Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies

Beloved Countrymen,

This letter is intended more particularly for such of you, whose employment in life may have prevented your attending to the consideration of some points that are of great and public importance. For many such persons there must be even in these colonies, where the inhabitants in general are more intelligent than any other people, as has been remarked by strangers, and it seems with reason.

Some of you perhaps, filled as I know your breasts are with loyalty to our most excellent prince, and with love to our dear mother country, may feel yourselves inclined by the affections of your hearts, to approve every action of those whom you so much venerate and esteem.

A prejudice thus flowing from goodness of disposition is amiable indeed. I wish it could be indulged without danger. Did I think this possible, the error should have been adopted, not opposed by me. But in truth, all men are subject to the passions and frailties of nature; and therefore whatever regard we entertain for the persons of those who govern us, we should always remember that their conduct as rulers may be influenced by human infirmities.

When any laws injurious to these colonies are passed, we cannot, with the least propriety, suppose that any injury was intended us by his Majesty or the Lords. For the assent of the crown and peers to law seems, as far as I am able to judge, to have been vested in them, more for their own security than for any other purpose. On the other hand, it is the particular business of the people to enquire and discover what regulations are useful for themselves, and to digest and present them in the form of bills to the other orders, to have them enacted into laws – Where these laws are to bind themselves, it may be expected that the house of Commons will very carefully consider them: But when they are making laws, that are not designed to bind themselves, we cannot imagine that their deliberations will be as cautious and scrupulous as in their own case.[31 - Many remarkable instances might be produced of the extraordinary inattention with which bills of great importance, concerning these colonies, have passed in parliament; which is owing, as it is supposed, to the bills being brought in by the persons who have points to carry, so artfully framed, that it is not easy for the members in general, in the haste of business, to discover their tendency.The following instances shew the truth of this remark. When Mr. Grenville, in the violence of reformation and innovation, formed the 4th Geo. III. chap. 15th, for regulating the American trade, the word "Ireland" was dropt in the clause relating to our iron and lumber, so that we could send these articles to no other part of Europe, but to Great-Britain. This was so unreasonable a restriction, and so contrary to the sentiments of the legislature, for many years before, that it is surprising it should not have been taken notice of in the house. However the bill passed into a law. But when the matter was explained, this restriction was taken off in a subsequent act.I cannot postively say, how long after the taking off this restriction, as I have not the acts; but I think in less than eighteen months, another act of parliament passed, in which the word "Ireland," was left out as it had been before. The matter being a second time explained, was a second time regulated.Now if it be considered, that the omission mentioned struck off, with one word, so very great a part of our trade, it must appear remarkable: and equally so is the method by which rice became an enumerated commodity, and therefore could be carried to Great-Britain only."The enumeration was obtained, (says Mr. Gee*) by one Cole, a Captain of a ship, employed by a company then trading to Carolina; for several ships going from England thither and purchasing rice for Portugal, prevented the aforesaid Captain of a loading. Upon his coming home, he possessed one Mr. Lowndes, a member of parliament (who was very frequently employed to prepare bills) with an opinion, that carrying rice directly to Portugal was a prejudice to the trade of England, and privately got a clause into an act to make it an enumerated commodity; by which means he secured a freight to himself. But the consequence proved a vast loss to the nation."* Gee on trade, p. 32.]

I find that this clause "privately got into an act," for the benefit of Capt. Cole, "to the vast loss of the nation," is foisted into the 3d Anne, chap. 5, intituled, "An act for granting to her Majesty a further subsidy on wines and merchandizes imported," with which it has no more connexion, than with 34th Edw. I. 34th and 35th of Henry VIII. or the 25th of Car. II. which provide that no person shall be taxed but by himself or his representative.]

I am told that there is a wonderful address frequently used in carrying points in the house of commons, by persons experienced in these affairs – that opportunities are watched – and sometimes votes are past, that if all the members had been present, would have been rejected by a great majority. Certain it is, that when a powerful and artful man has determined on any measure against these colonies, he has always succeeded in his attempt. Perhaps therefore it will be proper for us, whenever any oppressive act affecting us is past, to attribute it to the inattention of the members of the house of commons, and to the malevolence or ambition of some factious great man, rather than to any other cause.

Now I do verily believe, that the late act of parliament imposing duties on paper, &c. was formed by Mr. Grenville and his party, because it is evidently a part of that plan, by which he endeavoured to render himself popular at home; and I do also believe that not one half of the members of the house of commons, even of those who heard it read, did perceive how destructive it was to American freedom.

For this reason, as it is usual in Great-Britain, to consider the King's speech, as the speech of the ministry, it may be right here to consider this act as the act of a party. – Perhaps I should speak more properly if I was to use another term. —

There are two ways of laying taxes. – One is by imposing a certain sum on particular kinds of property, to be paid by the user or consumer, or by taxing the person at a certain sum; the other is, by imposing a certain sum on particular kinds of property to be paid by the seller.

