Sir,
A pamÂphlet, to which you have afÂfixed your name, has been lately disÂtribÂuted with unÂcomÂmon diliÂgence. You call it A Calm AdÂdress to our AmerÂiÂcan Colonies. This title is a deÂcepÂtion; you know that the colonies are deÂterÂmined: your deÂsign is, to deÂceive unÂdeÂterÂmined EngÂlishÂmen, into apÂproÂbaÂtion of the meaÂsures of adÂminÂisÂtraÂtion.
You preÂsent your book to the world, as your own; but the greatÂest part of it is taken, verÂbaÂtim, from TaxÂaÂtion No Tyranny, writÂten by the penÂsioned Dr. JohnÂson, a deÂclared enemy of civil and reÂliÂgious libÂerty! This is anÂother deÂcepÂtion, equally mean and obÂviÂous.
Your first secÂtion conÂtains JohnÂson’s deÂfÂiÂnÂiÂtion of an EngÂlish colony. It gives the idea of a numÂber of perÂsons, who, by the king’s perÂmisÂsion, emÂiÂgrated in search of supÂposed adÂvanÂtages, which, if obÂtained, were to be seÂcured to them by charÂters.
But the colonists were a numÂber of perÂsons, who fled from tyranny at home, to conÂquer and culÂtiÂvate new counÂtries at their own exÂpence. From the parÂent state, for above a cenÂtury, they reÂceived litÂtle or no asÂsisÂtance: their moÂnopÂoÂlized comÂmerce was, at last, thought worth proÂtecÂtion; their inÂcreased propÂerty is, now, thought worth taxÂaÂtion.
You say,
ConÂsidÂerÂing EngÂlish colonies are a kind of corÂpoÂraÂtions subÂsistÂing by charÂters, nothÂing can be more plain than that the supreme power in EngÂland has a right to tax them.
Do you mean, by the supreme power, the colÂlecÂtive body of king, lords, and comÂmons? If you do, you must be igÂnoÂrant, that the ComÂmons only have the power of taxÂing the peoÂple; that money is not taken, but given; that the conÂcurÂrence of the lords, in money bills, is only to tax themÂselves; and that the conÂcurÂrence of the king, in such bills, is only to give them the force of law.
You say,
That the EngÂlish govÂernÂment has made laws for the colonies, which laws they have reÂceived and obeyed; thereÂfore, the EngÂlish govÂernÂment has a right to tax them: the reÂcepÂtion of any law draws after it, by a chain which canÂnot be broÂken, the neÂcesÂsity of adÂmitÂting taxÂaÂtion.
This is false: the acts of legÂisÂlaÂtion, and taxÂaÂtion, are disÂtinct opÂerÂaÂtions; the first is exÂerÂcised by the three esÂtates of king, lords, and comÂmons, the last by the comÂmons only. If the reÂcepÂtion of a law is an acÂknowlÂedgÂment of sovÂerÂeignty, it is not an acÂknowlÂedgÂment that such sovÂerÂeignty may be mainÂtained in an unÂconÂstiÂtuÂtional manÂner. Penal and ecoÂnomÂiÂcal laws are reÂceived and obeyed in EngÂland; the reÂcepÂtion of them may be deemed an acÂknowlÂedgÂment of the sovÂerÂeignty of govÂernÂment; but does not prove, that govÂernÂment has a right to abÂroÂgate Magna Charta, abolÂish trial by jury, or vest in the king an arÂbiÂtrary power of levyÂing money on the subÂject: such acts, though sancÂtiÂfied by conÂsent of the three esÂtates, would be viÂoÂlaÂtions of the conÂstiÂtuÂtion, and, conÂseÂquently, void in themÂselves, and "to be holden for nought.” 42 Ed. III. Lord Coke, Lord Somers, &c.
You next atÂtempt to prove, that the colonies are as much repÂreÂsented in the EngÂlish ParÂliaÂment, as the maÂjorÂity of the peoÂple of EngÂland: "All pubÂlic busiÂness,” you say, must be done by delÂeÂgaÂtion; the delÂeÂgates are choÂsen by a seÂlect numÂber; and those who are not elecÂtors, who are by far the greater part, stand by idle and helpÂless specÂtaÂtors.
That most pubÂlick busiÂness must be done by delÂeÂgaÂtion, is true; but the choice of delÂeÂgates, or repÂreÂsenÂtaÂtives in EngÂland, was origÂiÂnally in the peoÂple at large; the vestÂing it, afÂterÂwards, in a seÂlect numÂber, was a variÂaÂtion made by conÂsent of the peoÂple for the sake of conÂveÂnience. The non-elecÂtors, and elecÂtors of EngÂland, are so blended toÂgether, that the forÂmer must often inÂfluÂence the conÂduct of the latÂter; and havÂing, thereby, a share in the power of elecÂtion, canÂnot be said, "to stand by idle and helpÂless specÂtaÂtors.”
