Part 3

'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, upon 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 forbade 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 also lodged in the crown, and its representatives; and an _appeal_ was secured to the crown from all judgments in the administration of justice.

'For all these powers, established by the mother country over the colonies; 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 great one, the foundation of all the rest--that their property, acquired with so much pain and hazard, should be disposed of by none but themselves--or, to use 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_."

'Can any man of candour and knowledge deny that these institutions form an affinity between Great Britain and her colonies, that sufficiently secures their dependence 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 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 their first emigration to this moment--and all these things have happened, without one instance of Great Britain's laying taxes to levy money upon them.

'How many British authors have demonstrated, that the present wealth, power and glory of their country, are founded upon 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 former tendernesses and blessings, be spread over the minds of a good and wise nation by the sordid arts of intriguing men, who, covering their selfish projects under pretences of public good, first enrage their countrymen into a frenzy of passion, and then advance their own influence and interest, by gratifying the passion, which they themselves have basely excited.

'Hitherto Great Britain has been contented with her prosperity, moderation has been the rule of her conduct. But now, a generous, humane people, that so often have 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 convince her; but horribly dreadful and detestable to her.

'It seems extremely probable, that when cool, dispassionate prosperity, shall consider the affectionate intercourse, the reciprocal benefits, and the unsuspecting confidence, that have subsisted between these colonies and their parent country, for such a length of time, they will execrate, with the bitterest curses, the 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.'

"As every community possessed of valuable privileges, and desirous to preserve the enjoyment of them, ought to be very cautious of admitting innovations from their established forms of political administration, our Author does not confine his views to the immediate effects of the laws lately passed regarding America; but considers the necessary tendency of the precedents; thus he says,

'I have looked over every _statute_ relating to these colonies, from their first settlement to this time; and I find everyone of them founded on this principle, till the _stamp-act_ administration. _All before_, are calculated to regulate trade, and preserve or promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire; 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 never intended. Thus, the king by his judges in his courts of justice, impose fines, which altogether amount to a very considerable sum, and contribute to the support of government; but this is merely a consequence arising from restrictions, that only meant to keep peace, and prevent confusion; and surely a man would argue very loosely, who should conclude from hence, that the king has a right to levy money in general upon his subjects. Never did the British parliament, till the period above mentioned, think of imposing duties in America, _for the purpose of raising a revenue_. Mr. Grenville first introduced this language, in the preamble to the fourth of George III. chap. 15, which has these words--"and whereas it is just and necessary that _a revenue be raised in your majesty's said dominions in America, for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting and securing the same_: We your majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, _the commons of Great Britain_, in Parliament assembled, being desirous to make some provisions in this 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 hereinafter mentioned," etc.

'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 expenses_, we your majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the _commons_ of _Great Britain, etc., give and grant_," etc., as before.

'The last act, granting duties upon paper, etc., 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 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 of the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the said dominions_, we your majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the _commons of Great Britain_, etc. give _and grant_," etc. as before.

'Here we may observe an authority expresly claimed and exerted to impose duties on these colonies; 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_.'

"Again in another place,

'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 from the colonies? And how clear, how cogent must that reason be, to which every parliament, and every ministry 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 several 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 touch the Palladium of American liberty. Ambition, avarice, faction, tyranny, all revered it. Whenever it was necessary 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 dependence and the connections of the whole in good order.'

"The amount of present duties exacted in an unusual way is no part of the object in question; for our Pennsylvanian Farmer observes:

'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 trifling 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 snare that is set for us, praising the _neatness_ of the workmanship. Suppose the duties imposed by the late act could be paid by these distressed colonies with the utmost ease, and that the purposes to which they are to be applied, were the most reasonable and equitable that can 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, 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 glass, 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 quoted 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 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_?"

'These duties which will inevitably be levied upon us--which are now levying upon us--are _expresly laid for the sole purpose of taking money_. This is the true definition 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, expressed by themselves or their representatives are _slaves_. _We are taxed_ without our own consent, expressed by ourselves or representatives. _We_ are therefore slaves.'

"Further,

'Indeed nations in general are more apt to _feel_ than to _think_; and therefore nations in general have lost their liberty: for as the violation of the rights of the governed are commonly not only _specious_, but _small_ at the beginning, they spread over the multitude in such a manner, as to touch individuals but slightly; thus they are disregarded. The power or profit that arises from these violations, _centering in a few persons_, is to them considerable. For this reason, the _Governors_ having in view their particular purposes, successively preserve an uniformity of conduct for attaining them: they regularly increase and multiply the first injuries, till at length the inattentive people are compelled to perceive the heaviness of their burthen. They begin to complain and inquire--but too late. They find their oppressions 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 then voluntarily fasten their chains by adopting a pusillanimous opinion "that there will be too much danger in attempting a remedy"--or another opinion no less fatal, "that the government has a _right_ to treat them as it does." 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.'

"With regard to the proper conduct of the colonies on this occasion he premises the following questions:

'Has not the parliament _expressly 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 sufficient 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?'

