From the
PENNSYLVANIA CHRONICLE.
Letters from a FARMER in Pensylvania
to
the inhabitants of the British Colonies.
LETTER II.
Beloved Countrymen,
There is another act of parliament,
which seems to me as destructive to
the liberty of these colonies, as that in-
serted in my last letter; that is, the act for
granting the duties on paper and glass
&c. It appears to me to be unconstituti-
onal: The parliament unquestionably
possesses a legal authority to regulate the
trade of
Great-Britain and all its
colo-
nies. Such an authority is essential to the
relation between a mother-country and
its colonies, and necessary for the com-
mon good of all. He who considers these
provinces, as states distinct from the Bri-
tish 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 pre-
side, and preserve the connection in due
order. This power is lodged in the par-
liament; and we are as much dependant
on
Great-Britain, as a perfectly
free peo-
ple can be on another.
I have looked over every statute relat-
ing to these colonies, from their first set-
tlement to this time; and I find every
one of them founded on this principle,
till the Stamp-Act administration. * [Asterisk reference mark
indicates there is a note below.] All
[Aterisk reference mark:]*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 Charles II. chap.
18th, which forms the foun-
dation 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 planta-
tions but in ships belonging to
England,
Ireland,
Wales,
Ber-
wick, 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 Charles II. chap.
7th, enforcing the same regu-
lation, assigns these reasons for it:
"In regard 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 kindess between them, and
keeping them in a firmer dependence upon it, and rendering
them yet more beneficial and advantageous unto it in the fur-
ther employment and increase of English shipping and sea-
men, vent of English woollen 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 Charles II. chap 7th,
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, intituled an
act for encouragement of shipping and navigation, and by se-
veral 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 plantati-
ons in those parts, &c. and that without paying of custom for
the same, either at the lading or unlading the said commodi
ties, by means whereof the trade and navigation in those
com-[This note is continued at the bottom of the second column on page
9.]
before, are calculated to preserve or pro-
mote 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 re-
strain the commerce of one part, that
was injurious to another, and thus to pro-
mote 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
altogether amount to a considerable sum,
[This is the note continued from the bottom of the first column on
page 9.]modities from one plantation
to another is greated 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 imposi-
tions for what of them hath been spent here) but contrary to
the express letter of the aforesaid laws, have brought into
divers 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 William III. chap. 21,
intitled,
"An act
for preventing frauds, and regulating abuses in the plantation
trade," recites, that,
"Notwithstanding divers acts, &c.
great abuses are daily committed, to the prejudice of the En-
glish navigation, and the loss of a great part of the plantation
trade, to this kingdom, by the artifice and cunning of ill-dis-
posed persons; FOR REMEDY WHEREOF, &c. And
whereas in some of his Majesty's American plantations, a
doubt or misconstruction has arisen upon the before mention-
ed 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 plan-
tation to another, for the supplying of each others wants)
as if the same were by the payment of those duties in one
plan-
tation, 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 37th,
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 co-
lonies. 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 plantation," &c.
The 6th George II. chap. 13,
which imposes duties on
foreign rum, sugar and molasses, imported into the colonies
shews the reasons thus "Whereas the welfare and prospe-
rity of your Majesty's sugar colonies in
America are of the
greatest consequence and importance to the trade, naviga-
tion, 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 George II. Chap 26,
and the 1st George III.
chap 9th, which contains 6th George II
chap 13th, declare,
"That the said act hath by experience been found useful
and beneficial," &c.
[These are all the most considerable statutes relating to
the commerce of the colonies; and it is thought to be utter-
ly unnecessary to add any observations to these extracts, to
prove that they were all intended soley as regulations of
trade.]
and contribute to the support of govern-
ment: but this is merely a consequence
arising from restrictions, which only
meant to keep peace and prevent confu-
sion; 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 a-
bove mentioned, think of imposing du-
ties in
America for the purpose of rais-
ing a revenue. Mr. Grenville's sagacity
first introduced this language, in the pre-
amble to the fourth of George III. Chap.
15th, which has these words, --"And
whereas it is just and necessary, that a re-
venue be raised in your majesty's said do-
minions in
America, for defraying the ex-
pences of defending, protecting, and se-
curing the same: We your Majesty's most
dutiful and loyal subjects, the commons
of
Great-Britain, in parliament
assem-
bled, being desirous to make some provi-
sion, iu [in] the present session of parliament,
towards raising the said revenue in
Ame-
rica, have resolved to give and grant un-
to your Majesty the several rates and du-
ties herein after mentioned," &c.
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 pro-
vision he made for raising a further reve-
nue within your majesty's dominions in
America towards defraying the said ex-
penses, 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 pa-
per &c. carefully pursues these modern
precedents. The preamble is this: "where-
as it is expedient that a revenue should be
raised in your Majesty's dominions in A-
merica for making a more certain and a-
dequate provision for defraying the charge
of the administration of justice, and the
support of civil government in such pro-
vinces, where it shall be found necessa-
ry; and towards the further defraying
the expenses 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 ex-
presly claimed to impose duties on these
colonies, not for the regulation of trade;
not for the reservation or promotion of a
mutually beneficial intercourse between
the several constituent parts of the em-
pire, heretofore the sole objects of parli-
amentary institutions; but for the sin-
gle purpose of levying money upon us.