"The case of elecÂtors,” you say, "is litÂtle betÂter; when they are near equally diÂvided, alÂmost half of them must be govÂerned, not only with, but against their conÂsent.”
This is a falÂlacy. The miÂnorÂity of elecÂtors canÂnot be said to be govÂerned withÂout their conÂsent: they, in comÂmon with othÂers, have preÂviÂously conÂsented, that it should be law to issue the disÂpute by the voice of the maÂjorÂity; they have, thereÂfore, conÂsented to be govÂerned by him, on whom the choice of that maÂjorÂity shall fall.
You enÂdeavÂour, by genÂeral poÂsiÂtions boldly asÂserted, to repÂreÂsent govÂernÂment and slavÂery as inÂsepÂaÂraÂble. "How has any man,” you say,conÂsented to those laws, which were made beÂfore he was born? Our conÂsent to these, nay and to the laws now made in EngÂland, is purely pasÂsive. In every place, as all men are born the subÂjects of some state or other, so they are born, pasÂsively as it were, conÂsentÂing to the laws of that state. Any other than this kind of conÂsent, the conÂdiÂtion of civil life does not allow.
This is false: The EngÂlish conÂstiÂtuÂtion has betÂter proÂvided for the preserÂvaÂtion of libÂerty. Our conÂsent to the laws by which we are ruled, is so far acÂtive, that we may in a manÂner be said to make them: "The comÂmons may be said to make law,” says JohnÂson himÂself, in his False Alarm; it then suited his purÂpose to say so. The peoÂple at large may, inÂdeed, be said to make law. They deÂsire to have some penal or ecoÂnomÂiÂcal law for genÂeral benÂeÂfit; they inÂstruct their delÂeÂgates; a bill is brought into the House of ComÂmons; the king may refuse the royal asÂsent, but then the House may refuse supÂplies. SupÂpose the opinÂions of the conÂstituents, and the delÂeÂgates, are opÂpoÂsite; the latÂter reÂject the bill: their ofÂfice is not perÂpetÂual, nor irÂreÂsponÂsiÂble; at seven years end they may be disÂcarded, and their places filled with more comÂpliÂant or more faithÂfull sucÂcesÂsors. Vice versa: supÂpose a law, proÂposed by any of the three esÂtates of govÂernÂment, is thought opÂpresÂsive, or othÂerÂwise ofÂfenÂsive, by the peoÂple: the meaÂsure is talked of; they peÂtiÂtion, they reÂmonÂstrate; perÂhaps they sucÂceed; perÂhaps they do not: in the latÂter case, the grievÂance is not eterÂnal; a new parÂliaÂment may reÂpeal what the old one enÂacted. If the meaÂsure be not a favourite court meaÂsure, and the royal asÂsent, as beÂfore, be deÂnied; then supÂplies, as beÂfore, may be withÂholden, till that asÂsent is granted. If the peoÂple have less inÂfluÂence over the secÂond esÂtate, the House of Lords; still that house may be supÂposed to conÂsist of men, guided by reaÂson, and wishÂing to act in conÂsoÂnance with the rest of their counÂtryÂmen.
Such are the adÂvanÂtages of our exÂcelÂlent conÂstiÂtuÂtion! Blush, if ye can, ye JohnÂsons and ye WesÂleys, who are enÂdeavÂourÂing to deÂstroy the idea of them, in the minds of unÂwary readÂers; enÂdeavÂourÂing to perÂswade men, that they are inÂevitably born slaves! If EngÂlishÂmen are slaves, whose conÂsent to the laws they are ruled by, is merely pasÂsive; it is not the fault of their poÂlitÂiÂcal sysÂtem, but of their own corÂrupÂtion of morals, and supineÂness of spirit.
It is the usual art of the court writÂers of the day, to aim at sinkÂing all ideas of natÂural eqÂuity, and of genÂeral popÂuÂlar franÂchises founded thereon, in the idea of abÂsolute unÂconÂdiÂtional govÂernÂment, preÂtendÂing such govÂernÂment inÂdisÂpenÂsiÂble to the subÂsisÂtence of civil soÂciÂety.
You say,
If the anÂcesÂtors of the colonists were subÂjects, they acÂknowlÂedged a sovÂerÂeign; if they had a right to EngÂlish privÂiÂleges, they were acÂcountÂable to EngÂlish laws; and had ceded, to the king and ParÂliaÂment, the power of disÂposÂing, withÂout their conÂsent, of their lives, libÂerÂties, and propÂerÂties.
