Part 7

"It is certain, that from the very time Sir Walter Raleigh, the father of our English colonies, and his associates, first projected these establishments, there have been persons who have found an interest, in misrepresenting, or lessening the value of them.--The attempts were called chimerical and dangerous. Afterwards many malignant suggestions were made, about sacrificing so many Englishmen to the obstinate desire of settling colonies in countries which then produced very little advantage. But as these difficulties were gradually surmounted, those complaints vanished. No sooner were these lamentations over, but others arose in their stead; when it could be no longer said, that the colonies were useless, it was alledged that they were not useful enough to their mother country; that while we were loaded with taxes, they were absolutely free; that the planters lived like princes, when the inhabitants of England laboured hard for a tolerable subsistence."

Idem.

"Before the settlement of these colonies," says Postlethwayt, "our manufactures were few, and those but indifferent. In those days we had not only our naval stores, but our ships from our neighbours. Germany furnished us with all things made of metal, even to nails. Wine, paper, linens, and a thousand other things came from France. Portugal supplied us with sugar; all the products of America were poured into us from Spain; and the Venetians and Genoese retailed to us the commodities of the East-Indies, at their own price."

"If it be asked, whether foreigners for what goods they take of us, do not pay on that consumption a great portion of our taxes? It is admitted they do."

Postlethwayt's Great-Britain's true system.

"If we are afraid that one day or other the colonies will revolt, and set up for themselves, as some seem to apprehend, let us not drive them to a necessity to feel themselves independant of us; as they will do, the moment they perceive that they can be supplied with all things from within themselves, and do not need our assistance. If we would keep them still dependant upon their mother country, and in some respects subservient to their views and welfare, let us make it their interest always to be so."

Tucker on trade.

"Our colonies, while they have English blood in their veins, and have relations in England, and while they can get by trading with us, the stronger and greater they grow, the more this crown and kingdom will get by them; and nothing but such an arbitrary power as shall make them desperate can bring them to rebel."

Davenant on the plantation trade.

"The northern colonies are not upon the same footing as those of the south; and having a worse soil to improve, they must find the recompence some other way, which only can be in property and dominion. Upon which score, any innovations in the form of government there, should be cautiously examined, for fear of entering upon measures, by which the industry of the inhabitants may be quite discouraged. 'Tis always unfortunate for a people, either by consent or upon compulsion, to depart from their primitive institutions, and those fundamental, by which they were first united together."

Idem.

All wise states will well consider how to preserve the advantages arising from colonies, and avoid the evils. And I conceive that there can be but two ways in nature to hinder them from throwing off their dependence; one to keep it out of their power, and the other, out of their will. The first must be by force; and the latter by using them well, and keeping them employed in such productions, and making such manufactures, as will support themselves and families comfortably, and procure them wealth too, and at least not prejudice their mother country.

Force can never be used effectually to answer the end, without destroying the colonies themselves. Liberty and encouragement are necessary to carry people thither, and to keep them together when they are there; and violence will hinder both. Any body of troops considerable enough to awe them, and keep them in subjection, under the direction too of a needy governor, often sent thither to make his fortune, and at such a distance from any application for redress, will soon put an end to all planting, and leave the country to the soldiers alone, and if it did not, would eat up all the profit of the colony. For this reason, arbitrary countries have not been equally successful in planting colonies with free ones; and what they have done in that kind, has either been by force at a vast expence, or by departing from the nature of their government, and giving such privileges to planters as were denied to their other subjects. And I dare say, that a few prudent laws, and a little prudent conduct, would soon give us far the greatest share of the riches of all America, perhaps drive many of other nations out of it, or into our colonies for shelter.

There are so many exigencies in all states, so many foreign wars and domestic disturbances, that these colonies can never want opportunities, if they watch for them, to do what they shall find their interest to do; and therefore we ought to take all the precautions in our power, that it shall never be their interest to act against that of their native country; an evil which can no otherways be averted, than by keeping them fully employed in such trades as will increase their own, as well as our wealth; for it is much to be feared, if we do not find employment for them, they may find it for us. The interest of the mother country is always to keep them dependent, and so employed; and it requires all her address to do it; and it is certainly more easily and effectually done by gentle and insensible methods, than by power alone.

Cato's letters.

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 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 them.

It seems extremely probable, that when cool, dispassionate posterity 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,

"_Mens ubi materna est?_" Where is maternal affection.

A FARMER.

LETTER VI.

_Beloved Countrymen,_

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 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 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 arbitrarily in this respect.

It[27] may, perhaps, be further objected, "that it being granted that statutes made 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."

