Chapter VIII: 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.

Now I do verily believe, that the late act of parliament imposing duties on paper, &c. was formed by Mr. Grenville and his party, because it is evidently a part of that plan, by which he endeavoured to render himself popular at home; and I do also believe that not one half of the members of the house of commons, even of those who heard it read, did perceive how destructive it was to American freedom.

For this reason, as it is usual in Great-Britain, to consider the King's speech, as the speech of the ministry, it may be right here to consider this act as the act of a party.--Perhaps I should speak more properly if I was to use another term.--

There are two ways of laying taxes.--One is by imposing a certain sum on particular kinds of property, to be paid by the user or consumer, or by taxing the person at a certain sum; the other is, by imposing a certain sum on particular kinds of property to be paid by the seller.

When a man pays the first sort of tax, he knows with certainty that he pays so much money for a tax. The consideration for which he pays it is remote, and it may be does not occur to him. He is sensible too that he is commanded and obliged to pay it as a tax; and therefore people are apt to be displeased with this sort of tax.

The other sort of tax is submitted to in a very different manner. The purchaser of any article very seldom reflects that the seller raises his price so as to indemnify him for the tax he has paid. He knows the prices of things are continually fluctuating, and if he thinks about the tax, he thinks at the same time in all probability, that he might have paid as much, if the article he buys had not been taxed. He gets something visible and agreeable for his money, and tax and price are so confounded together, that he cannot separate, or does not chuse to take the trouble of separating them.

This mode of taxation therefore is the mode suited to arbitrary and oppressive governments. The love of liberty is so natural to the human heart, that unfeeling tyrants think themselves obliged to accommodate their schemes as much as they can to the appearance of justice and reason, and to deceive those whom they resolve to destroy or oppress, by presenting to them a miserable picture of freedom, when the inestimable original is lost.

This policy did not escape the cruel and rapacious Nero. That monster, apprehensive that his crimes might endanger his authority and life, thought proper to do some popular acts to secure the obedience of his subjects. Among other things, says [32]Tacitus, "he remitted the twenty-fifth part of the price on the sale of slaves, but rather in shew than reality; for the seller being ordered to pay it, it became a part of the price to the buyer."

[32] Tacitus's An. b. 13. f. 31.

This is the reflection of the judicious historian: but the deluded people gave their infamous emperor full credit for his false generosity. Other nations have been treated in the same manner the Romans were. The honest industrious Germans who are settled in different parts of this continent can inform us, that it was this sort of tax that drove them from their native land to our woods, at that time the seats of perfect and undisturbed freedom.

Their princes inflamed by the lust of power and the lust of avarice, two furies, that the more hungry they grow, transgressed the bounds, they ought in regard to themselves, to have observed. To keep up the deception in the minds of subjects "there must be," says a very learned author[33] "some proportion between the impost and the value of the commodity; wherefore there ought not to be an excessive duty upon merchandizes of little value. There are countries in which the duty exceeds seventeen or eighteen times the value of the commodity. In this case the prince removes the illusion. His subjects plainly see they are dealt with in an unreasonable manner, which renders them most exquisitely sensible of their slavish situation."

[33] Montesquieu's spirit of laws, b. 13. chap. 8.

From hence it appears that subjects may be ground down into misery by this sort of taxation as well as the other. They may be as much impoverished if their money is taken from them in this way, as in the other; and that it will be taken, may be more evident, by attending to a few more considerations.

The merchant, or importer who pays the duty at first, will not consent to be so much money out of pocket. He, therefore, proportionably raises the price of his goods. It may then be said to be a contest between him and the person offering to buy, who shall lose the duty. This must be decided by the nature of the commodities and the purchasers demand for them. If they are mere luxuries, he is at liberty to do as he pleases, and if he buys, he does it voluntarily: But if they are absolute necessaries, or conveniences which use and custom have made requisite for the comfort of life, and which he is not permitted, by the power imposing the duty, to get elsewhere, there the seller has a plain advantage, and the buyer must pay the duty. In fact, the seller is nothing less than the collector of the tax for the power that imposed it. If these duties then are extended to necessaries and conveniences of life in general, and enormously increased, the people must at length become indeed "most exquisitely sensible of their slavish situation."