This is both false and abÂsurd. No EngÂlishÂman ever ceded, to any king, abÂsolute power over his life or libÂerty. That preÂcious reÂmain of anÂcient freeÂdom, trial by jury, ever stood and now stands an inÂsuÂperÂaÂble bar against the power of sovÂerÂeign over subÂject.
No freeÂman shall be taken, or imÂprisÂoned, nor disÂseized, nor out-lawed, nor exÂiled, nor deÂstroyed in any manÂner; nor will we pass upon him, nor conÂdemn him, but by the lawÂfull judgÂment of his peers, or by the law of the land. Magna Charta, §. 43.
No EngÂlishÂman ever ceded, to any king, any power over his propÂerty: the right of taxÂaÂtion, as has been shewn, is exÂcluÂsively vested in the peoÂple. No EngÂlishÂman ever ceded, to the parÂliaÂment, a power over his life, libÂerty, and propÂerty: he could not cede it to the lords, for the lords, withÂout the comÂmons, canÂnot make law; he could not cede it to the comÂmons, for cedÂing it to the comÂmons, would, propÂerly speakÂing, be cedÂing it to himÂself. The force of truth is often too strong, for every efÂfort that can be made to conÂceal it. You talk of "the peoÂple cedÂing power to the king and ParÂliaÂment”: if they ceded power, they must have posÂsessed it. Nemo dat quod non habet: what a man has not, he canÂnot give to anÂother; what is given, if abused, may surely be reÂsumed. If the docÂtrine of reÂsumÂable power is not adÂmitÂted, the docÂtrine of diÂvine heredÂiÂtary right must be mainÂtained. The first king of every counÂtry, must have reigned by diÂvine apÂpointÂment; and all his sucÂcesÂsors, be their conÂduct what it will, must reign by the same title; their subÂjects must be heredÂiÂtary slaves, whose lives and propÂerÂties may be sported with, as men shoot birds, and catch fish, for diÂverÂsion. EngÂlishÂmen! beÂware of these inÂsidÂiÂous reaÂsonÂers; these JohnÂsons and WesÂleys, who would perÂsuade you that ye are born slaves!
You admit (as above), that there are origÂiÂnal rights of huÂmanÂity. You tell us, that when the colonists say they are inÂtiÂtled, by naÂture, to life, libÂerty and propÂerty, they speak true; that when they claim a title to the rights of natÂural born subÂjects within the realm of EngÂland, they speak true also””but you asÂsert, that "they must reÂsign eiÂther one or the other.” This is no conÂseÂquence.
The rights of naÂture, and of civil soÂciÂety, are not inÂcomÂpatÂiÂble; the forÂmer are mostly guarÂantied by the latÂter. A man has a natÂural right to the posÂsesÂsions of his parÂents, or to those which he has obÂtained by his own labour; and the laws of soÂciÂety, which proÂhibit fraud and rapÂine, inÂstead of deÂstroyÂing that right, conÂtribute to seÂcure it. A man has a natÂural right to life and libÂerty: on enÂterÂing civil soÂciÂety, he does not cede this right, only in cerÂtain stipÂuÂlated cirÂcumÂstances, for the good of that whole whereof he beÂcomes a part; while he is inÂnoÂcent, he is safe and free.
A man has a natÂural right to his own propÂerty: this, on enÂterÂing civil soÂciÂety, he does not cede at all: he, inÂdeed, by a kind of tacit comÂpact, agrees to subÂscribe his share to the exÂpence of pubÂlic seÂcuÂrity and pubÂlic Å“conÂomy, as the neÂcesÂsity of times may reÂquire; but, as no raÂtioÂnal being would lavÂish his wealth withÂout equivÂaÂlent, he has reÂserved to himÂself the sole deÂterÂmiÂnaÂtion of the exÂisÂtence or deÂgree of that neÂcesÂsity.*
If he does not propÂerly reÂgard the pubÂlick welÂfare, it is at his own risque; he is more or less a gainer, as it is more or less conÂsulted. Of this genÂeral prinÂciÂple, an EngÂlish House of ComÂmons, in its priÂmarÂily inÂtended inÂcorÂrupt state, is a visÂiÂble modÂiÂfiÂcaÂtion; money, there, is granted, not taken; grantÂing, not takÂing, is the lanÂguage of the conÂstiÂtuÂtion in all ages.
Such are the simÂple prinÂciÂples of free govÂernÂment, in conÂtradisÂtincÂtion to tyranny! PrinÂciÂples, alas, too litÂtle known, too much obÂscured by the glare of adÂvenÂtiÂtious pomp and purÂchased power!
