P MISCELLANEOUS. cept against their demonstration of legal exemp- | terest, one of them may endeavour to impose tion." There never was any occasion of legal exemption from what they never had been subject to. "But then it is to be further observed, that this same method of arguing is equally favourable to governors as governed, and to the mother country as the colonies." Here is the old mistake of all these writers. The people of the mother country are subjects, not governors. The king only is sovereign in both countries. "The colonies will no longer think it equitable to insist upon immunities which the people of Great Britain do not enjoy." Why not, if they have a right to them? "To claim a right of being taxed by their assemblies only, appears to have too much the air of independence; and though they are not represented here, would give them an immunity beyond the inhabitants of this island." It is a right, however; what signifies what air it has? The inhabitants being freeholders ought to have the same. If they have it not, they are injured. Then rectify what is amiss among yourselves; and do not make it a justification of more wrong. "Or could they hope to procure any advantages from one hundred representatives? Common sense answers all this in the negative." Common sense, Why not, as well as Scotland from fortyfive, or rather sixty-one ? on the contrary, says, that a body of one hundred votes in Parliament will always be worth the attention of any ministry; and the fear of offending them will make every minister cautious of injuring the rights of their country, lest they join with his opposers Parliament. on the other, may cheat him in the accounts, may draw to himself more than his share of the profits, may put upon the other more than an equal share of the expense and burden. Their having a common interest is no security against such injustice. The landholders of Great Britain have a common interest, and yet they injure one another in the inequality of the land tax. The majority in Parliament, being favoured in the proportions, will never consent to do justice to the minority by a more equal assessment. "But what reasonable ground of apprehension can there be, that the British Parliament should be ignorant of so plain a matter, as that the interests of Britain and the colonies are the same ?" If the Parliament is so knowing and so just, how comes it to restrain Ireland in its manufactures, America in its trade? Why may not an Irishman or an American make the same manufactures, and carry them to the same ports as an Englishman? In many instances Britain shows a selfish regard to her own interest, in prejudice of the colonies. America therefore has no confidence in her equity. "But I can conceive no earthly security better, none indeed so good, as that which depends and Parliament." upon the wisdom and integrity of a British king or suppose Suppose seats in your House of Commons hereditary, as those of the House of Lords; the Commons to be nominated by the king, or chosen by the lords; could were to be chosen by the people of Ireland, you then rely upon them? If your members could you then rely upon them? Could you depend upon their wisdom and integrity, as a security, the best possible, for your rights? And wherein is our case different, if the peo"Therefore the interest of Great Britain and ple of England choose legislators for the people of America? that of the colonies is the same." in All this argument of the interest of Britain and the colonies being the same is fallacious and unsatisfactory. Partners in trade have a common interest, which is the same, the flourishing of the partnership business; but they may, moreover, have each a separate interest, and, in pursuit of that separate in "If they have a spark of virtue left, they will blush to be found in a posture of hostility against Great Britain." There was no posture of hostility in AmeWitness the rica, but Britain put herself in a posture of hostility against America. landing of the troops in Boston, 1768. OBSERVATIONS ON PASSAGES IN "A LETTER FROM A MERCHANT IN LONDON TO HIS “THE honest indignation you express against those artifices and frauds, those robberies and insults, which lost us the hearts and affections of the Indians, is particularly to be commended; for these were the things, as you justly observed, which involved us in the most bloody and expensive war that ever was known." ever an Englishman resides, that country is England. While an Englishman resides in England, he is undoubtedly subject to its laws. If he goes into a foreign country, he is subject to the laws and government he finds there. If he finds no government or laws there, he is subject there to none, till This is wickedly intended by the author, he and his companions, if he has any, make Dean Tucker, to represent the North Ame- laws for themselves; and this was the case ricans as the cause of the war. Whereas, of the first settlers in America. Otherwise, it was in fact begun by the French, who and if they carried the English laws and seized the goods and persons of the English power of Parliament with them, what advantraders on the Ohio, who encroached on the tage could the Puritans propose to themking's land in Nova Scotia, and took a fort selves by going, since they would have been from the Ohio Company by force of arms, as subject to bishops, spiritual courts, tythes, which induced England to make reprisals and statutes relating to the church, in Ameat sea, and to send Braddock to recover the rica, as in England? Can the dean, on his fort on the Ohio, whence came on the war. principles, tell how it happens that those "By the spirit of Magna Charta all taxes laid laws, the game acts, the statutes for labouron by Parliament are constitutional, legal taxes." ers, and an infinity of others, made before There is no doubt but taxes laid by Par- and since the emigration, are not in