When a man pays the first sort of tax, he knows with certainty that he pays so much money for a tax. The consideration for which he pays it is remote, and it may be does not occur to him. He is sensible too that he is commanded and obliged to pay it as a tax; and therefore people are apt to be displeased with this sort of tax.

The other sort of tax is submitted to in a very different manner. The purchaser of any article very seldom reflects that the seller raises his price so as to indemnify him for the tax he has paid. He knows the prices of things are continually fluctuating, and if he thinks about the tax, he thinks at the same time in all probability, that he might have paid as much, if the article he buys had not been taxed. He gets something visible and agreeable for his money, and tax and price are so confounded together, that he cannot separate, or does not chuse to take the trouble of separating them.

This mode of taxation therefore is the mode suited to arbitrary and oppressive governments. The love of liberty is so natural to the human heart, that unfeeling tyrants think themselves obliged to accommodate their schemes as much as they can to the appearance of justice and reason, and to deceive those whom they resolve to destroy or oppress, by presenting to them a miserable picture of freedom, when the inestimable original is lost.

This policy did not escape the cruel and rapacious Nero. That monster, apprehensive that his crimes might endanger his authority and life, thought proper to do some popular acts to secure the obedience of his subjects. Among other things, says[32 - Tacitus's An. b. 13. f. 31.] Tacitus, "he remitted the twenty-fifth part of the price on the sale of slaves, but rather in shew than reality; for the seller being ordered to pay it, it became a part of the price to the buyer."

This is the reflection of the judicious historian: but the deluded people gave their infamous emperor full credit for his false generosity. Other nations have been treated in the same manner the Romans were. The honest industrious Germans who are settled in different parts of this continent can inform us, that it was this sort of tax that drove them from their native land to our woods, at that time the seats of perfect and undisturbed freedom.

Their princes inflamed by the lust of power and the lust of avarice, two furies, that the more hungry they grow, transgressed the bounds, they ought in regard to themselves, to have observed. To keep up the deception in the minds of subjects "there must be," says a very learned author[33 - Montesquieu's spirit of laws, b. 13. chap. 8.] "some proportion between the impost and the value of the commodity; wherefore there ought not to be an excessive duty upon merchandizes of little value. There are countries in which the duty exceeds seventeen or eighteen times the value of the commodity. In this case the prince removes the illusion. His subjects plainly see they are dealt with in an unreasonable manner, which renders them most exquisitely sensible of their slavish situation."

From hence it appears that subjects may be ground down into misery by this sort of taxation as well as the other. They may be as much impoverished if their money is taken from them in this way, as in the other; and that it will be taken, may be more evident, by attending to a few more considerations.

The merchant, or importer who pays the duty at first, will not consent to be so much money out of pocket. He, therefore, proportionably raises the price of his goods. It may then be said to be a contest between him and the person offering to buy, who shall lose the duty. This must be decided by the nature of the commodities and the purchasers demand for them. If they are mere luxuries, he is at liberty to do as he pleases, and if he buys, he does it voluntarily: But if they are absolute necessaries, or conveniences which use and custom have made requisite for the comfort of life, and which he is not permitted, by the power imposing the duty, to get elsewhere, there the seller has a plain advantage, and the buyer must pay the duty. In fact, the seller is nothing less than the collector of the tax for the power that imposed it. If these duties then are extended to necessaries and conveniences of life in general, and enormously increased, the people must at length become indeed "most exquisitely sensible of their slavish situation."

Their happiness, therefore, entirely depends on the moderation of those who have authority to impose the duties.

I shall now apply these observations to the late act of parliament. Certain duties are thereby imposed on paper and glass, &c. imported into these colonies. By the laws of Great-Britain we are prohibited to get these articles from any other part of the world. We cannot at present, nor for many years to come, though we should apply ourselves to these manufactures with the utmost industry, make enough ourselves for our own use. That paper and glass are not only convenient, but absolutely necessary for us, I imagine very few will contend. Some, perhaps, who think mankind grew wicked and luxurious as soon as they found out another way of communicating their sentiments than by speech, and another way of dwelling than in caves, may advance so whimsical an opinion. But I presume nobody will take the unnecessary trouble of refuting them.

From these remarks I think it evident, that we must use paper and glass, that what we use must be British, and that we must pay the duties imposed unless those who sell these articles are so generous as to make us presents of the duties they pay, which is not to be expected.