You say, that "the colonists, by emÂiÂgraÂtion, did not forÂfeit the right of votÂing for repÂreÂsenÂtaÂtives in the EngÂlish ParÂliaÂment; but lost it by natÂural efÂfects.” But the privÂiÂlege of votÂing for, or chusÂing a deputy or proxy, to exÂeÂcute the ofÂfice of a taxer; can be conÂsidÂered as a perÂsonal adÂvanÂtage, only in counÂterÂpoise to the perÂsonal burÂden of taxÂaÂtion: now, if the good be lost by natÂural efÂfects, the evil should not be reÂtained by unÂnatÂural poÂlitÂiÂcal ones. There are things called right reaÂson, eqÂuity, and jusÂtice, though they may not hapÂpen to exist in the ideas of Dr. JohnÂson and Mr. WesÂley.
When a man reÂmoves to a disÂtance, from the part of civil soÂciÂety with which he was conÂnected, he can no longer enjoy the benÂeÂfits of its poÂlitÂiÂcal sysÂtem; and, thereÂfore, canÂnot justly be asÂsessed to its mainÂteÂnance.
If the colonists have hithÂerto supÂported the adÂminÂisÂtraÂtion of jusÂtice, and other branches of inÂterÂnal polity, among themÂselves; what raÂtioÂnal plea can be made, for reÂquirÂing them to supÂport them among us? Can a perÂson be exÂpected to pay for the same thing, in two places?
You say,
He who had a vote for a knight or burgess, did not forÂfeit that right by crossÂing the sea, but made the exÂerÂcise of it no longer posÂsiÂble; he reÂduced himÂself from a voter to one of the inÂnuÂmerÂable mulÂtiÂtude that have no votes.
But if such a man was still liÂable to be taxed by the EngÂlish ParÂliaÂment, he reÂduced himÂself to a much worse conÂdiÂtion.
Non-elecÂtors (as has been hinted) have, in EngÂland, much inÂfluÂence in elecÂtions: perÂsuaÂsion and inÂforÂmaÂtion, have their weight; the man of suÂpeÂrior opÂuÂlence or knowlÂedge, withÂout a vote himÂself, can diÂrect the voices of a numÂber.
But an AmerÂiÂcan can have no posÂsiÂble inÂfluÂence in the choice of an EngÂlish senÂaÂtor; and an EngÂlish senÂaÂtor, when he taxes an AmerÂiÂcan, canÂnot tax himÂself also, beÂcause he has no propÂerty in AmerÂica to be taxed: yet self-taxÂaÂtion is the sole pledge of the taxer, for seÂcuÂrity of the taxed. He, who does not tax himÂself, taxes othÂers withÂout feelÂing: he may, thereÂfore, tax withÂout proÂpriÂety, and withÂout meaÂsure; may take, not only a fifth, or a fourth, but the half, or even the whole of propÂerty; and make the wealthy subÂject an imÂpovÂerÂished slave. The wisÂest forms of govÂernÂment, adÂvertÂing to the imÂperÂfecÂtion of human naÂture, have, as much as posÂsiÂble, avoided leavÂing one man at the mercy of anÂother; they have ever conÂtrived some raÂtioÂnal reÂstraint on acÂtion, some bond of recÂiÂpÂroÂcal safety.
You allow, that "the colonists inÂherit all the privÂiÂleges of EngÂlishÂmen, all the privÂiÂleges that their anÂcesÂtors had.” They then inÂherit the grand privÂiÂlege of EngÂlishÂmen, free govÂernÂment; but this privÂiÂlege they do not enjoy, if they are taxed withÂout being repÂreÂsented. It is an axiom which canÂnot be too forcibly imÂpressed on the mind "GovÂernÂment canÂnot be free, where propÂerty is taken not given.”
You say,
what the anÂcesÂtors of the colonists did not bring with them, neiÂther they nor their deÂscenÂdants have acÂquired. They have not, by abanÂdonÂing their right in one legÂisÂlaÂtion, acÂquired a right to conÂstiÂtute anÂother; any more than the mulÂtiÂtudes in EngÂland, who have no vote, have a right to erect a parÂliaÂment for themÂselves.
You beÂfore said, "they had lost their right in the EngÂlish legÂisÂlaÂture, by natÂural efÂfects.” There is difÂferÂence beÂtween abanÂdonÂing, and losÂing by natÂural efÂfects; one is a volÂunÂtary, one an inÂvolÂunÂtary matÂter: you have not proved that they eiÂther abanÂdoned this right, or lost it; if they have eiÂther abanÂdoned, or lost it, and have no right to conÂstiÂtute anÂother sysÂtem, they must be slaves, or reÂvert to a state of anÂarÂchy. Were the body of elecÂtors, in EngÂland, to beÂcome so corÂrupt or servile, as conÂstantly to rechuse men, who had beÂtrayed the cause of libÂerty; and were such men to subÂvert the conÂstiÂtuÂtion; would not the non-elecÂtors have a right to chuse a numÂber of honÂester delÂeÂgates, to reÂstore their abolÂished freeÂdom, to save their counÂtry?
