by Nathan Allen
It is evidently the interest, and ought to be the care of all those intrusted with the administration of government, to see that every part of the British empire enjoys to the full the rights they are intitled to by the laws, and the advantages which result from their being maintained with impartiality and vigour. This we have been reduced to practice in the present and preceeding reigns; and have the highest reason from the paternal care and goodness that his Majesty, and the British Parliament, have hitherto been graciously pleased to discover to all his Majesty’s dutiful and loyal subjects, and to the colonists in particular, to rest satisfied, that our priviledges will remain sacred and inviolate. The ‘connection between Great-Britain and her colonies is so natural and strong, as to make their mutual happiness depend upon their mutual support. Nothing can tend more to the destruction of both, and to forward the measures of their enemies, than sowing the seeds of jealously, animosity and dissention between the mother country and the colonies.
A conviction of the truth and importance of these principles, induced Great-Britain during the late war, to carryon so many glorious enterprises for the defence of the colonies; and those on their part to exert themselves beyond their ability to pay, as is evident from the parliamentary reimbursements.
If the spirit of commerce was attended to, perhaps, duties would be every where decreased, if not annihilated, and prohibitions multiplied. Every branch of trade that hurts a community, should be prohibited for the same reason that a private gentleman would break off commerce with a sharper or an extorsive usurer. ‘Tis to no purpose to higgle with such people, you are sure to loose by them. ‘Tis exactly so with a nation, if the balance is against them, and they can possibly subsist without the commodity, as they generally can in such cases, a prohibition is the only remedy; for a duty in such case, is like a composition with a thief, that for five shillings in the pound returned, he shall rob you at pleasure; when if the thing is examined to the bottom, you are at five shillings expence in travelling to get back your five shillings, and he is at the same expence in coming to pay it, so he robs you of but ten shillings in the pound, that you thus wisely compound for. To apply this to trade, I believe every duty that was ever imposed on commerce, or in the nature of things can be, will be found to be divided between the state imposing the duty, and the country exported from. This as between the several parts of the same kingdom or dominions of the same Prince, can only tend to embarrass trade, and raise the price of labour above other states, which is of very pernicious consequence to the husbandman, manufacturer, mariner and merchant, the four tribes that support the hive. If your duty is upon a commodity of a foreign state, it is either upon the whole useful and gainful, and therefore necessary for the husbandmen, manufacturer, mariner or merchant, as finally bringing a profit to the state by a balance in her favour; or the importation will work a balance against your state. There is no medium that we know of. –If the commodity is of the former kind, it should be prohibited; but if the latter, imported duty free, unless you would raise the price of labour by a duty on necessaries, or make the above wise composition for the importation of commodities you are sure to lose by. The only test of a useful commodity is the gain upon the whole to the state; such should be free; the only test of a pernicious trade is the loss upon the whole, or to the community, this should be prohibited. If therefore it can be demonstrated that the sugar and molasses trade from the northern colonies to the foreign plantations is upon the whole a loss to the community, by which term is here meant the three kingdoms and the British dominions taken collectively, then and not ‘till then should this trade be prohibited. This never has been proved, nor can be; the contrary being certain, to wit, that the nation upon the whole hath been a vast gainer by this trade, in the vend of and pay for its manufactures; and a great loss by a duty upon this trade will finally fall on the British husbandman, manufacturer, mariner & merchant, and consequently the trade of the nation be wounded, and in constant danger of being eat out by those who can undersell her.
The art of underselling, or rather of finding means to undersell, is the grand secret of thrift among commercial states, as well as among individuals of the same state. Should the British sugar islands ever be able to supply Great-Britain and her northern colonies with those articles, it will be time enough to think of a total prohibition; but until that time, both prohibition and duty will be found to be diametrically opposite to the first principles of policy. Such is the extent of this continent, and the increase of its inhabitants, that if every inch of the British sugar islands was as well cultivated as any part of Jamaica, or Barbadoes, they would not now be able to supply Great-Britain, and the colonies on this continent. But before such further improvements can be supposed to take place in our islands, the demands will be proportionably increased by the increase of the inhabitants on the continent. Hence the reason is plain why the British sugar planters are growing rich, and ever will, because the demand for their produce has and ever will be greater than they can possibly supply, so long as the English hold this continent, and are unrivalled in the fishery.