"Our Author all along, however, asserts that the real interest of English America consists in its proper dependence on the mother country, at the same time that he strenuously exhorts his countrymen to oppose, by all the suitable means in their power, every incroachment on those constitutions under the sanction of which they settled on those remote and uncultivated shores, whereon they have so industriously established themselves. He remarks with a spirit which no one, it is apprehended, can condemn:

'I am no further concerned in anything 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 hands 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, wherewith heaven itself "hath made us free.'

"The consequence of Great Britain exerting this disagreeable power, he shews, in a long train of arguments, to have a tendency very fatal to the liberty of America, which he illustrates by examining into the application of the pensions on the Irish establishment; and sums up his reasoning with the following positions:

'Let these _truths_ be indelibly impressed on our mind--_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 such duties _should be instantly and firmly opposed_--that this opposition can never be effectual, unless it is the united effort of those provinces--that therefore _benevolence of temper towards each other_, and _unanimity of counsels_, are essential to the welfare of the whole--and lastly, that for this reason, every man amongst us, who in any manner would encourage either dissention, diffidence, or indifference, between these colonies, is an enemy to _himself_, and to _his country_.

'The belief of these truths, I verily think, my countrymen, is indispensably necessary 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 insidious attempts to subvert their freedom? _Their prosperity_ does not depend on _ministerial favours doled_ out to particular provinces. _They_ form one political 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 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 _industry_ and _frugality_, surprising remedies--_if our rights continue_ unviolated: for as long as the _products_ of our _labour_, 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_. But if we plow--sow--reap--gather and thresh--we find, that we plow--sow--reap--gather and thresh _for others_, whose pleasure is to be the SOLE limitation _how much_ they shall _take_ and _how much_ they _shall leave_, WHY should we repeat the unprofitable toil? Horses and oxen are content with _that portion of the fruits of their work_, which their _owners_ assign to them, in order to keep 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 _dependent_ on ministers if 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 urged 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 blest--if _we are not animated_ by any regard for posterity, to whom, by the most sacred obligations, we are bound to deliver down 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 instrument_ of _administration_, if lower there be, is a _personage_ whom it may be dangerous to offend.'

"In justification of the Letter-writer's loyalty, and the integrity of his intentions, he declares in a note:

'If any person shall imagine that he discovers in these letters the least disaffection towards our most excellent sovereign, and the parliament of Great Britain, or the least dislike of the dependence of these colonies on that kingdom, I beg that such person will not form any judgment on _particular expressions_, but will consider the _tenour_ of all the letters taken together. In that case, I flatter myself that every unprejudiced reader will be _convinced_, that the true interests of Great Britain are as dear to me as they ought to be to every good subject.

'If I am an enthusiast in anything, it is in my zeal for the _perpetual dependance_ of these colonies on the mother country.--A dependance founded on mutual benefits, the continuance of which can be secured only by _mutual affections_. Therefore it is, that with extreme apprehension I view the smallest seeds of discontent, which are unwarily scattered abroad. Fifty or sixty years will make astonishing alterations in these colonies; and this consideration should render it the business of Great Britain more and more to cultivate our good dispositions toward her: but the misfortune is, that those _great men_, who are wrestling for power at home, think themselves very slightly interested in the prosperity of their country _fifty_ or _sixty_ years hence; but are deeply concerned in blowing up a popular clamour for supposed _immediate advantages_.

'For my part, I regard Great Britain as a _bulwark_ happily fixed between these colonies and the powerful nations of Europe. That kingdom is our advanced post or fortification, _which remaining safe_, we under its protection enjoying peace, may diffuse the blessings of religion, science, and liberty, through remote wildernesses. It is, therefore, incontestably our _duty_ and our _interest_ to support the strength of Great Britain. When, confiding in that strength, she begins to forget from whence it arose, it will be an easy thing to shew the source. She may readily be reminded of the loud alarm spread among her merchants and tradesmen, by the universal association of these colonies, at the time of the _stamp-act_, not to import any of her MANUFACTURES. In the year 1718, the Russians and Swedes entered into an agreement, not to suffer Great Britain to export any naval stores from their dominions, but in Russian or Swedish ships, and at their own prices. Great Britain was distressed. _Pitch_ and _tar_ rose to _three pounds_ a barrel. At length she thought of getting these articles from the colonies; and the attempt succeeding, they fell down to fifteen shillings. In the year 1756, Great Britain was threatened with an invasion: An easterly wind blowing for six weeks, she could not MAN her fleet; and the whole nation was thrown into the utmost consternation. The wind changed. The American ships arrived. The fleet sailed in ten or fifteen days. There are some other reflections on this subject worthy of the most deliberate attention of the British parliament; but they are of such a nature that I do not chuse to mention them publicly. I thought I discharged my duty to my country, by taking the liberty, in the year 1765, while the _stamp-act_ was in suspence, of writing my sentiments to a man of the greatest influence at home, who afterwards distinguished himself by espousing our cause in the debates concerning the repeal of that act.'