force in liament, where the Parliament has jurisdic-force in America, nor ever were? tion, are legal taxes; but does it follow, that taxes laid by the Parliament of England on Scotland before the union, on Guernsey, Jersey, Ireland, Hanover, or any other dominions of the crown, not within the realm, are therefore legal? These writers against the colonies all bewilder themselves by supposing the colonies within the realm, which is not the case, nor ever was. This then is the spirit of the constitution, that taxes The author here appears quite ignorant of shall not be laid without the consent of those the fact. The colonies carried no law with to be taxed. The colonies were not then in them; they carried only a power of making being, and therefore nothing relating to them laws, or adopting such parts of the Engcould be literally expressed. As the Ameri-lish law or any other law, as they should cans are now without the realm, and not of first settlers of Connecticut, for instance, at think suitable to their circumstances. the jurisdiction of Parliament, the spirit of their first meeting in that country, finding the British constitution dictates, that they themselves out of all jurisdiction of other should be taxed only by their own represen-governments, resolved and enacted, that, till tatives, as the English are by theirs. "Now the first emigrants, who settled in America, were certainly English subjects, subject to the laws and jurisdiction of Parliament, and consequently to parliamentary taxes, before the emigration, and therefore subject afterwards, unless some legal constitutional exemption can be produced." colony, and before ever you Americans could "Now, upon the first settling of an English have chosen any representatives, and therefore before any assembly of such representatives could have possibly met,-to whose laws and to what legislative power were you then subject? To the English, most undoubtedly; for you could have been subject to no other." The a code of laws should be prepared and agreed to, they would be governed by the law of Moses, as contained in the Old Testament. If the first settlers had no right to expect a better constitution than the English, what fools were they for going over, to encounter all the hardships and perils of new settlements in a wilderness! For these were so This position supposes, that Englishmen many additions to what they suffered at can never be out of the jurisdiction of Parlia- home from tyrannical and oppressive instiIt may as well be said, that wher-tutions in church and state; with a subtrac ment. tion of all their old enjoyments of the conveniences and comforts of an old settled country, friends, neighbours, relations, and homes. Suppositions and implications will not weigh in these important cases. No law or constitution forbade the king's doing what he did in granting those charters. Suppose, therefore, that the crown had "Confuted, most undoubtedly, you are beyond been so ill advised as to have granted a charter the possibility of a reply, as far as the law and to any city or county here in England, pretend- constitution of the realm are concerned in this ing to exempt them from the power and juris-question." diction of an British Parliament. Is it possi- This is hallooing before you are out of ble for you to believe an absurdity so gross and the wood. glaring?" The American settlers needed no exemption from the power of Parliament; they were necessarily exempted, as soon as they landed out of its jurisdiction. Therefore, all this rhetorical paragraph is founded on a mistake of the author, and the absurdity he talks of is of his own making. 66 Good heavens! what a sudden alteration is this! An American pleading for the extension of the prerogative of the crown! Yes, if it could make for his cause; and for extending it, too, beyond all the bounds of the law, of reason, and of common sense!" What stuff! Why may not an American plead for the just prerogatives of the crown? And is it not a just prerogative of the crown to give the subjects leave to settle in a foreign country, if they think it necessary to ask such leave? Was the Parliament at all considered, or consulted, in making those first settlements? Or did any lawyer then think it necessary? “Now this clause, which is nothing more than the renunciation of absolute prerogative, is quoted in our newspapers, as if it was a renunciation of the rights of Parliament to raise taxes." 66 Strange, that though the British Parliament has been, from the beginning, thus unreasonable, thus unjust and cruel towards you, by levying taxes on many commodities outwards and inwards”— False! Never before the restoration. The Parliament, it is acknowledged, have made which have passed without opposition, partly many oppressive laws relating to America, through the weakness of the colonies, partly through their inattention to the full extent of their rights, while employed in labour to procure the necessaries of life. But that is a wicked guardian, and a shameless one, who first takes advantage of the weakness incident to minority, cheats and imposes on his pupil, and when the pupil comes of age, urges those very impositions as precedents to justify continuing them and adding others. "But surely you will not dare to say, that we refuse your votes when you come hither to offer them, and choose to poll. You cannot have the face to assert that on an election-day any difference is put between the vote of a man born in America, and of one born here in England." This is all banter and insult, when you It was not a renunciation of the rights of know the impossibility of a million of freeParliament. There was no need of such a holders coming over sea to vote here. If renunciation, for Parliament had not even their freeholds in America are within the pretended to such a right. But, since the realm, why have they not, in virtue of these royal