You say,
the colonies have a right to all the privÂiÂleges granted them by regal charÂters, to all which the king has given them; but not to all which they have given themÂselves.
The first part of your asÂserÂtion is unÂdoubtÂedly true; but it is couched in terms, that might betÂter beÂcome the despot of some barÂbarous reÂgion, whose igÂnoÂrant naÂtives had imÂbibed.
"The enorÂmous faith of many made for one,” than the adÂvoÂcate of a govÂernÂment that calls itÂself free. What right has any king to any thing (savÂing his own priÂvate propÂerty) which is not given him by the peoÂple? If the king is the founÂtain of hoÂnÂours and riches, whence is that founÂtain supÂplied? Whence does he deÂrive the preÂrogÂaÂtive of conÂferÂring hoÂnÂours, the abilÂity of beÂstowÂing richÂesÂbut from the peoÂple?
If the colonists are the naked sons of naÂture, they have a right to inÂdeÂpenÂdence, and the enÂacÂtion of their own laws; if they are subÂjects of the free EngÂlish state, they have a right to the grand privÂiÂlege of other EngÂlishÂmen, a privÂiÂlege which no king could conÂfer””legÂisÂlaÂtion, and taxÂaÂtion by repÂreÂsenÂtaÂtion only. The asÂserÂtion, that "they are virÂtuÂally repÂreÂsented,” has been proved an abÂsurÂdity; a sophism, which even you could scarcely reÂpeat, with a seÂriÂous counÂteÂnance.
Your comÂparÂiÂson of "a coloÂnial legÂisÂlaÂture to the vestry of an EngÂlish parish,” proves nothÂing to the great point in quesÂtion, the leÂgalÂity of taxÂaÂtion withÂout repÂreÂsenÂtaÂtion. The parish asÂsesses itÂself, in its parochial caÂpacÂity, for local priÂvate uses; in its naÂtional caÂpacÂity, by its repÂreÂsenÂtaÂtives, for genÂeral pubÂlick ones.
The colonies have no repÂreÂsenÂtaÂtives; thereÂfore, canÂnot be liÂable to parÂliaÂmenÂtary taxÂaÂtion.
You say, "the charÂter of PenÂsylÂvaÂnia has a clause adÂmitÂting, in exÂpress terms, taxÂaÂtion by ParÂliaÂment.” Why did you not then proÂduce this clause, that your readÂers might have judged of its meanÂing and imÂport for themÂselves? You do not even tell us the naÂture of the taxÂaÂtion; whether it was inÂterÂnal or exÂterÂnal; whether levied by themÂselves, or by othÂers. You add, "the first setÂtlers in MassÂaÂchuÂsett’s were promised an exÂempÂtion from taxes for seven years.” But promised by whom? If the charÂter conÂtains such a promise, it must be made by the king who granted the charÂter; but the king could not legally promise an exÂempÂtion from that which he had not legally a right to imÂpose. I have not time nor opÂporÂtuÂnity to exÂamÂine fully the truth of your asÂserÂtions: but though I give you credit for them so far, as to admit that there are some such clauses as you menÂtion; yet your disÂenÂgenÂuÂous conÂduct, in reÂtailÂing JohnÂson’s book withÂout acÂknowlÂedgÂment, makes me justly doubt the truth of your repÂreÂsenÂtaÂtions. Those clauses could reÂlate, not to taxÂaÂtion, but to reqÂuiÂsiÂtion only: the right of taxÂaÂtion did not subÂsist with the king; it did not subÂsist with the ParÂliaÂment; it subÂsisted solely and exÂcluÂsively with the repÂreÂsenÂtaÂtives of the MassÂaÂchuÂsett’s peoÂple; and all the exÂempÂtion promised that peoÂple could amount to no more than this, that the king would not reÂquire any subÂsiÂdies from them for seven years. To serve your own purÂpose, you say, inÂdeed, afÂterÂwards, that "the seven years exÂempÂtion granted to the MassÂaÂchuÂsett setÂtlers, was from payÂing taxes to the king.” Then it may be justly inÂferred, that they were subÂsiÂdies deÂmanded by the king in way of reqÂuiÂsiÂtion, not taxes imÂposed by ParÂliaÂment: had the case been othÂerÂwise, it would have been proÂduced, beÂfore now, as a preceÂdent for exÂterÂnal taxÂaÂtion. What opinÂion the provinÂcials had of exÂterÂnal taxÂaÂtion above a hunÂdred years ago, apÂpears from an arÂtiÂcle in the agreeÂment made by the VirÂginiÂans with the comÂmonÂwealth of EngÂland, beÂfore they would perÂmit a govÂerÂnor sent by that comÂmonÂwealth to land in their province: "VirÂginia shall be free from all taxes, cusÂtoms, and imÂpoÂsiÂtions whatÂsoÂever; and none shall be imÂposed upon them, withÂout conÂsent of the genÂeral asÂsemÂbly.”*
"All counÂtries,” you say, "which are subÂject to laws, are liÂable to taxes.” PerÂhaps so; but, perÂhaps, they are only liÂable to taxes, raised in a conÂstiÂtuÂtional manÂner; perÂhaps it has not been usual, for the govÂernÂment of one counÂtry to tax the inÂhabÂiÂtants of anÂother, many thouÂsand miles disÂtant. If such taxÂaÂtion were founded on reaÂson, might not the GerÂman princes think of taxÂing the GerÂmans setÂtled in PenÂsylÂvaÂnia and New-York? If the tie of birth, beÂtween sovÂerÂeign and subÂject, is inÂdisÂsolÂuÂble by disÂtance and time, they have a preÂtence for doing it.
