Part 6

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 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[19] indeed, but shall only catch a cloud.

[19] The goddess of empire, in the heathen mythology. According to an ancient fable, Ixion pursued her, but she escaped by a cloud which she threw in his way.

In the national parliamentary sense insisted on, the word "tax"[20] 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.

[20] In this sense Montesquieu uses the word "tax", in his 13th book of Spirit of Laws.

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

III. "That it is inseparably 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," 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 be injurious 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[21] "tax" can be more "internal" than this? Here is money drawn without 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 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 woollen 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 from manufacturing at all[22] And then what little gold and silver they have, must be torn from their hands, or they will not be able in a short time, to get an ax[23] 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.

A FARMER.

[21] It seems to be evident, that Mr. Pitt, in his defence of America, during the debate concerning the repeal of the Stamp-act, by "_internal taxes_" meant any duties "_for the purpose of raising a revenue_;" and by "_external taxes_," meant "_duties imposed for the regulation of trade_." His expressions are these.--"If the gentleman does not understand the difference between internal and external taxes, I cannot help it; but there is a plain distinction between taxes levied for the purposes of raising a revenue, and duties imposed for the regulation of trade, for the accommodation of the subject; altho' in the consequences, some revenue might incidentally arise from the latter."

These words were in Mr. Pitt's reply to Mr. Grenville, who said he could not understand the difference between external and internal taxes. But Mr. Pitt in his first speech, had made no such distinction; and his meaning, when he mentions the distinction, appears to be--that by "_external taxes_," he intended impositions, for the purpose of regulating the intercourse of the colonies with others; and by "_internal taxes_," he intended impositions, for the purpose of taking money from them.

In every other part of his speeches on that occasion, his words confirm this construction of his expressions. The following extracts will shew how positive and general were his assertions of our right.

"IT IS MY OPINION THAT THIS KINGDOM HAS NO RIGHT TO LAY A TAX UPON THE COLONIES." "THE AMERICANS ARE THE SONS NOT THE BASTARDS OF ENGLAND. TAXATION IS NO PART OF THE GOVERNING OR LEGISLATIVE POWER." "The taxes are a voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone. In legislation the three estates of the realm are alike concerned, but the concurrence of the peers and the crown to a tax, is only necessary to close with the form of a law. The gift and grant is of the Commons alone." "The distinction between legislation and taxation is essentially necessary to liberty." "_The Commons of America represented in their several assemblies have ever been in possession of the exercise of this, their constitutional right, of giving and granting their own money. They would have been slaves, if they had not enjoyed it._" "The idea of a virtual representation of America in this house, is the most contemptible idea that ever entered into the head of man. It does not deserve a serious refutation."

He afterwards shews the unreasonableness of Great-Britain taxing America, thus--"When I had the honour of serving his Majesty, I availed myself of the means of information, which I derived from my office: I speak therefore from knowledge. My materials were good, I was at pains to collect, to digest, to consider them: _and I will be bold to affirm that the profit to Great-Britain from the trade of the colonies, thro' all its branches, is two millions a year. This is the fund that carried you triumphantly thro' the last war._ The estates that were rented at two thousand pounds a year, threescore years ago, are at three thousand pounds at present. Those estates sold then from fifteen to eighteen years purchase; the same may now be sold for thirty. YOU OWE THIS TO AMERICA. THIS IS THE PRICE THAT AMERICA PAYS YOU FOR HER PROTECTION,"--"I dare not say how much higher these profits may be augmented."--"Upon the whole, I will beg leave to tell the house what is really my opinion: it is, THAT THE STAMP-ACT BE REPEALED ABSOLUTELY, TOTALLY, AND IMMEDIATELY. That the reason for the repeal be assigned, because it was founded on an erroneous principle."

[22] "And that pig and bar iron made in his Majesty's colonies in America may be further manufactured in this kingdom, be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after the twenty-fourth day of June, 1750, no mill or other engine for slitting or rolling of iron, or any plaiting forge to work with a tilt hammer, or any furnace for making steel, shall be erected, or after such erection continued, in any of his Majesty's colonies in America."

3 Geo. II. chap. 29. sect. 9.

[23] Though these particulars are mentioned as being so absolutely necessary, yet perhaps they are not more so than glass, in our severe winters, to keep out the cold, from our houses; or than paper, without which such inexpressible confusion must ensue.

LETTER V.

_Beloved Countrymen_,

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 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 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 uninterrupted 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 remove 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.

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 here.

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 themselves 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.

To answer these grand purposes, perfect liberty was known to be necessary; all history proving, that trade and freedom are nearly related 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 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 all 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 not be disposed of by[24] 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."[25]

[24] The power of taxing themselves, was the privileges of which the English were, with reason, particularly jealous.

