LETTER II.

_Beloved Countrymen_,

There is another late act of parliament, which seems to me to be as destructive to the liberty of these colonies, as that inserted in my last letter; that is, the act for granting the duties on paper, glass, &c. It appears to me to be unconstitutional.

The parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to _regulate_ the trade of _Great-Britain_, and all its colonies. Such an authority is essential to the relation between a mother country and its colonies; and necessary for the common good of all. He, who considers these provinces as states distinct from the _British Empire_, has very slender notions of _justice_ or of _their interests_. We are but parts of _a whole_; and therefore there must exist a power somewhere, to preside, and preserve the connection in due order. This power is lodged in the parliament; and we are as much dependant on _Great-Britain_, as a perfectly free people can be on another.

I have looked over every _statute_ relating to these colonies, from their first settlement to this time; and I find every one of them founded on this principle, till the STAMP-ACT administration[9]. _All before_ are calculated to 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, imposes fines, which all together amount to a considerable sum, and contribute to the support of government: but this is merely a consequence arising from restrictions, which 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 abovementioned, think of imposing duties in America FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING A REVENUE. Mr. _Greenville's_ sagacity first introduced this language, in the preamble to the 4th of Geo. III. Ch. 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 expences 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 provision in the 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 herein after mentioned," &c.

[9] For the satisfaction of the reader, recitals from former acts of parliament relating to these colonies are added. By comparing these with the modern acts, he will perceive their great difference in expression and intention.

The 12th Cha. II Chap. 18, which forms the foundation of the laws relating to our trade, by enacting that certain productions of the colonies shall be carried to England only, and that no goods shall be imported from the plantations but in ships belonging to England, Ireland, Wales, Berwick, or the Plantations, &c. begins thus: "For the increase of shipping, and encouragement of the navigation of this nation, wherein, under the good providence and protection of God, the wealth, safety, and strength of this kingdom is so much concerned," &c.

The 15th Cha. II. Chap. 7. enforcing the same regulation, assigns these reasons for it. "In regard to his Majesty's plantations, beyond the seas, are inhabited and peopled by his subjects of this his kingdom of England; for the maintaining a greater correspondence and kindness between them, and keeping them in a firmer dependence upon it, and rendering them yet more beneficial and advantageous unto it, in the further employment and increase of English shipping and seamen, vent of English woolen, and other manufactures and commodities, rendering the navigation to and from the same more safe and cheap, and making this kingdom a staple, not only of the commodities of those plantations, but also of the commodities of other countries and places for the supplying of them; and it being the usage of other nations to keep their plantations trade to themselves," &c.

The 25th Cha. II. Chap. 7, made expressly "for the better securing the plantation trade," which imposes duties on certain commodities exported from one colony to another, mentions this last for imposing them: "Whereas by one act passed in the 12th year of your Majesty's reign, intitled, an act for encouragement of shipping and navigation, and by several other laws, passed since that time, it is permitted to ship, &c. sugars, tobacco, &c. of the growth, &c. of any of your Majesty's plantations in America &c. from the places of their growth, &c. to any other of your Majesty's plantations in those parts, &c. and that without paying of custom for the same, either at the lading or unlading the said commodities, by means whereof the trade and navigation in those commodities from one plantation to another is greatly encreased, and the inhabitants of divers of those colonies, not contenting themselves with being supplied with those commodities for their own use, free from all customs (while the subjects of this your kingdom of England have paid great customs and impositions for what of them hath been spent here) but, contrary to the express letter of the aforesaid laws, have brought into diverse parts of Europe great quantities thereof, and do also vend great quantities thereof to the shipping of other nations, who bring them into divers parts of Europe, to the great hurt and diminution of your Majesty's customs, and of the trade and navigation of this your kingdom; for the prevention thereof, &c."

The 7th and 8th Will. III. Chap. 21, intitled, "An act for preventing frauds, and regulating abuses in the plantation trade," recites that, "notwithstanding diverse acts, &c. great abuses are daily committed, to the prejudice of the English navigation, and the loss of a great part of the plantation trade to this kingdom, by the artifice and cunning of ill disposed persons: for remedy whereof, &c. And whereas in some of his Majesty's American plantations, a doubt or misconstruction has arisen upon the before mentioned acts, made in the 25th year of the reign of Charles II. whereby certain duties are laid upon the commodities therein enumerated (which by law may be transported from one plantation to another, for the supplying of each others wants) as if the same were, by the payment of those duties in one plantation, discharged from giving the securities intended by the aforesaid acts, made in the 12th, 22d and 23d years of the reign of King Charles II. and consequently be at liberty to go to any foreign market in Europe," &c.

The 6th Anne, Chap. 37, reciting the advancement of trade, &c. and encouragement of ships of war, &c. grants to the captors the property of all prizes carried into America, subject to such customs and duties, &c. as if the same had been first imported into any part of Great-Britain, and from thence exported, &c.