This I call an innovation *[Asterisk reference mark indicates there
is a note below.] ; and a most
dangerous innovation It may perhaps
be objected, that
Great Britain has a right
to lay what duties she pleases upon her ex-
ports [Dagger reference mark indicates there is a note
below.], and it makes no difference to us whe
ther they are paid here or there. 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 pa-
per 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, a-
ny special duties imposed on their expor-
tation 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 up-
on 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 no-
thing 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 du-
ties 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 a necessity of paying the duties,
Thus, in the present case, a like necessi-
ty will subject us, if this act continues in
force, to the payment of the duties now
imposed.
Why was the Stamp-Act 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 pa-
per, &c.
The makers of that act knew full well,
that the confusions that would arise up-
on the disuse of writings would compel
[Asterisk reference mark:]*
"It is worthy observation how quickly subsidies granted
in form usual and unacustomable (though heavy) are borne;
such a power hath use and custom; on the other side, what
discontentment and disturbances subsidies formed on new
should do raise (such an inbred hatred novelty doth hatch) is
e-
vident by examples of former times." Lord Coke's 2
Instit.
[Dagger reference mark:]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 connexion
between the mother country and her colonies.
I
Great Britain had always claimed and exercised an
au-
thority to compel
Spain and
Portugal to import manufactures
from her only, the cases would be parellel: but as
she has
never pretended to such a right, they are at liberty to get
them where they please; and they chuse to take
them
from her, rather than from other nations, they voluntarily
consent to pay the duties imposed on them.
the colonies to use the stampt 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 par-
liament, if it is granted to have any force
here,
"will execute itself," and will be
attended with the very same consequen-
ces to American liberty.
Some persons perhaps may say, this act
lays us under no necessity to pay the du-
ties 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, un-
less 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 af-
flicting as that which would have result-
ed from the total disuse of writing a-
mong 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, each of which was
unworthy of free men to bear. But is no
injury a violation of right but the great-
est injury! If the eluding the payment of
the duties imposed by the Stamp Act
would have subjected us to a more dread-
ful inconvenience, then 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 cal-
culated 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-hous-
es on this continent, and but very few
paper mills: and suppose more should be
erected, a long course of years must re-
lapse before they can be brought to per-
fection. This continent is a country of
planters, farmers, and fishermen; not of
manufacturers. The difficulty of establish-
ing particular manufactures in such a
country are 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 experi-
ence of many nations may convince us of
this truth.
Inexpressible therefore must be our dis-
tresses in evading the late acts, by the
disuse of British paper and glass. Nor
we admit the legality of that act.
Great Britain has prohibited the mani-
facturing 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 un-
disputed precedent on that point. This
authority they will say is founded on the
original intention of settling these colo-
nies 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 univer-
sally 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 debates concerning the
repeal of the stamp-act, acknowledged
that
Great-Britain could restrain
our ma-
nufactures. His words are these --
" This
Kingdom, as the supreme governing and
legislative power, has always bound the
colonies by her regulations and restricti-
ons in trade, and navigation, in manu-
factures, in every thing, except that of
taking their money out of their pockets
without their consent." Again,
"we may
bind their trade, confine their manufac-
tures, and exercise every power whatso-
ever, except that of taking money out
of their pockets without their consent."
Here then let my countrymen rouse
themselves, and behold the inevitable ru-
in hanging over their heads, if they once
admit that
Great-Britain may lay duties,
on her exportations to us for the purpose
of levying money upon 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 A-
merican 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
Ire-
land): 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 dis-
cretion. 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 ab-
ject slaves as
France and
Poland can shew
in wooden shoes, and with uncombed hair*.
[Asterisk reference mark indicates there is a note
below.]
Perhaps the nature of the necessities of
the dependant states, caused by the poli-
[Asterisk reference mark:]* The peasants of
France wear wooden shoes; and the
vassals of
Poland are remarkable for matted hair, which ne-
ver can be combed.
cy of a governing one for her own
be-
nefit, may be elucidated by a fact menti-
oned 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 im-
posing 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 sub-
mission. -- This may be called
the most perfect kind of political neces-
sity. --
From what has been said, I think, this
uncontrovertible conclusion may be de-
cided -- That when a ruling state obliges
a dependant state to take certain com-
modities from her alone, it is implied in
the nature of that obligation, and is es-
sentially requisite to give it the least de-
gree of justice, and is inseperably 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, im-
posed by the late act, appears to me there-
fore 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 fore the sole
purpose of raising a revenue, on com-
modities which she obliges us to take
from her alone? Or, in other words, whe-
ther the parliament can legally take mo-
ney out of our pockets without our con-
sent?
If they can, our boasted liberty is but
"Vox et praterea nihil" [Dagger reference mark
indicates there is a note below.]
A FARMER.
[Dagger reference mark:] A sound and nothing else.
In the first letter the author gives an
account of himself, and the remainder is
taken up with animadversions on the act
of parliament for suspending the legisla-
tion of
New-York, which he declares is
as
injurious in its principle as the Stamp-act
itself.
They are said to be written by the
learned and ingenious author of the Con-
siderations on the propriety of imposing
taxes in the colonies published in the time
of the Stamp-act.