We have every thing good and great to hope from our gracious Sovereign, his Ministry and his Parliament; and trust that when the services and sufferings of the British American colonies are fully known to the mother country, and the nature and importance of the plantation trade more perfectly understood at home, that the most effectual measures will be taken for perpetuating the British empire in all parts of the world. An empire built upon the principles of justice, moderation and equity, the only principles that can make a state flourishing, and enable it to elude the machinations of its secret and inveterate enemies.
P. S. By ancient and modern gods, P. 10, I mean, all idols, from those of Old Egypt, to the canonized monsters of modern Rome; and by king-craft and priest-craft, civil and ecclesiastic polity, as administred in general till the revolution. I now recollect that I have been credibly informed that the British Sugar Colonists are humane towards their slaves, in comparison with the others. Therefore in page 29, let it be read, foreign Sugar-islanders and foreign Creoles.
FINIS
Considerations on Behalf of the Colonists in a Letter to a Noble Lord (1765)
The following Pamphlet was sent to the Publisher, by an unknown Person, from Boston, in New England; with a Request to print it as soon as possible: finding after a careful Reading, it not to contain any Thing apparently, or particularly offensive to any Party, or Body of Men, he should have thought himself inexcuseable, if he had been the Means of withholding it from the Public.
A
LETTER, &.
My Lord,
I have read the Opusculum of the celebrated Mr. J______s, called “Objections to the taxation of the colonies by the legislature of Great-Britain, briefly considered.” In obedience to your lordships commands, I have thrown a few thoughts on paper, all indeed that I have patience on this melancholy occasion to collect. The gentleman thinks it is “absurd and insolent” to question the expediency and utility of a public measure. He seems to be an utter enemy to the freedom of enquiry after truth, justice and equity. He is not only a zealous advocate for pusilanimous and passive obedience, but for the most implicit faith in the dictatorial mandates of power. The “several patriotic favorite words liberty, property, Englishmen, &” are in his opinion of no use but to “make strong impressions on the more numerous part of mankind who have ears but no understanding.” The times have been when the favorite terms places, pensions, French louis d’ors and English guineas, have made very undue impressions on those who have had votes and voices, but neither honor nor conscience—who have deserved of their country an ax, a gibbet or a halter, much better than a star or garter. The grand aphorism of the British constitution, that “no Englishman is or can be taxed but by his own consent in person or by his deputy” is absurdly denied. In a vain and most insolent attempt to disprove this fundamental principle he exhibits a curious specimen of his talent at chicanery and quibbling. He says that “no
man that he knows of is taxed by his own consent.” It is a maxim at this day, that the crown by royal prerogative alone can levy no taxes on the subject. One who had any “understanding as well as ears” would from thence be led to conclude that some men must consent to their taxes before they can be imposed.
It has been commonly understood, at least since the glorious revolution, that the consent of the British Lords and Commons, i.e. of all men within the realm, must be obtained to make a tax legal there. The consent of the lords and commons of his majesty’s ancient and very respectable kingdom of Ireland, has also been deemed necessary to a taxation of the subjects there. The consent of the two houses of assembly in the colonies has till lately been also thought requisite for the taxation of his majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the colonists. Sed tempora mutantur.