Hume's hist. of England.

[25] Mic. iv. 4.

Can any man of candour and knowledge deny, that these institutions, form 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 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[26] have remonstrated 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 former tendernesses and blessings be spread over the minds of a wise people, by the sordid acts 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 that passion, which they themselves have barely excited?

[26] It has been said in the house of commons, when complaints have been made of the decay of trade to any part of Europe, "That such things were not worth regard, as Great-Britain was possest of colonies that could consume more of her manufactures than she was able to supply them with."

"As the case now stands, we shall shew that the plantations are a spring of wealth to this nation, that they work for us, that their treasure centers all here, and that the laws have tied them fast enough to us; so that it must be through our own fault and mismanagement, if they become independent of England."

Davenant on the plantat. trade.

"It is better that the islands should be supplied from the Northern Colonies than from England, for this reason; the provisions we might send to Barbados, Jamaica, &c. would be unimproved product of the earth, as grain of all kinds, or such product where there is little got by the improvement, as malt, salt, beef and pork; indeed the exportation of salt fish thither would be more advantageous, but the goods which we send to the northern colonies are such, whose improvement may be justly said, one with another to be near four fifths of the value of the whole commodity, as apparel, household furniture, and many other things."

Idem.

"New-England is the most prejudicial plantation to the kingdom of England; and yet, to do right to that most industrious English colony, I must confess, that though we lose by their unlimited trade with other foreign plantations, yet we are very great gainers by their direct trade to and from Old England. Our yearly exportations of English manufactures, malt and other goods, from hence thither, amounting, in my opinion, to ten times the value of what is imported from thence; which calculation I do not make at random, but upon mature consideration, and peradventure, upon as much experience in this very trade, as any other person will pretend to; and therefore, whenever reformation of our correspondency in trade with that people shall be thought on, it will, in my poor judgment, require great tenderness, and very serious circumspection."

Sir Josiah Child's discourse on trade.

"Our plantations spend mostly our English manufactures, and those of all sorts almost imaginable, in egregious quantities, and employ near two thirds of all our English shipping; so that we have more people in England, by reason of our plantations in America."

Idem.

Sir Josiah Child says, in another part of his work, "that not more than fifty families are maintained in England by the refining of sugar." From whence, and from what Davenant says, it is plain, that the advantages here said to be derived from the plantations by England, must be meant chiefly of the continental colonies.

"I shall sum up my whole remarks on our American colonies, with this observation, that as they are a certain annual revenue of several millions sterling to their mother country, they ought carefully to be protected, duly encouraged, and every opportunity that presents, improved for their increasment and advantage, as every one they can possibly reap, must at least return to us with interest."

Beawes's Lex merc. red.

"We may safely advance, that our trade and navigation are greatly increased by our colonies, and that they really are a source of treasure and naval power to this kingdom, since they work for us, and their treasure centers here. Before their settlement, our manufactures were few, and those but indifferent; the number of English merchants very small, and the whole shipping of the nation much inferior to what now belongs to the northern colonies only. These are certain facts. But since their establishment, our condition has altered for the better, almost to a degree beyond credibility. Our manufactures are prodigiously encreased, chiefly by the demand for them in the plantations, where they at least take off one half, and supply us with many valuable commodities for exportation, which is as great an emolument to the mother kingdom, as to the plantations themselves."

Postlethwait's universal dict. of trade and commerce.

"Most of the nations of Europe have interfered with us more or less, in divers of our staple manufactures, within half a century, not only in our woollen, but in our lead and tin manufactures, as well as our fisheries."

Idem.

"The inhabitants of our colonies, by carrying on a trade with their foreign neighbours, do not only occasion a greater quantity of the goods and merchandizes of Europe being sent from hence to them, and a greater quantity of the product of America to be sent from them thither, which would otherways be carried from, and brought to Europe by foreigners, but an increase of the seamen and navigation in those parts, which is of great strength and security, as well as of great advantage to our plantations in general. And though some of our colonies are not only for preventing the importations of all goods of the same species they produce, but suffer particular planters to keep great runs of land in their possession uncultivated with design to prevent new settlements, whereby they imagine the prices of their commodities may be affected; yet if it be considered, that the markets of Great-Britain depend on the markets of all Europe in general, and that the European markets in general depend on the proportion between the annual consumption and the whole quantity of each species annually produced by all nations; it must follow, that whether we or foreigners, are the producers, carriers, importers and exporters of American produce, yet their respective prices in each colony (the difference of freight, customs and importations considered) will always bear proportion to the general consumption of the whole quantity of each sort, produced in all colonies, and in all parts, allowing only for the usual contingencies, that trade and commerce, agriculture and manufactures are liable to in all countries."

Idem.