This was a gift to persons acting under commissions from the crown, and therefore it was reasonable that the terms prescribed should be complied with----more especially as the payment of such duties was intended to give a preference to the productions of the British colonies, over those of other colonies. However, being found inconvenient to the colonies, about four years afterwards, this act was, for that reason, so far repealed, by another act "all prize goods, imported into any part of Great-Britain, from any of the plantations, were liable to such duties only in Great-Britain, as in case they had been of the growth and produce of the plantations," &c.

The 6th Geo. II. Chap. 13, which imposes duties on foreign rum, sugar and molasses, imported into the colonies, shews the reason thus.--"Whereas the welfare and prosperity of your Majesty's sugar colonies in America, are of the greatest consequence and importance to the trade, navigation and strength of this kingdom; and whereas the planters of the said sugar colonies, have of late years fallen under such great discouragements that they are unable to improve or carry on the sugar trade, upon an equal footing with the foreign sugar colonies, without some advantage and relief be given to them from Great-Britain: For remedy whereof, and for the good and welfare of your Majesty's subjects," &c.

The 29th Geo. II. Chap. 26. and the 1st Geo. III. Chap. 9, which contains 6th Geo. II. Chap. 13, declare, that the said act hath, by experience, been found useful and beneficial, &c. There are all the most considerable statutes relating to the commerce of the colonies; and it is thought to be utterly unnecessary to add any observations to these extracts, to prove that they were all intended solely as regulations of trade.

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 expences, we your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the COMMONS OF GREAT-BRITAIN, &c. GIVE and GRANT," &c. as before.

The last act, granting duties upon paper, &c. 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 the 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 the expences of defending, protecting and securing the said dominions, we your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the COMMONS OF GREAT-BRITAIN, &c. give and grant," &c. as before.

Here we may observe an authority _expressly_ claimed 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_.

This I call an[10] innovation; and a most dangerous innovation. It may perhaps be objected, that _Great-Britain_ has a right to lay what duties she pleases upon her[11] exports, and it makes no difference to us, whether they are paid here or there.

[10] It is worthy observation how quickly subsidies, granted in forms usual and accustomable (tho' heavy) are borne; such a power hath use and custom. On the other side, what discontentment and disturbances subsidies formed on new moulds do raise (such an inbred hatred novelty doth hatch) is evident by examples of former times. Lord Coke's 2d institute, p. 33.

[11] Some people, whose minds seem incapable of uniting two ideas, think that Great-Britain has the same right to impose duties on the exports to these colonies, as on those to Spain and Portugal, &c. Such persons attend so much to the idea of exportation, that they entirely drop that of the connection between the mother country and her colonies. If Great-Britain had always claimed, and exercised an authority to compel Spain and Portugal to import manufactures from her only, the cases would be parallel: But as she never pretended to such a right, they are at liberty to get them where they please; and if they chuse to take them from her, rather than from other nations, they voluntary consent to pay the duties imposed on them.

To this I answer. These colonies require many things for their use, which the laws of _Great-Britain_ prohibit them from getting any where but from her. Such are paper and glass.

That we may be legally bound to pay any _general_ duties on these commodities, relative to the regulation of trade, is granted; but we being _obliged by her laws_ to take them from Great Britain, any _special_ duties imposed on their exportation _to us only, with intention to raise a revenue from us only_, are as much _taxes_ upon us, as those imposed by the _Stamp-act_.

What is the difference in _substance_ and _right_, whether the same sum is raised upon us by the rates mentioned in the Stamp-act, on the _use_ of the paper, or by these duties, on the _importation_ of it. It is nothing but the edition of a former book, with a new title page.

Suppose the duties were made payable in _Great-Britain_?

It signifies nothing to us, whether they are to be paid here or there. Had the _Stamp-act_ directed, that all the paper should be landed in _Florida_, and the duties paid there, before it was brought to the _British Colonies_, would the act have raised less money upon us, or have been less destructive of our rights? By no means: For as we were under a necessity of using the paper, we should have been under the necessity of paying the duties. Thus, in the present case, a like _necessity_ will subject us, if this act continues in force, to the payment of the duties now imposed.

Why was the _Stamp-act_ then so pernicious to freedom? It did not enact, that every man in the colonies _should_ buy a certain quantity of paper--No: It only directed, that no instrument of writing should be valid in law, if not made on stamp paper, &c.

The makers of that act knew full well, that the confusions that would arise upon the disuse of writings would COMPEL the colonies to use the stamp paper, and therefore to pay the taxes imposed. For this reason the _Stamp-act_ was said to be a law THAT WOULD EXECUTE ITSELF. For the very same reason, the last act of parliament, if it is granted to have any force here, will execute itself, and will be attended with the very same consequences to _American Liberty_.

Some persons perhaps may say, that this act lays us under no necessity to pay the duties imposed, because we may ourselves manufacture the articles on which they are laid: whereas by the Stamp-act no instrument of writing could be good, unless made on British paper, and that too stampt.