You say,
if there is no clause in the charÂters of the colonies exÂemptÂing them from taxes, the EngÂlish ParÂliaÂment has the same right to tax them as to tax any other EngÂlish subÂject.
Your arÂguÂment here has been anÂswered; I only quote it to demur once more to your mode of exÂpresÂsion: the ParÂliaÂment, colÂlecÂtively conÂsidÂered, has no right to tax any EngÂlishÂman; it is the ComÂmons, and the ComÂmons only, who posÂsess the peÂcuÂliar inÂcomÂmuÂniÂcaÂble power of grantÂing taxes for the peoÂple. This is not quibÂbling about mere inÂsignifÂiÂcant exÂpresÂsions: TakÂing and givÂing (I reÂpeat it) are terms afÂfixed to ideas, which conÂstiÂtute the imÂporÂtant difÂferÂence beÂtween tyranny and freeÂdom.
I have now gone through the sum total of your arÂguÂments, which are every one, withÂout exÂcepÂtion, borÂrowed from JohnÂson: the reÂmainÂder of your book is asÂserÂtion, and declaÂmaÂtion; it merÂits litÂtle noÂtice.
An arÂguÂment, which opÂerÂates more in favour of the colonists, than any that JohnÂson has adÂvanced opÂerÂates against them, is this: That the EngÂlish govÂernÂment, under the wisÂest adÂminÂisÂtraÂtions, and in the most neÂcesÂsiÂtous cirÂcumÂstances, never, till lately, atÂtempted to tax them. If govÂernÂment had that right of taxÂaÂtion, why did they not exert it? PerÂhaps, we are wiser than our faÂthers; wiser than those great statesÂmen, who planned and perÂfected the gloÂriÂous revÂoÂluÂtion, and gave the crown to the Brunswick famÂily. Our faÂthers made EngÂland the dread of EuÂrope; Heaven grant their sons may not make it the conÂtempt of its meanÂest enemy! If we are wiser than our faÂthers, I wish we were honÂester: our faÂthers did not plunÂder the East; we have plunÂdered the East; let us not atÂtempt to plunÂder the West also! Let not EngÂlishÂman be a word of disÂgrace among all naÂtions, a word synÂonyÂmous with robÂber!
It has been said, "The longer the colonists have been spared payÂing taxes, the betÂter able they are, and the greater reaÂson they have to pay.” Till the jusÂtice of taxÂing them at all, is clearly demonÂstrated, this arÂguÂment is fuÂtile; it is the moralÂity of those, who deem it less crimÂiÂnal to plunÂder him who has not been plunÂdered beÂfore, than to plunÂder again him who has sufÂfered preÂviÂous depreÂdaÂtion. It were to be wished, that we were less inÂterÂested; at least, that we did not sufÂfer our inÂterÂest to outÂrun our virtue. "If AmerÂica is taxed,” it is said, "EngÂland will be eased of taxes.” Ease from taxes, is an alÂlurÂing obÂject to an EngÂlishÂman””but, durÂing a thirÂteen years proÂfound peace, what ease from taxes have EngÂlishÂmen exÂpeÂriÂenced? What we have not had in the past, can we have reaÂson to exÂpect in the fuÂture? We have not been eased in peace, but we are to be eased in war; eased by the taxes of a conÂquered counÂtry, which, in the act of conÂquerÂing, we have laid desÂoÂlate! Can we be the dupes of such self-conÂtraÂdicÂtory preÂtences? SupÂposÂing it posÂsiÂble we could obÂtain, by conÂquest, a small acÂcesÂsion to our propÂerty; could we enjoy it with the reÂflecÂtion, that it was obÂtained by the misÂeries of our own species? Could we revel in luxÂuÂries, bought with the price of blood, the blood of our counÂtryÂmen? It is said, "We have proÂtected the colonists, and that they ought to pay for our proÂtecÂtion.” Have they not paid for it by the benÂeÂfits of their comÂmerce? Have not two of our own ParÂliaÂments acÂknowlÂedged, that they paid more than their quota of the exÂpence of last war? A war, not comÂmenced, as has been preÂtended, out of disÂinÂterÂested reÂgard for them; but to seÂcure the profÂits of their trade; a trade, which, had they beÂcome subÂjects to France, must have been lost to EngÂland””to seÂcure the balÂance of EuÂroÂpean power””to preÂvent the agÂgranÂdizeÂment of our natÂural enÂeÂmies.
