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 opposes 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 divisious, admits of some objectious, as the plainest doctrines always will 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. call 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 shewn 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 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 66 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-la-bourers 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, Rev. Sir, Your affectionate brother, JF LETTER III. Dr. Price's Politics are shewn 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 Legislative 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. REV. SIR, Ir 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 6th 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 shews that the odium cast upon the present government, 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 Law-givers done after all? Truly, they have recalled former times, and returned to the policy of the last reigns; and yet Dr. P. instead of being thankful for our happiness, frightens the public with 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 Dr. 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 Constitu tiou, is frivolous. But Dr. Price's distinction has no foundation in Reason, Scripture, or the Constitution, 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 Cæsar what was his? Aud 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; in as much 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 mothercountry? 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 expeuses 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 qnotation, 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." 86 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 resisand rage." This sounds well to the ear: but judicious patriots, tance 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 Quixotes."-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 able 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 shewn, 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 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 Dr. 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 Dr. 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 enquirers 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, Dr. 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 65 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 which they have given birth, when those states are well able to bear the easy burden! As soon will Dr. Price persuade me that it is contrary to "the rights of humanity" in twelve lubberly young fellows, who have always enjoyed the benefit of their father's house, and who can get more money than their father, to give him something towards the payment of the window-tax, when he is burdened with debts, and wants some assistance to pay that tax. Page 49, You continue to quote the Doctor thus: "Did they not settle under the faith of Charters, which promised them the enjoyment of all the rights of Englishmen ?" Granted. But did these Charters promise them rights superior to those of Englishmen? Is it not evident, that if the Colonists enjoy the right of being protected by the Legislative Power of Great Britain, without paying taxes to that power, they enjoy a right superior to that of Englishmen, who are bound to pay taxes for British protection ? The Doctor goes on. "These Charters allowed them to tax themselves, and to be governed by Legislatures of their own, similar to ours." Granted in one sense: namely, in the same sense, in which Charters have been granted to corporations. Corporate bodies are allowed to tax themselves in a subordinate manner, and to be governed by legislatures of their own, similar to that of Great Britain. Thus the city of London is governed by a Lord Mayor, who represents the King; by a Court of Aldermen, which represents the High Court of Parliament; and by a body of Liverymen and Freemen, which answers to the body of voting Burgesses and Freeholders in Great Britain. And I suppose all together can raise money for the support of the corporation, by means of some peculiar rates, or subordinate taxes. Now if the citizens of London rose against parliamentary taxation, under pretence that they are, and always have been taxed by their own magistrates; they would shew themselves as unjust as the Colonists, and as good logicians as Dr. Price. What have subordinate taxes for the maintenance of lamp-lighters, watchmen, and trained bands, to do with the primary taxes, by which the Army and Navy are supported? When rash patriots avail themselves of the payment of the former taxes, to refuse paying the latter; do they shew more wisdom and equity than I should do, if I quarrelled with my physician for demanding of me ten guineas for ten visits, and dismissed him with the following speech: Sir, I claim all the rights of Englishmen, nor will I be duped by you. I do not deny paying fees, but I will not pay any to you. I will discharge my apothecary's bill; but as for your demands, they are contrary to reason, equity, and the rights of humanity." American patriots might give me thanks, and compliment me with the freedom of London in a golden box, for such a spirited opposition to tyrauny and robbery; but I am of opinion, that British patriots would irdly think me worthy of the freedom of Old Sarum in a wooden bor: And if the Physician were "thrown into a rage" by my provoking injustien, he night possibly think that I deserved a very different box, from that which Dr. Price has been lately presented with. But the Doctor has an answer ready. Speaking of the Colonists says, "They are taxed to support their own governments;-Must they maintain two governments? Must they submit to be triple taxed?" To shew the frivolousness of this argument, I need only farther apply it to my Physician's case, thus: Sir, you demand fees of me for your attendance, but I have already feed my apothecary: Must I maintain two of you? Must I submit to be triple taxed? What! must I pay my surgeon too' You unreasonable men, will you all he 66 |