Page images
PDF
EPUB

tion to our injured merchants. (4.) The prudence with which the parliament farther interposed, by passing the bill for shutting up the port of Boston, that by this unbloody and mild method, the Bostonians might gently be brought to make restitution. And, lastly, the flame of revolt, which on this occasion rapidly spread through British America.

Had the Algerines insulted the British flag, and injured British subjects as the mobbing Bostonians have done, the government would not have shown them the same lenity. A fleet would immediately have sailed for the inhospitable coast, and the admiral would have sent a card to the legislature of Algiers: "I am come to demand satisfaction for the injury done to British subjects. Send me, by to-morrow, £30,000, being the value of the goods which you, or the men whom you screen, have feloniously taken from our merchants, or I will do them and my country justice." Instead of using this peremptory method as Admiral Blake would have done, our admiral quietly stationed his ships before Boston, and General Gage, far from "cutting throats," amicably quartered his forces in or about that city; patiently waiting till remorse of conscience, a sense of equity, a spark of loyalty, or some fear of the power, wrought upon the patriots, so called, and inclined them to do an act of justice, which Mohammedans would hardly have refused to do.

But all

in vain. The mobbing patriots, and their ringleaders, hardened by this lenity, availed themselves of the kind delay. While humanity and brotherly love suspended the stroke of justice, enthusiastic demagogues sounded a false alarm, and engaged the misinformed colonists to countenance their obstinacy. In short, the Americans, seduced by misrepresentations, took up arms against Great Britain; and the forces sent by the sovereign, instead of obtaining the satisfaction they demanded, were obliged to provide for their own safety by attempting to seize some of the artillery and ammunition, brought from all quarters to destroy them. Hence the engagement at Lexington, and the fight at Bunker's Hill, where the forces raised by the congress pressed those of the sovereign by an audacious blockade.

Should you object that the colonists once offered to make restitution on condition that they should never be taxed by the power that protected them; I reply, that by such an offer they only added injustice and revolt to felony. Suppose the Scotch plundered an English ship, and the sovereign insisted on speedy restitution, do you think they would deserve the name of patriots if they said, We will pay for the goods we have destroyed on condition that you shall exempt us from paying the window tax for ever; or, in other terms, we will be just to some of our fellow subjects, to shake off your authority, and to break Christ's capital commandment, "Render to all their due, especially taxes to Cesar?"

If this be a true state of the case, are you not partial, sir, when you represent the parliament as "cutting the throats" of the colonists, because the colonists will not be taxed by the parliament? Is it not rather the colonists who want to cut the throats of our soldiers, because the king and parliament justly insist on proper satisfaction for the injury done to British merchants by the petty tyrants of Boston?

An illustration will make you still more sensible of your mistake. Suppose I harbour a parcel of house breakers, or ship breakers, who have stolen or destroyed your goods, and suppose you obtain a legal warrant, and come,

attended with a number of armed constables, to recover your property, or apprehend the felons; if I raise a mob to hinder the constables from doing their office, and if some throats are cut, in the endeavours which the constables make not to fall into the hands of the armed mob which surrounds them, is the guilt of cutting throats chargeable upon you, who act according to law, and in a just cause? Is it not rather chargeable upon me, who wantonly oppose the legislative power, and can say nothing in defence of myself and my mob, but that the felons I protect are not felons, but spirited patriots; or that I shall pay you for damages, if you will promise to suffer yourself to be wronged of more money than the wrong you have sustained amounts to?

Suppose that the doctrine of taxation, which is the remote cause of our divisions, admits of some objections, as the plainest doctrines always do, (for the brightest clouds have their obscure side, and the most shining diamonds cast a faint shade,) yet the immediate cause of the American war, the refusing to make restitution for goods feloniously destroyed, has no shadow of difficulty. Whoever is honest enough to disapprove the malicious destruction of an innocent man's property, whoever is conscientious enough to praise the steadiness of a government, which stands by oppressed subjects whom it is bound to protect, and whoever is so far a lover of order, as to blame a wanton opposition to the sovereign when he discharges his duty, must confess that the guilt of "cutting throats" in America, is properly caused by the obstinate injustice of the American patriots, and not by the moderate taxes laid by the British legislature. To assert the contrary is almost as great a mistake in politics, as it is in divinity to hint that the miseries consequent upon man's fall, were not properly caused by the tempter's artful misrepresentations, and by Adam's wilful rebellion; but by God's reasonable demand of a little proof of Adam's loyalty.