Such an objection amounts to no more than this, that the injury resulting to these colonies, from the total disuse of British paper and glass, will not be _so afflicting_ as that which would have resulted from the total disuse of writing among them; for by that means even the stamp-act might have been eluded. Why then was it universally detested by them as slavery itself? Because it presented to these devoted provinces nothing but a choice of calamities, imbittered by indignities, each of which it was unworthy of freemen to bear. But is no injury a violation of right but the _greatest_ injury? If the eluding the payment of the duties imposed by the stamp-act, would have subjected us to a more dreadful inconvenience, than the eluding the payment of those imposed by the late act; does it therefore follow, that the last is no violation of our rights, though it is calculated for the same purpose that the other was, that is, _to raise money upon us_, WITHOUT OUR CONSENT?

This would be making _right_ to consist, not in an exemption from _injury_, but from a certain _degree of injury_.

But the objectors may further say, that we shall sustain no injury at all by the disuse of British paper and glass. We might not, if we could make as much as we want. But can any man, acquainted with America, believe this possible? I am told there are but two or three _glass-houses_ on this continent, and but very few _paper-mills_; and suppose more should be erected, a long course of years must elapse, before they can be brought to perfection. This continent is a country of planters, farmers, and fishermen; not of manufacturers. The difficulty of establishing particular manufactures in such a country, is almost insuperable, for one manufacture is connected with others in such a manner, that it may be said to be impossible to establish one or two, without establishing several others. The experience of many nations may convince us of this truth.

Inexpressible therefore must be our distresses in evading the late acts, by the disuse of British paper and glass. Nor will this be the extent of our misfortunes, if we admit the legality of that act.

_Great-Britain_ has prohibited the manufacturing iron and steel in these colonies, without any objection being made to her right of doing it. The like right she must have to prohibit any other manufacture among us. Thus she is possessed of an undisputed _precedent_ on that point. This authority, she will say, is founded on the _original intention_ of settling these colonies; that is, that she should manufacture for them, and that they should supply her with materials. The _equity_ of this policy, she will also say, has been universally acknowledged by the colonies, who never have made the least objection to statutes for that purpose; and will further appear by the _mutual benefits_ flowing from this usage, ever since the settlement of these colonies.

Our great advocate, Mr. PITT, in his speeches on the debate concerning the repeal of the _Stamp-act_, acknowledged, that Great-Britain could restrain our manufactures. His words are these--"This kingdom, as the supreme governing and legislative power, has _always_ bound the colonies by her regulations and _restrictions_ in trade, in navigation, in _manufactures_----in every thing, _except that of taking their money out of their pockets_, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT." Again he says, "We may bind their trade, CONFINE THEIR MANUFACTURES, and exercise every power whatever, except that of taking money out of their pockets, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT."

Here then, let my countrymen, ROUSE yourselves, and behold the ruin hanging over their heads. If they ONCE admit, that Great-Britain may lay duties upon her exportations to us, _for the purpose of levying money on us only_, she then will have nothing to do, but to lay those duties on the articles which she prohibits us to manufacture--and the tragedy of American liberty is finished. We have been prohibited from procuring manufactures, in all cases, any where but from Great-Britain, (excepting linens, which we are permitted to import directly from Ireland). We have been prohibited, in some cases, from manufacturing for ourselves; We are therefore exactly in the situation of a city besieged, which is surrounded by the works of the besiegers in every part _but one_. If _that_ is closed up, no step can be taken, _but to surrender at discretion_. If Great-Britain can order us to come to her for necessaries we want, and can order us to pay what taxes she pleases before we take them away, or when we have them here, we are as abject slaves, as France and Poland can shew in wooden shoes, and with uncombed hair.[12]

[12] The peasants of France wear wooden shoes; and the vassals of Poland are remarkable for matted hair, which never can be combed.

Perhaps the nature of the necessities of the dependant states, caused by the policy of a governing one, for her own benefit, may be elucidated by a fact mentioned in history. When the Carthaginians were possessed of the island of Sardinia, they made a decree, that the Sardinians should not get corn, any other way than from the Carthaginians. Then, by imposing any duties they would, they drained from the miserable Sardinians any sums they pleased; and whenever that oppressed people made the least movement to assert their liberty, their tyrants starved them to death or submission. This may be called the most perfect kind of political necessity.

From what has been said, I think this uncontrovertible conclusion may be deduced, that when a ruling state obliges a dependant state to take certain commodities from her alone, it is implied in the nature of that obligation; and is essentially requisite to give it the least degree of justice; and is inseparably united with it, in order to preserve any share of freedom to the dependant state; that those commodities should never be loaded with duties for the sole purpose of levying money on the dependant state.

The place of paying the duties imposed by the late act, appears to me therefore to be totally immaterial. The single question is, whether the parliament can legally impose duties to be paid _by the people of these colonies only_ FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF RAISING A REVENUE, _on commodities which she obliges us to take from her alone_; or, in other words, whether the parliament can legally take money out of our pockets, without our consent. If they can, our boasted liberty is but

_Vox et præterea nihil._ A sound, and nothing else.

A FARMER.