I would ask Mr. J______ s, if when a knight of a shire, or burgess of a borough, civil, military, or errant, possessed of a real estate, votes for a land tax, he does not tax himself and consent to such tax? And does he not by thus voting, tax himself as an identic individual, as well as some of his silly neighbours, who “may have ears but no understanding,” and be therefore in great danger at a future election of chusing an empty individuum vagum to manage their highest concerns. Tis much to be lamented that these people with “ears but without understanding” by certain vulgar low arts, may be as easily led to elect a state auctioneer or a vote seller as the wisest and most upright man in the three kingdoms. We have known some of them cry Hosanna to the man who under God and his king had been their saviour, and the next day appear ready to crucify him. However, when a man in Europe or America votes a tax on his constituents, if he has any estate, he is at the same time taxing himself, and that by his own consent; and of all this he must be conscious unless we suppose him to be void of common sense.
No one ever contended that “the consent of the very person he chuses to represent him,” nor that “the consent of the majority of those who are chosen by himself, and others of his fellow subjects to represent them,” should be obtained before a tax can be rightfully levied. The pitiful chicanery here, consists wholly in substituting and for or. If for and, we read or, as the great Mr. J ______ s himself inadvertently reads it a little afterwards, the same proposition will be as strictly true, as any political aphorism or other general maxim whatever, the theorems of Euclid not excepted; namely, “that no Englishman, nor indeed any other freeman, is or can be rightfully taxed, but by his own actual consent in person, or by the majority of those who are chosen by himself or others his fellow subjects to represent the whole people.”
Right reason and the spirit of a free constitution require that the representation of the whole people should be as equal as possible. A perfect equality of representation has been thought impracticable; perhaps the nature of human affairs will not admit of it. But it most certainly might and ought to be more equal than it is at present in any state. The difficulties in the way of a perfectly equal representation are such that in most countries the poor people can obtain none. The lust of power and unreasonable domination are, have been, and I fear ever will be not only impatient of, but above, controul. The Great love pillows of down for their own heads, and chains for those below them. Hence ‘tis pretty easy to see how it has been brought about, that in all ages despotism has been the general tho’ not quite universal government of the world. No good reason however can be given in any country why every man of a sound mind should not have his vote in the election of a representative. If a man has but little property to protect and defend, yet his life and liberty are things of some importance. Mr. J______ s argues only from the vile abuses of power to the continuance and increases of such abuses. This it must be confessed is the common logic of modern politicians and vote sellers. To what purpose is it to ring everlasting changes to the colonists on the cases of Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield, who return no members? If those now so considerable places are not represented, they ought to be. Besides the counties in which those respectable abodes of tinkers, tinmen, and pedlars lie, return members, so do all the neighbouring cities and boroughs. In the choice of the former, if they have no vote, they must naturally and necessarily have a great influence. I believe every gentleman of a landed estate, near a flourishing manufactory, will be careful enough of its interests. Tho’ the great India company, as such, returns no members, yet many of the company are returned, and their interests have been ever very carefully attended to.
