use any further ar­guments to convince the merchants and manufactu­rers of Great Britain, how fatal to their interests the success of the Colonies in their designs must be. The continuance of their trade to the Colonies, clearly and entirely depends upon the laws of England having authority there. It is their operation which binds the commerce of the Colonies to this country. It is their operation which gives security to the property of the trader sent thither. Give up the authority of Parliament and there is an end to your trade, and a total loss of your property. But if that authority is supported and maintained, the trade of the Colonies must remain to Great Britain, and the property you intrust them with will remain secure, protected by acts of Parliament made in your behalf.