faith was pledged by the king for himself and his successors, how can any suc-well as an English freeholder? Sometimes freeholds, a right to vote in your elections, as ceeding king, without violating that faith, ever give his assent to an act of Parliament for such taxation. "Nay, many of your colony charters assert quite the contrary, by containing the express reservations of parliamentary rights, particularly that great one of levying taxes." A fib, Mr. Dean. In one charter only, and that a late one, is the Parliament mentioned; and the right reserved is only that of laying duties on commodities imported into England from the colony or exported to it. "And those charters, which do not make such provisions in express terms, must be supposed virtually to imply them; because the law and constitution will not allow, that the king can do more either at home or abroad by the prerogative royal, than the law and constitution authorizes him to do." VOL. II. 3 S 43 we are told, that our estates are by our charters all in the manor of East Greenwich, and therefore all in England; and yet have we any right to vote among the voters of East Greenwich? Can we trade to the same ports? In this very paragraph, you suppose that we cannot vote in England, if we come hither, till we have by purchase acquired a right; therefore neither we nor our estates are represented in England. "The cause of your complaint is this; that you live at too great a distance from the mother country to be present at our English elections; and that, in consequence of this distance, the freedom of our towns, or the freeholds in our counties, as far as voting is concerned, are not worth attending to. It may be so; but pray consider, if you yourselves choose to make it inconvenient for you to come and vote, by re tiring into distant countries,-what is that to jects are, therefore, not properly vested with rights relating to government. us?" This is all beside the mark. The Americans are by their constitutions provided with a representation, and therefore neither need nor desire any in the British Parliament. They have never asked any such thing. They only say, Since we have a right to grant our own money to the king, since we have assemblies where we are represented for such purposes, why will you meddle, out of your sphere, take the money that is ours, and give us yours, without our consent? "Yes, it is, and you demand it too with a loud voice, full of anger, of defiance, and denunciation." An absolute falsehood! We never demanded in any manner, much less in the manner you mention, that the mother country should change her constitution. "In the great metropolis, and in many other cities, landed property itself hath no representative in Parliament. Copy-holds and lease-holds of various kinds have none likewise, though of ever so great a value." Copy-holds and lease-holds are supposed to be represented in the original landlord of whom they are held. Thus all the land in England is in fact represented, notwithstanding what he here says. As to those who have no landed property in a county, the allowing them to vote for legislators is an impropriety. They are transient inhabitants, and not so connected with the welfare of the state, which they may quit when they please, as to qualify them properly for such privilege. "And, besides all this, it is well known that the East India Company, which have such vast settlements, and which dispose of the fate of kings and kingdoms abroad, have not so much as a single member, or even a single vote, quatenus a company, to watch over their interests at home. And may not their property, perhaps a little short of one hundred millions sterling, as much deserve to be represented in Parliament, as the scattered townships or straggling houses of some of your provinces in America?" By this argument it may be proved, that no man in England has a vote. The clergy have none as clergymen; the lawyers, none as lawyers; the physicians, none as physicians; and so on. But if they have votes as freeholders, that is sufficient; and that no freeholder in America has for a representative in the British Parliament. The stockholders are many of them foreigners, and all may be so when they please, as nothing is more easy than the transferring of stock and conveying property beyond sea by bills of exchange. Such uncertain sub "Yet we raise no commotions; we neither ring the alarm-bell, nor sound the trumpet, and submit to be taxed without being represented; and taxed, let me tell you, for your sakes. All was granted when you cried for help." This is wickedly false. While the colonies were weak and poor, not a penny or a single soldier was ever spared by Britain for their defence. But as soon as the trade with them became an object, and a fear arose that the French would seize that trade and deprive her of it, she sent troops to America unasked. And she now brings this account of the expense against us, which should be rather carried to her own merchants and manufacturers. We joined our troops and treasure with hers to help her in this war. Of this no notice is taken. To refuse to pay a just debt is knavish; not to return an obligation is ingratitude; but to demand payment of a debt where none has been contracted, to forge a bond or an obligation in order to demand what was never due, is villany. Every year both king and Parliament, during the war, acknowledged that we had done more than our part, and made us some return, which is equivalent to a receipt in full, and entirely sets aside this monstrous claim. tion If you are not just to your own people, how By all means redress your own grievances. can we trust you? We ask no representaamong you; but if you have any thing wrong among yourselves, rectify it, and do not make one injustice a precedent and plea for doing another. That would be increasing evil in the world instead of diminishing it. You need not