Mr. J______s says, “by far the major part of the inhabitants of Great Britain are nonelectors”. The more is the pity. “Every Englishman, he tells us, is taxed, and yet not one in twenty is represented.” To be consistent, he must here mean that not one in twenty, votes for a representative. So a small minority rules and governs the majority. This may for those in the saddle be clever enough, but can never be right in theory. What ab initio could give an absolute unlimitted right to one twentieth of a community, to govern the other nineteen by their sovereign will and pleasure? Let him, if his intellects will admit of the research, discover how in any age or country this came to be the fact. Some favourite modern systems must be given up or maintained by a clear open avowal of these Hobbeian maxims, viz. That dominion is rightfully founded on force and fraud.—That power universally confers right.—That war, bloody war, is the real and natural state of man—and that he who can find means to buy, sell, enslave, or destroy, the greatest number of his own species, is right worthy to be dubbed a modern politician and an hero. Mr. J______ s has a little contemptible flirt at the sacred names of Selden, Locke, and Sidney. But their ideas will not quadrate with the half-born sentiments of a courtier. Their views will never center in the paricranium of a modern politician. The characters of their writings cannot be affected by the crudities of a ministerial mercenary pamphleteer. He next proceeds to give us a specimen of his agility in leaping hedge and ditch, and of paddling through thick and thin. He has proved himself greatly skilled in the ancient and honourable sciences of horse-racing, bruising, boxing, and cock-fighting. He offers to “risk the merits of the whole cause on a single question.” For this one question he proposed a string of five or six.—To all which I say he may be a very great statesman, but must be a very indifferent lawyer. A good lawyer might risque the merit of a cause on answers, but never would rest it on mere interrogatories. A multiplicity of questions, especially such as most of Mr. J______s’s only prove the folly and impertinent of the querist. Answers may be evidence, but none results from questions only. Further, to all his queries, let him take it for a full answer, that his way of reasoning would as well prove that the British house of commons, in fact, represent all the people on the globe, as those in America. True it is, that from the nature of the British constitution, and also from the idea and nature of a supreme legislature, the parliament represents the whole community or empire, and have an undoubted power, authority, and jurisdiction, over the whole; and to their final decisions the whole must and ought peaceably to submit. They have an undoubted right also to unite to all intents and purposes, for benefits and burthens, a dominion, or subordinate jurisdiction to the mother state, if the good of the whole requires it. But great tenderness has been shown to the customs of particular cities and boroughs, and surely as much indulgence might be reasonably expected towards large provinces, the inhabitants of which have been born and grown up under the modes and customs of a subordinate jurisdiction. But in a case of necessity, the good of the whole requires, that not only private interests, but private passions, should give way to the public. But all this will not convince me of the reasonableness of imposing heavy taxes on the colonists, while their trade and commerce are every day more than ever restricted. Much less will it follow, that the colonists are, in fact, represented in the house of commons. Should the British empire one day be extended round the whole world, would it be reasonable that all mankind should have their concerns managed by the electors of old Sarum, and the “occupants of the Cornish barns and ale-houses”, we
sometimes read of? We who are in the colonies, are by common law, and by act of parliament, declared entitled to all the privileges of the subjects within the realm. Yet we are heavily taxed, without being, in fact, represented.—In all trials here relating to the revenue the admiralty courts have jurisdiction given them, and the subject may, at the pleasure of the informer, be deprived of a trial by his peers. To do as one would be done by, is a divine rule. Remember Britons, when you shall be taxed without your consent, and tried without a jury, and have an army quartered in private families, you will have little to hope or to fear! But I must not lose sight of my man, who sagaciously asks “if the colonists are English when they solicit protection, but not Englishmen when taxes are required to enable this country to protect them?” I ask in my turn, when did the colonists solicit for protection? They have had no occasion to solicit for protection since the happy accession of our gracious Sovereign’s illustrious family to the British diadem. His Majesty, the father of all his people, protects all his loyal subjects of every complexion and language, without any particular solicitation. But before the ever memorable revolution, the Northern Colonists were so far from receiving protection from Britain, that every thing was done from the throne to the footstool, to cramp, betray, and ruin them: yet against the combined power of France, Indian savages, and the corrupt administration of those times, they carried on their settlements and under a mild government for these eighty years past, have made them the wonder and envy of the world.
These colonies may, if truly understood, be one day the last resource, and best barrier of Great Britain herself. Be that as it may, sure I am that the colonists never in any reign received protection but from the king and parliament. From most others they had nothing to ask, but everything to fear. Fellow subjects in every age, have been the temporal and spiritual persecutors of fellow subjects. The Creoles follow the example of some politicians, and ever employ a negroe to whip negroes. As to “that country”, and “protection from that country,” what can Mr. J______s mean? I ever thought the territories of the same prince made one country. But if, according to Mr. J______s, Great Britain is a distinct country from the British colonies, what is that country in nature more than this country? The same sun warms the people of Great Britain and us; the same summer chears, and the same winter chills.