In page [416], you have stated the case, perÂhaps you think, fairly. Give me leave to draw a parÂalÂlel””parÂalÂlels have, probÂaÂbly, been often of use to you, at the foundry. We feel best for anÂother, when we put ourÂselves in his place; the transÂpoÂsiÂtion is, arÂguÂmenÂtum ad hominem.
SupÂpose popÂery esÂtabÂlished in EngÂland. PopÂery, you know, is inÂtolÂerÂant””burn, or conÂform, are its alÂterÂnaÂtives. You, and your disÂciÂples, proÂfess to apÂprove of neiÂther. A cerÂtain numÂber of you emÂbark for the coast of New Zealand””you find part of the counÂtry unÂinÂhabÂited; your fire arms give you adÂvanÂtage over the savÂages of the rest. You form a setÂtleÂment; you culÂtiÂvate the ground; esÂtabÂlish manÂuÂfacÂtures, and grow rich: you might exÂport some of your comÂmodiÂties to Batavia, on very adÂvanÂtaÂgeous terms. Capt. Cook, in the course of his voyÂage, hapÂpens to touch on this same coast of New Zealand: the EngÂlish govÂernÂment, and, inÂdeed, every EngÂlishÂman (who had heard that there was such a place) take it, thereÂfore, into their heads to think it their own: they send a ship, to inÂform you that they think so; and to tell you, that you must not trafÂfick with Batavia, but only with them; and that they will acÂcept the profÂits of the trade, as a ground rent, an acÂknow[ledge]ment of their sovÂerÂeignty. The Dutch grow jealÂous of your risÂing state; they send a fleet, and army, to atÂtack and disÂposÂsess you. War is mainÂtained with varÂiÂous sucÂcess: you apply to EngÂland for asÂsisÂtance; EngÂland asÂsists you: you not only conÂtinue your exÂcluÂsive comÂmerce with her, but conÂtribute to the exÂpence she has susÂtained by asÂsistÂing you. After all, when you exÂpect no such matÂter, comes a perempÂtory manÂdate from EngÂland,
We have proÂtected you; we will be paid for our proÂtecÂtion””we will have half the fruits of your labour, half the inÂcome of your lands, and manÂuÂfacÂtures, for ever.
Lay your hand upon your heart, Mr. WesÂley, and say, would you then deÂfend the meaÂsures of govÂernÂment, as leÂnient and eqÂuiÂtable? Or would you hesÂiÂtate (if able) to act the modÂern AmerÂiÂcan?
You asÂsert, that
There are men in EngÂland, deÂterÂmined enÂeÂmies to monarÂchy, who wish to change the govÂernÂment into a reÂpubÂlick.
I canÂnot think that you beÂlieve your own asÂserÂtion. It is well known, that the reÂpubÂliÂcan form does not suit the geÂnius of the naÂtion; still less would it suit the charÂacÂter of the age. ComÂmonÂwealths are not proÂlifick in hoÂnÂours and emolÂuÂments, nor proÂpiÂtious to grandeur and proÂfuÂsion””comÂmonÂwealths must be founded by men of seÂvere virtue, and strict self-deÂnial. A much more probÂaÂble supÂpoÂsiÂtion is, that some of the opÂpoÂnents of adÂminÂisÂtraÂtion wish only to fill the seats of those whom they opÂpose; but the numÂber, even of these, it is to be hoped is but small.
I know of no EngÂlishÂman, who hates eiÂther the kingly ofÂfice, or the prince by whom it is now exÂerÂcised. I beÂlieve there are some milÂlions of honÂest EngÂlishÂmen, who perÂceive, with inÂexÂpressÂible grief and terÂror, our exÂcelÂlent conÂstiÂtuÂtion, planned by the best and wisÂest of our anÂcesÂtors, and mainÂtained with their blood, gradÂuÂally deÂviÂatÂing from its primÂiÂtive puÂrity: they see the regal esÂtate, like Aaron’s serÂpent, swalÂlowÂing up the deÂmoÂcÂraÂtÂiÂcal; they see the inÂfluÂence of the crown over the ComÂmons beÂcomÂing so unÂlimÂited, that the dicÂtates of the human will are not more imÂplicÂitly obeyed by the memÂbers of the human body, than the forÂmer is by the latÂter; they see part of the elecÂtive body beÂcome so corÂrupt, that the inÂtent of one prinÂciÂpal seÂcuÂrity of EngÂlish libÂerty, the cirÂcumÂstance of a senÂaÂtor vaÂcatÂing his seat on acÂcepÂtance of a place, is now enÂtirely frusÂtrated; they see this corÂrupÂtion is an evil, which nothÂing can preÂvent the efÂfects of, but such an abÂsolute inÂcaÂpacÂiÂtaÂtion of placeÂmen, that they canÂnot be re-choÂsen””but those who perÂceive these, and many other flaÂgrant perÂverÂsions of our gloÂriÂous conÂstiÂtuÂtion, far from wishÂing to subÂvert that conÂstiÂtuÂtion, wish only to reÂstore it to its prisÂtine inÂtegrity.