And now, sir, if I have duly confirmed my proofs, that the doctrine of taxation, which you oppose, is just in every point of view; if I have shown that you confound loyal subjection with abject slavery; if I have demonstrated that your notions concerning the supreme power of the people are subversive of all government; and if I have made appear, that you do not fix the charge of wantonly "cutting throats" upon those who are properly guilty of that atrocious crime, may I not call upon your rational and moral feelings to decide, if I have not vindicated my Vindication? And are you not as precipitate, when you pronounce me "one of the most unmeaning and unfair disputants that ever took up the polemical gauntlet," as when you insinuate that the British legislature "commits robbery," because it lays a moderate tax upon those who have long basked in the beams of its protection, and have acquired immense wealth under the guardian shadow of its flags and standards?

Hoping that no controversial heat will make us forget that we are fellow creatures, fellow subjects, fellow Protestants, and fellow labourers in the Gospel of truth and love; I ask a part in your esteem, equal to that which, notwithstanding your heats and mistakes, you have in the cordial respect of, reverend sir, your affectionate brother, and obedient servant, J. FLETCHER.

LETTER III.

Dr. Price's politics are shown to be as irrational, unscriptural, and unconstitutional as those of Mr. Evans-His principal arguments are retorted-The foundation of his capital error is sapped-The legis lative freedom of the members of the house of commons is asserted, in opposition to the legislative pretensions of plebeian levellers-The partiality and inconsistency of the London patriots are pointed out-On Dr. Price's levelling principles there is an end of all subjection both on earth and in heaven-A conditional reproof to Mr. Evans and Dr.

Price.

REVEREND SIR,-If I have answered you in the preceding letters, I may look your second in the face: I mean the ingenious Dr. Price, whom you call to your help in your notes, and whose arguments you introduce by this high encomium: "Dr. Price's most excellent pamphlet, just published, carries conviction in every page, and breathes that noble spirit of liberty, for which the author so ably pleads!"

Page 46, your first quotation from him runs thus: "In the sixth of George II, an act passed for imposing certain duties on all foreign spirits, and sugars imported into the plantations. In this act the duties imposed are said to be given and granted by the parliament to the king, &c, and a small direct revenue was drawn by it from them." The doctor intimates soon after, that "this revenue act was at worst only the exercise of a power, which then they [the colonists] seem not to have thought much of contesting; I mean the power of taxing them externally." I thank Dr. Price and you, sir, for thus granting that the colonists were taxed before the present parliament and the present reign. This shows that the odium cast upon the present geverniment, springs more from prejudice than from reason. If George II, his whig ministry, and his approved parliament, raised a "direct revenue," by taxing the colonies, why do the American patriots insinuate that George III, the present ministry, and the present parliament are robbers, because they raise a direct revenue by taxing the colonists? And how strangely does Dr. Price forget himself, where he says, "How great would be our happiness could we now recall former times, and return to the policy of the last reigns!" What have our lawgivers done after all? Truly, they have recalled former times, and returned to the policy of the last reigns; and yet Dr. Price, instead of being thankful for our happiness, frightens the public with the most dreadful hints about the infatuation of our governors, and the danger of "a general wreck;" just as if his grand business was to spirit up the colonists, and to deject his own countrymen.

The doctor, it is true, tries to obviate this difficulty by making a distinction between external and internal taxes; insinuating that in the late reign the colonists were taxed externally, whereas in the present reign they have been taxed internally. But if this distinction be frivolous, will it reflect any praise on your patriotism? And that it is such I prove by the following argument: a distinction about taxation, which has no foundation in reason, Scripture, or the constitution, is frivolous: but Dr. Price's distinction has no foundation in reason, Scripture, or the consti

"; and therefore it is frivolous in the present controversy. Should

you contest the second proposition of this syllogism, I ask, By what dictates of reason does it appear, that if taxes are due from subjects to their sovereign, they may not be levied internally, by rates upon the goods we already possess, as well as externally, by duties upon goods imported, which purchase has not yet made our own? Where does St. Paul charge Christians to pay taxes, if they are externally taxed; and to fly to arms if they are taxed internally? Did not Christ speak of internal taxes, when he commanded the Jews to render to Cesar what was his? And is there any law, either of God or of the realm, which allows the legislative power to tax the subjects of Great Britain externally, and precludes it from taxing them internally?