be concerned about the number to be added from America. We do not desire to come among you; but you tional members, by removing those that are may make some room for your own addisent by the rotten boroughs. "I must now tell you, that every member of Parliament represents you, and me, and our interests in all essential points, just as much as if we had voted for him. For although one place or one set of men may elect and send him member, he is the equal guardian of all.” up to Parliament, yet, when once he becomes a In the same manner, Mr. Dean, are the pope and cardinals representatives of the whole Christian church. Why don't you obey them? "This, then, being the case, it therefore follows, that our Birminghams, Manchesters, Leeds, Halifaxes, &c. and your Bostons, NewYorks, and Philadelphias, are as really, though not so nominally, represented, as any part what soever of the British empire; and that each of | these places have in fact, instead of one or two, not less than five hundred and fifty-eight guardians in the British Senate." What occasion is there then, my dear sir, of being at the trouble of elections? The peers alone would do as well for our guardians, though chosen by the king, or born such. If their present number is too small, his majesty may be good enough to add five hundred and fifty-eight, or make the present House of Commons and their heirs-male peers for ever. If having a vote in elections would be of no use to us, how is it of any to you? Elections are the cause of much tumult, riot, contention, and mischief. Get rid of them at once, and for ever. "It proves that no man ought to pay any tax but that only to which the member of his own town, city, or county hath particularly assented." Nay, in order to favour your plantations, I am not permitted to plant this herb on my own estate, though the soil should be ever so proper for it." You lay a duty on the tobacco of other countries, because you must pay money for that, but get ours in exchange for your manufactures. Tobacco is not permitted to be planted in England, lest it should interfere with corn necessary for your subsistence. Rice you cannot raise. It requires eleven months. Your summer is too short. Nature, not the laws, denies you this product. "And what will you say in relation to temp? The Parliament now gives you a bounty of eight pounds per ton for exporting your hemp from North America, but will allow me nothing for growing it here in England." Did ever any North American bring his hemp to England for this bounty? We have yet not enough for our own consumpYou seem to take your nephew for a sim-tion. We begin to make our own cordage. pleton, Mr. Dean. Every one, who votes for a representative, knows and intends, that the majority is to govern, and that the consent of the majority is to be understood as the consent of the whole; that being ever the case in all deliberative assemblies. "The doctrine of implication is the very thing to which you object, and against which you have raised so many batteries of popular noise and clamour." How far, my dear sir, would you yourself carry the doctrine of implication? If important positions are to be implied, when not expressed, I suppose you can have no objection to their being implied where some expression countenances the implication. If you should say to a friend, "I am your humble servant, sir," ought he to imply from thence that you will clean his shoes? "And consequently you must maintain, that all those in your several provinces who have no votes," &c. No freeholder in North America is without a vote. Many, who have no freeholds, have nevertheless a vote; which, indeed, I don't think was necessary to be allowed. it "You have your choice whether you will accept of my price for your tobacco; or, after bringing it here, whether you will carry away, and try your fortune at another market." A great kindness this, to oblige me first to bring it here, that the expense of another voyage and freight may deter me from carrying it away, and oblige me to take the price you are pleased to offer. "But I have no alternative allowed, being obliged to buy yours at your own price, or else to pay such a duty for the tobacco of other countries, as must amount to a prohibition. You want to suppress that manufacture, and would do it by getting the raw material from us. You want to be supplied with hemp for your manufactures, and Russia demands money. These were the motives for giving what you are pleased to call a bounty to us. We thank you for your bounties. We love you, and therefore must be obliged to you for being good to yourselves. You do not encourage raising hemp in England, because you know it impoverishes the richest grounds; your landholders are all against it. What you call bounties given by Parliament and the society, are nothing more than inducements offered us, to persuade us to leave employments that are more profitable, and engage in such as would be less so without your bounty; to quit a business profitable to ourselves, and engage in one that shall be profitable to you. This is the true spirit of all your bounties. Your duties on foreign articles are from the same motives. Pitch, tar, and turpentine used to cost you five pounds a barrel when you had them from foreigners, who used you ill into the bargain, thinking you could not do without them. You gave a bounty of five shillings a barrel to the colonies, and they have brought you such plenty as to reduce the price to ten shillings a barrel. Take back your bounties when you please, since you upbraid us with them. Buy your indigo, pitch, silk, and tobacco where you please, and let us buy our manufactures where we please. I fancy we shall be gainers. As to the great kindness of these five hundred and fifty-eight parliamentary guardians of American privileges, who can forbear smiling, that has seen the Navigation Act, the Hatters' Act, the Steel |