[27] 'If any one should observe, that no opposition has been made to the legality of the 4th Geo. III. ch. 15, which is the first act of parliament that ever imposed duties on the importations in America, for the express purpose of raising a revenue there, I answer, first, that tho' that act expressly mentions the raising a revenue in America, yet it seems that it had as much in view, "the improving and securing the trade between the same and Great-Britain," which words are part of its title, and the preamble says, "Whereas it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this kingdom, and for extending and securing the navigation and commerce between Great-Britain and your Majesty's dominions in America, which, by the peace, have been so happily extended and enlarged, &c." 'Secondly, all the duties mentioned in that act, are imposed solely on the productions and manufactures of foreign countries, and not a single duty laid on any production or manufacture of our mother country. Thirdly, the authority of the provincial assemblies is not therein so plainly attacked, as by the last act, which makes provision for defraying the charges of the administration of justice, and the support of civil government, 4thly, That it being doubtful whether the intention of the 4th Geo. III. ch. 15, was not as much to regulate trade as to raise a revenue, the minds of the people here were wholly engrossed by the terror of the Stamp-act, then impending over them, about the intention of which they could be in no doubt.'

'These reasons so far distinguish 4th Geo. III. ch. 15, from the last act, that it is not to be wondered at, that the first should have been submitted to, though the last should excite the most universal and spirited opposition. For this will be found on the strictest examination to be, in the principle on which it is founded, and in the consequences that must attend it, if possible, more destructive than the Stamp-act. It is, to speak plainly, a prodigy in our laws, not having one British feature.'

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 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 Cæsars 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 conscience, 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, [28]"That which is now supported by examples, growing old, will become an example itself," and thus support fresh usurpations.

[28] Tacitus.

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."[29]

[29] 2 Cor. iii. 6.

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 profligate 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 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 to 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 to prove such a right. It is sufficient to remind the reader of the day on which King William landed at Torbay.[30]

[30] November 5, 1688.

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 dangerous; 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 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 a 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.

"_Quocirca vivite fortes_" "_Fortiaque adversis opponite pectora rebus_,"

Wherefore keep up your spirits, and gallantly oppose this adverse course of affairs.

A FARMER.

LETTER VII.

_Beloved Countrymen_,

This letter is intended more particularly for such of you, whose employment in life may have prevented your attending to the consideration of some points that are of great 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 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 Majesty 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.[31]

[31] Many remarkable instances might be produced of the extraordinary inattention with which bills of great importance, concerning these colonies, have passed in parliament; which is owing, as it is supposed, to the bills being brought in by the persons who have points to carry, so artfully framed, that it is not easy for the members in general, in the haste of business, to discover their tendency.

The following instances shew the truth of this remark. When Mr. Grenville, in the violence of reformation and innovation, formed the 4th Geo. III. chap. 15th, for regulating the American trade, the word "Ireland" was dropt in the clause relating to our iron and lumber, so that we could send these articles to no other part of Europe, but to Great-Britain. This was so unreasonable a restriction, and so contrary to the sentiments of the legislature, for many years before, that it is surprising it should not have been taken notice of in the house. However the bill passed into a law. But when the matter was explained, this restriction was taken off in a subsequent act.

I cannot postively say, how long after the taking off this restriction, as I have not the acts; but I think in less than eighteen months, another act of parliament passed, in which the word "Ireland," was left out as it had been before. The matter being a second time explained, was a second time regulated.

Now if it be considered, that the omission mentioned struck off, with one word, so very great a part of our trade, it must appear remarkable: and equally so is the method by which rice became an enumerated commodity, and therefore could be carried to Great-Britain only.

"The enumeration was obtained, (says Mr. Gee*) by one Cole, a Captain of a ship, employed by a company then trading to Carolina; for several ships going from England thither and purchasing rice for Portugal, prevented the aforesaid Captain of a loading. Upon his coming home, he possessed one Mr. Lowndes, a member of parliament (who was very frequently employed to prepare bills) with an opinion, that carrying rice directly to Portugal was a prejudice to the trade of England, and privately got a clause into an act to make it an enumerated commodity; by which means he secured a freight to himself. But the consequence proved a vast loss to the nation."

[* Gee on trade, p. 32.]

I find that this clause "privately got into an act," for the benefit of Capt. Cole, "to the vast loss of the nation," is foisted into the 3d Anne, chap. 5, intituled, "An act for granting to her Majesty a further subsidy on wines and merchandizes imported," with which it has no more connexion, than with 34th Edw. I. 34th and 35th of Henry VIII. or the 25th of Car. II. which provide that no person shall be taxed but by himself or his representative.

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 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.