|
and glory in amending an injudicious measure too long pursued.
The word war brings to my mind another transgression of these wicked Bostonians. They very simply imagining that it would be for the advantage of Britain, conquered Cape Breton, in the war before the last; and we restored it, without indemnifying them, so far as I have beard, for their expense. These very miscreants continued a greater number of men constantly in arms, during the last war, than they were required to do; and most cruelly injured us, in a very essential manner, by sending to the Havana a supply of men, without whose aid the city had not been taken, nor our exhausted troops carried off in safety. As a just punishment on the gentleman who conducted that supply, to the rain of his own fortune, he remained here for several years in a starving condition; and, as if a general infatuation had at that time seized all ranks of people, even the then House of Commons returned thanks to that people for these exertions of Loyalty.
FROM A GENTLEMAN IN LONDON TO ONE IN NEW YORK.
London, April 5, 1774.
I know not in what language to speak my concern and indignation relative to the Boston Port Bill, He who may view it singly, as pointed at a part of America, knows but little of the temper and designs of Administration.— The liberty of this country seems to have expired in their hands.—You must summon all the wisdom and firmness of the United Continent of America to preserve yours. I know it to be the design, and an indispensable measure, to divide—you must, therefore, subdue every prejudice, and bear with every infirmity, among yourselves, that, like a bundle of tender rods, you may not be separately broken to pieces. If the other Provinces do not warmly and firmly support an opposition to this horrid attempt to ruin the town of Boston, you must fall the easy victims of tyranny, and become the most abject slaves of the earth.
Let me entreat you, therefore, to turn a deaf ear to every prejudice and idle report against your suffering fellow subjects; forgive their errors, and think of nothing but mutual defence.
There were a few of us who petitioned Parliament which was all we could do. The Sheriffs of this city stand at the head of the several petitions; they behaved nobly and spirited on this occasion; for they were first in proposing, and active in the execution of the affair—being the first in rank in the county of Middlesex, where the petitions were signed, their example gave weight and dignity to the proceedings.
I do not hold myself answerable to give reasons why those gentlemen, who formerly spoke the language of America, should have become so few in number; but, for your satisfaction, can assure you that Lord Chatham holds the same friendly sentiments of you. When he is asked why he does not attend the House of Lords, he says, I have talked long enough to the tapestry*
The times are growing dangerous, and I know they would be glad to have my head; therefore you will excuse my not writing my name—you know my hand.
Yours.
AN APOLOGY FOR THE LATE CONDUCT OF AMERICA.
From the London Gazetteer, April 7, 1774.
There are those who are clearly of opinion that the Commons of Great Britain have no right to give and grant away the property of the Americans.
If such people are consistent in their notions, they must allow that the Americans would be justified in refusing to make good such gifts, and to comply with the requisitions in such grants.
And if they would be justified in refusing to comply, with such requisitions, it must also be allowed that there is a line of conduct which it would be proper for them to pursue, and that they are not left altogether without a remedy.
They that are most violent against the Americans for their conduct in the affair of the tea, would do well if they endeavoured, before they passed judgment upon it, to l obtain proper ideas of right and wrong, and qualified themselves to distinguish what is unlawful from what is inexpedient only; otherwise they may be led to condemn, as I criminal, measures that were ill judged only; and by the false colourings of Jesuitical writers, may be induced to believe actions to be unjustifiable and wrong, that were, only impolitic and foolish.
I think the affair of the tea is, in general, rather ill understood; and that the Constitution of England, the fundamental law of property, and the inalienable rights of human nature, seem to have been but little regarded in; this dispute, concerning American taxation.
That the Constitution of England has been but little regarded must appear evident when it is considered what the spirit of that Constitution is with respect to its idea of taxation. Does the Legislature levy a tax upon the Kingdom in the same manner, and with the same pretensions as the King of France, by his edict, imposes taxes upon his subjects?—certainly not: The Commons give and grant for themselves and their constituents; the Lords answer for themselves; and the King, by his assent and acceptance of such gifts, binds the parties to fulfil the contract, and gives the deed the sanction of the law. But, say the advocates for American slavery, taxation is a necessary part of legislation; forgetting, or rather infamously misrepresenting the truth, which is that our Constitution knows of no arbitrary legislative money bills, nor acknowledges any other source of taxation but free gift. Can any man, then, have a right to give away another man's property?—certainly not. And the Commons of Great Britain may give and grant away as much as they please of their own property, but they have no right to give and grant away the property of the Americans?
So much touching the constitutional part of this dispute, which I should have thought too obvious to have required any discussion, had there not appeared to have been much pains taken to confound the two very distinct ideas of legislation and taxation, and to persuade mankind that legislation, which is essential to all Government, is nugatory without that power, which is incompatible with the very end of Government itself, an arbitrary and unlimited power of taxation; for the end of Government is the preservation of property, and there can be no property where there is an arbitrary power of taxation; for what property can any man have in that which another can, by right, take from him when he pleases, against his consent?
And that the fundamental law of property has been but little attended to in this dispute, the application of the foregoing observation will sufficiently demonstrate; for what security can the Americans be said to have in their property, if the people of Great Britain can give and grant it away when they please? or rather, can they truly be said to have any property at all, if the people of Great Britain have, under this pretended right of taxation, a power of taking from them, when they please, what they possess, and of using and disposing of it afterwards in what manner they think proper?
But how are the rights of human nature violated in this dispute? To this I answer, that the law of nature, being founded in reason and justice, admits of property; for the better preservation of which, and for the use and enjoyment of it in peace and quiet, men entered into society. If therefore, any man, or body of men, claim a right to take away at pleasure from other men their property, and to dispose of it as they please such claim tends to a dissolution of society, and is repugnant also to the law of nature, as it would place mankind in a worse condition than the state of nature, wherein they had liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others.
Unfortunately also for these flaming advocates for the high prerogative doctrine of a necessary and unlimited right of taxation in the British Legislature, and who assert that the power of legislation in the regulation of commerce, without that of unbounded taxation also, would be nugatory and futile, I must mention the cases of Scotland before the union, and Ireland. If the British Legislature must necessarily be possessed of that power, with respect to America, why was it not necessary with respect
|