The doctor's distinction is not only unscriptural and unconstitutional, but unreasonable; inasmuch as it would, in a great degree, enable subjects to avoid paying taxes at all. Suppose, for example, we could be taxed only externally, by means of duties laid upon imported goods, such as tea, coffee, foreign wines, and rum; might we not, if I may so speak, starve the government, by drinking only sage, or balm tea, ale, made wines, and spirits distilled from our own wheat? The doctor's distinction is not only unreasonable, but unjust. Why should the colonies enjoy greater privileges than the mother country? Why should Britons be taxed externally and internally, whether they have votes or not, and the Americans only externally; when both have their property internally and externally guarded by the protective power? If I owed my lawyer reasonable fees, amounting to ten pounds, what would you think of my honesty, if I said to him; Sir, I give you leave to pay yourself by demanding a shilling from me every time I drink a glass of claret or a dish of chocolate: but I declare to you, that, except in such cases, I will take you for a robber, if you lay claim to any part of my property? The doctor's distinction is not only unjust in the present case, but it might prove destructive to the commonwealth. It is granted on all sides, that taxes and money are the sinews of the government. If external taxes did not bring in money enough to discharge the necessary expenses of the state; and if the sovereign could not lay internal taxes to supply that deficiency, what would become of the kingdom? Must it not fall a wanton sacrifice to Dr. Price's political refinements? I hope, sir, that if you weigh these observations, you will own that his book, ingenious as it is, far from "carrying conviction in every page," carries frivolousness and mischievous absurdity in the very first quotation which you produce from him. And we may well suppose you did not pick out his weakest argument to support the praises which you bestow on his "most excellent pamphlet."

But let us hear him out. You continue, p. 47, to quote him thus: "The stamp act was passed. This being an attempt to tax them internally; and a direct attack on their property, by a power which would not suffer itself to be questioned; which eased itself by loading them; and to which it was impossible to fix any bounds, they were thrown at once, from one end of the continent to the other, into resist. ance and rage.' 22 This sounds well to the ear; but judicious patriots, who expect to find the kernel of truth under the specious shell of fine words, may be a little disappointed. Permit me, sir, to break the shell, and to see if the kernel be sound.

(1.) An attempt to tax subjects internally is a direct attack on their property! And what if it be? When reasonable taxes are due, may they not be directly demanded? And that they are due, do you not grant, p. 27, where you so much resent my supposing that you deny "the necessity of subjects paying taxes," whether they be external or internal? (2.) The legislative power of Great Britain would not suffer itself to be questioned! The doctor should have said, that it would not suffer itself to be deprived of its right of demanding reasonable taxes for expensive protection; an incontestable right this, which you allow none deny but "political Quixottes." (3.) But this power eases itself by loading them! And what if it do? Is the sovereign to bear all the national expense, without being eased by his subjects? Or are some of the subjects to bear all the burden, without being eased by others who are to help them? Where is either the equity or reasonableness of this objection? (4.) But it is impossible to fix any bounds to this power! I have already shown, that nothing can be easier than to fix proper bounds to the power of taxing the colonies. The parliament can enact that the colonists shall be taxed as the Britons are; making the colonists a proper allowance for the superior commercial privileges of the mother country. Supposing, for instance, that the privileges of British subjects are four times greater than the privileges of American subjects, the taxes of the American subjects might be four times lighter than ours. Thus, when we pay four shillings in the pound, they might pay only one shilling: and when four articles of equal importance are taxed in England, only one might be taxed in America. It is therefore excessively wrong in Doctor Price to assert, that it is impossible to fix any bounds to the power of parliamentary taxation: and none but heated patriots will praise him for increasing, by such a groundless assertion, the absurd rage into which the colonists" have "thrown" themselves," from one end of the continent to the other."

Page 48, you take up again "Doctor Price's truly valuable tract, and enrich" your "piece with a note from this capital writer upon the subject. In reference to the American charters, he speaks with true dignity as follows:-The question with all liberal inquirers ought to be, not what jurisdiction over them (the colonies) precedents, statutes, and charters give, but what reason and equity, and the rights of humanity, give." Sir, this is the very first test to which I have brought your "American Patriotism." The doctor insinuates, indeed, that the power which taxes the Americans will not suffer its rights to be questioned. But this is a mistake. The legislature of Great Britain is too equitable not to give up the right of reasonably taxing the colonists, whom they have so long protected, if you, sir, Doctor Price, or the congress, can prove that reason, equity, and the rights of humanity, are against such taxation. Have you not yourself granted the propriety and necessity of subjects paying proportionable taxes, for the good of the whole empire? Is it reasonable or equitable that Great Britain should bear all the burden of the navy, which protects the colonies and their trade? Is it contrary to "the rights of humanity," to demand a penny for a penny loaf, or, which comes to the same thing, to demand reasonable taxes for royal protection? Or do parent states violate "the rights of humanity," in demanding some assistance from the growing states to

« PreviousContinue »