Some persons may think this act of no consequence, because the duties are so small. A fatal error. That is the very circumstance most alarming to me. For I am convinced that the authors of this law, would never have obtained an act to raise so trifling a sum, as it must do, had they not intended by it to establish a precedent for future use. To console ourselves with the smallness of the duties, is to walk deliberately into the snare that is set for us, praising the neatness of the workmanship. Suppose the duties, imposed by the late act, could be paid by these distressed colonies, with the utmost ease, and that the purposes, to which they are to be applied, were the most reasonable and equitable that could be conceived, the contrary of which I hope to demonstrate before these letters are concluded, yet even in such a supposed case, these colonies ought to regard the act with abhorrence. For who are a free people? not those over whom government is reasonably and equitably exercised but those who live under a government, so constitutionally checked and controuled, that proper provision is made against its being otherwise exercised. The late act is founded on the destruction of this constitutional security.

If the parliament have a right to lay a duty of four shillings and eight pence on a hundred weight of glass, or a ream of paper, they have a right to lay a duty of any other sum on either. They may raise the duty as the author before quoted says, has been done in some countries, till it "exceeds seventeen or eighteen times the value of the commodity." In short, if they have a right to levy a tax of one penny upon us, they have a right to levy a million upon us. For where does their right stop? At any given number of pence, shillings, or pounds? To attempt to limit their right, after granting it to exist at all, is as contrary to reason, as granting it to exist at all is contrary to justice. If they have any right to tax us, then, whether our own money shall continue in our own pockets, or not, depends no longer on us, but on them. "There is nothing which we can call our own", or to use the words of Mr. Locke, "What property have" we "in that, which another may, by right, take, when he pleases, to himself."[34 - Speech Lord Cambden lately published.]

These duties, which will inevitably be levied upon us, and which are now levying upon us, are expressly laid for the sole purpose of taking money. This is the true definition of taxes. They are therefore taxes. This money is to be taken from us. We are therefore taxed. Those who are taxed without their own consent, given by themselves, or their representatives, are slaves.[35 - This is the opinion of Mr. Pitt, in his speech on the Stamp-act."It is my opinion, that this kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies. The Americans are the SONS, not the BASTARDS of England. The distinction between legislation and taxation is essentially necessary to liberty. The Commons of America represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in possession of this their constitutional right of giving and granting their own money. They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it. The idea of a virtual representation of America, in this house, is the most contemptible idea that ever entered into the head of man. It does not deserve a serious refutation."That great and excellent man Lord Cambden, maintains the same opinion in his speech, in the house of peers, on the declaratory bill of the sovereignty of Great-Britain over the colonies. The following extracts so perfectly agree with, and confirm the sentiments avowed in these letters, that it is hoped the inserting them in this note will be excused."As the affair is of the utmost importance, and in its consequences may involve the fate of kingdoms, I took the strictest review of my arguments; I re-examined all my authorities; fully determined, if I found myself mistaken, publicly to own my mistake, and give up my opinion, but my searches have more and more convinced me, that the British parliament have no right to tax the Americans. Nor is the doctrine new; it is as old as the constitution; it grew up with it, indeed it is its support. Taxation and representation are inseparably united. God hath joined them; no British parliament can separate them; to endeavour to do it is to stab our vitals."My position is this – I repeat it – I will maintain it to my last hour – Taxation and representation are inseparable. This position is founded on the laws of nature; it is more, it is itself an eternal law of nature; for whatever is a man's own, is absolutely his own; and no man hath a right to take it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself or representative; whoever attempts to do it, attempts an injury; whoever does it, commits a robbery; he throws down the distinction between liberty and slavery." "There is not a blade of grass, in the most obscure corner of the kingdom, which is not, which was not, represented since the constitution began: there is not a blade of grass, which when taxed, was not taxed by the consent of the proprietor." "The forefathers of the Americans did not leave their native country, and subject themselves to every danger and distress, to be reduced to the state of slavery. They did not give up their rights; they looked for protection, and not for chains, from their mother-country. By her they expected to be defended in the possession of their property; and not to be deprived of it: For should the present power continue, there is nothing which they can call their own, or, to use the words of Mr. Locke, what property have they in that, which another may, by right, take, when he pleases, to him self."It is impossible to read this speech and Mr. Pitt's, and not be charmed with the generous zeal for the rights of mankind, that glows in every sentence. These great and good men, animated by the subject they speak upon, seem to rise above all the former glorious exertions of their abilities. A foreigner might be tempted to think they are Americans, asserting with all the ardour of patriotism, and all the anxiety of apprehension, the cause of their native land, and not Britons striving to stop their mistaken countrymen from oppressing others. There reasoning is not only just; it is "vehement," as Mr. Hume says of the eloquence of Demosthenes, "'Tis disdain, anger, boldness, freedom, involved in a continual stream of argument." Hume's Essay on Eloquence.] We are taxed without our own consent given by ourselves, or our representatives. We are therefore – I speak it with grief – I speak it with indignation – we are slaves.

"Miserabile vulgus."

A miserable tribe.