Their happiness, therefore, entirely depends on the moderation of those who have authority to impose the duties.

I shall now apply these observations to the late act of parliament. Certain duties are thereby imposed on paper and glass, &c. imported into these colonies. By the laws of _Great-Britain_ we are prohibited to get these articles from any other part of the world. We cannot at present, nor for many years to come, though we should apply ourselves to these manufactures with the utmost industry, make enough ourselves for our own use. That paper and glass are not only convenient, but absolutely necessary for us, I imagine very few will contend. Some, perhaps, who think mankind grew wicked and luxurious as soon as they found out another way of communicating their sentiments than by speech, and another way of dwelling than in caves, may advance so whimsical an opinion. But I presume nobody will take the unnecessary trouble of refuting them.

From these remarks I think it evident, that we must use paper and glass, that what we use must be _British_, and that we must pay the duties imposed unless those who sell these articles are so generous as to make us presents of the duties they pay, which is not to be expected.

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 could 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 own 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."[34]

[34] Speech Lord Cambden lately published.

These duties, which will inevitably be levied upon us, and which are now levying upon us, are expressly 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, given by themselves, or their representatives, are slaves.[35] We are taxed without our own consent given by ourselves, or our representatives. We are therefore----I speak it with grief----I speak it with indignation----we are slaves.

"_Miserabile vulgus._"
A miserable tribe.

A FARMER.

[35] This is the opinion of Mr. Pitt, in his speech on the
Stamp-act.

"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. 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 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."

That great and excellent man Lord Cambden, maintains the same
opinion in his speech, in the house of peers, on the declaratory
bill of the sovereignty of Great-Britain over the colonies.
The following extracts so perfectly agree with, and confirm
the sentiments avowed in these letters, that it is hoped the
inserting them in this note will be excused.

"As the affair is of the utmost importance, and in its
consequences may involve the fate of kingdoms, I took the
strictest review of my arguments; I re-examined all my
authorities; fully determined, if I found myself mistaken,
publicly to own my mistake, and give up my opinion, but my
searches have more and more convinced me, that the British
parliament have no right to tax the Americans. Nor is the
doctrine new; it is as old as the constitution; it grew up with
it, indeed it is its support. Taxation and representation are
inseparably united. God hath joined them; no British parliament
can separate them; to endeavour to do it is to stab our vitals.

"My position is this--I repeat it--I will maintain it to my
last hour--Taxation and representation are inseparable. This
position is founded on the laws of nature; it is more, it
is itself an eternal law of nature; for whatever is a man's
own, is absolutely his own; and no man hath a right to take
it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself
or representative; whoever attempts to do it, attempts an
injury; whoever does it, commits a robbery; he throws down
the distinction between liberty and slavery." "There is not
a blade of grass, in the most obscure corner of the kingdom,
which is not, which was not, represented since the constitution
began: there is not a blade of grass, which when taxed, was not
taxed by the consent of the proprietor." "The forefathers of
the Americans did not leave their native country, and subject
themselves to every danger and distress, to be reduced to the
state of slavery. They did not give up their rights; they looked
for protection, and not for chains, from their mother-country.
By her they expected to be defended in the possession of their
property; and not to be deprived of it: For should the present
power continue, there is nothing which they can call their own,
or, to use the words of Mr. Locke, what property have they in
that, which another may, by right, take, when he pleases, to him
self."

It is impossible to read this speech and Mr. Pitt's, and not be
charmed with the generous zeal for the rights of mankind, that
glows in every sentence. These great and good men, animated by
the subject they speak upon, seem to rise above all the former
glorious exertions of their abilities. A foreigner might be
tempted to think they are Americans, asserting with all the
ardour of patriotism, and all the anxiety of apprehension,
the cause of their native land, and not Britons striving to
stop their mistaken countrymen from oppressing others. There
reasoning is not only just; it is "vehement," as Mr. Hume says
of the eloquence of Demosthenes, "'Tis disdain, anger, boldness,
freedom, involved in a continual stream of argument." Hume's
Essay on Eloquence.