There are also, I beÂlieve, many thouÂsand of honÂest EngÂlishÂmen, who wish well to their counÂtry and its libÂerÂties, but are igÂnoÂrant what its conÂstiÂtuÂtion is, and, conÂseÂquently, canÂnot know when it is viÂoÂlated: these are the men, who canÂnot fear danÂger, till they feel evil; these are the men, whom the JohnÂsons and the WesÂleys seek to deÂceive out of their birthright, and perÂsuade them they are slaves.
You boast of our preÂsent libÂerty, civil and reÂliÂgious: "Every man,” you say, "sits under his own vine, and under his own fig-tree.” It is not my busiÂness, nor deÂsire, to point out every minute step, by which I think libÂerty is losÂing ground. NoÂbody deÂnies, that we do enjoy a reaÂsonÂable share of libÂerty, at preÂsent””but is no reÂgard due to the fuÂture? There is, surely, some difÂferÂence in the tenure, by which we hold a posÂsesÂsion: the lessee in perÂpetuum, is, surely, in a betÂter sitÂuÂaÂtion, than the tenÂant at will.
Some have said, arÂbiÂtrary govÂernÂment, well adÂminÂisÂtered, is the best mode of govÂernÂment; but how many chances are there against its good adÂminÂisÂtraÂtion?
We have now a good prince upon the throne; but who can enÂsure the charÂacÂter of his sucÂcesÂsors? Should the crown obÂtain pleÂnary posÂsesÂsion of the ParÂliaÂment, leavÂing it only a form withÂout a spirit; where will be the difÂferÂence beÂtween the inÂhabÂiÂtants of France and Spain, and our posÂterÂity? where will be the difÂferÂence beÂtween those who are ruled by the comÂmand of one man, isÂsued imÂmeÂdiÂately from his own mouth; and those, who are ruled by the comÂmand of one man, isÂsued meÂdiÂately through the mouths of many?
I shall now, sir, take my leave of you and your perÂforÂmance. I have no atÂtachÂment to, or conÂnecÂtion of any kind with the colonists; I have no conÂcern in the matÂter. I may say, as you say, and perÂhaps with more sinÂcerÂity, "I shall get nothÂing by eiÂther party.”””But, I am a friend, on prinÂciÂple, to the origÂiÂnal uniÂverÂsal rights of man.
As I have forÂmerly seen you, with pleaÂsure, in the charÂacÂter of a ChrisÂtÂian minÂisÂter, doing some good in the moral world; so it is, with reÂgret, I now see you in the charÂacÂter of a court sycoÂphant, doing much more misÂchief in the poÂlitÂiÂcal world, inÂjurÂing, perÂhaps irÂreparaÂbly inÂjurÂing your counÂtry.
Postscript
You ask, "Did the peoÂple give William the ConÂqueror the power?”
An able writer and emÂiÂnent statesÂman (Lord Somers) posÂiÂtively asÂserts, that the peoÂple did give William the power:
William the first (who is unÂjustly stiled the ConÂqueror, havÂing subÂdued none but Harold and those who abetÂted him) did obÂtain the crown, by a free choice and subÂmisÂsion of the peers, and body of the peoÂple: and, beÂfore his coroÂnaÂtion, he was made to swear, that he would govÂern the peoÂple justly, and keep and obÂserve to them their old laws.
This is a strikÂing inÂstance of the high sense the peoÂple of EngÂland once had of their own imÂporÂtance.
You asÂsert, "that the peoÂple never gave the supreme power to any, but MasÂsaniello of Naples.” If you mean the supreme exÂecÂuÂtive power, the EngÂlish hisÂtory reÂpeatÂedly conÂtraÂdicts your asÂserÂtion. Give me leave to ask you””Who gave that power to Charles II. at the RestoraÂtion? to William III. at the RevÂoÂluÂtion? and, afÂterÂwards, to the house of Hanover?
http://declaringamerica.com/anonymous-a-constitutional-answer-to-wesleys-calm-address-1775/