    A FARMER.

LETTER VIII

Beloved Countrymen,

In my opinion, a dangerous example is set in the last act relating to these colonies. The power of parliament to levy money upon us for raising a revenue, is therein avowed and exerted. Regarding the act on this single principle, I must again repeat, and I think it my duty to repeat, that to me it appears to be unconstitutional.

No man, who considers the conduct of parliament since the repeal of the Stamp-act, and the disposition of many people at home, can doubt, that the chief object of attention there, is, to use Mr. Grenville's expression, "providing that the dependance and obedience of the colonies be asserted and maintained."

Under the influence of this notion, instantly on repealing the Stamp-act, an act passed, declaring the power of parliament to bind these colonies in all cases whatever. This, however, was only planting a barren tree, that cast a shade indeed over the colonies, but yielded no fruit. It being determined to enforce the authority on which the Stamp-act was founded, the parliament having never renounced the right, as Mr. Pitt advised them to do; and it being thought proper to disguise that authority in such a manner, as not again to alarm the colonies; some little time was required to find a method, by which both these points should be united. At last the ingenuity of Mr. Greenville and his party accomplished the matter, as it was thought, in "An act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America, for allowing drawbacks, &c. which is the title of the act laying duties on paper, &c."

The parliament having several times before imposed duties to be paid in America, it was expected no doubt, that the repetition of such a measure would be passed over as an usual thing. But to have done this, without expressly asserting and maintaining "the power of parliament to take our money without our consent," and to apply it as they please, would not have been sufficiently declarative of its supremacy, nor sufficiently depressive of American freedom.

Therefore it is, that in this memorable act we find it expressly "provided" that money shall be levied upon us without our consent, for purposes, that render it, if possible, more dreadful than the Stamp-act.

That act, alarming as it was, declared, the money thereby to be raised, should be applied "towards defraying the expences of defending, protecting and securing the British colonies and plantations in America: " And it is evident from the whole act, that by the word "British" were intended colonies and plantations settled by British people, and not generally, those subject to the British crown. That act therefore seemed to have something gentle and kind in its intention, and to aim only at our own welfare: But the act now objected to, imposes duties upon the British colonies, "to defray the expences of defending, protecting and securing his Majesty's dominions in America."

What a change of words! What an incomputable addition to the expences intended by the Stamp-act! "His Majesty's dominions" comprehended not only the British colonies; but also the conquered provinces of Canada and Florida, and the British garrisons of Nova-Scotia; for these do not deserve the name of colonies.

What justice is there in making us pay for "defending, protecting and securing" these places? What benefit can we, or have we ever derived from them? None of them was conquered for us; nor will "be defended, protected and secured" for us.

In fact, however advantageous the subduing or keeping any of these countries may be to Great-Britain, the acquisition is greatly injurious to these colonies. Our chief property consists in lands. These would have been of a much greater value, if such prodigious additions had not been made to the British territories on this continent. The natural increase of our own people, if confined within the colonies, would have raised the value still higher and higher, every fifteen or twenty years. Besides, we should have lived more compactly together, and have been therefore more able to resist any enemy.

But now the inhabitants will be thinly scattered over an immense region, as those who want settlements, will chuse to make new ones, rather than pay great prices for old ones.

These are the consequences to the colonies of the hearty assistance they gave to Great-Britain in the late war. – A war, undertaken solely for her own benefit. The objects of it were, the securing to herself the rich tracts of land on the back of these colonies, with the Indian trade, and Nova-Scotia with the fishery. These, and much more has that kingdom gained; but the inferior animals that hunted with the Lion, have been amply rewarded for all the sweat and blood their loyalty cost them, by the honour of having sweated and bled in such company.

I will not go so far as to say, that Canada and Nova-Scotia are curbs on New-England; the chain of forts through the back woods, on the middle provinces; and Florida, on the rest: but I will venture to say, that if the products of Canada, Nova-Scotia and Florida, deserve any consideration, the two first of them are only rivals of our northern colonies and the other of our southern.

It has been said, that without the conquest of these countries, the colonies could not have been "protected, defended, and secured;" If that is true, it may with as much propriety be said, that Great-Britain could not have been "defended, protected, and secured" without that conquest: for the colonies are parts of her empire, which it is as much concerns her as them to keep out of the hands of any other power.

But these colonies when they were much weaker, defended themselves, before this conquest was made; and could again do it, against any that might properly be called their enemies. If France and Spain indeed should attack them, as members of the British empire perhaps they might be distressed; but it would be in a British quarrel.

The largest account I have seen of the number of people in Canada, does not make them exceed 90,000. Florida can hardly be said to have any inhabitants – It is computed that there are in our colonies, 3,000,000. – Our force therefore must encrease with a disproportion to the growth of their strength, that would render us very safe.

This being the state of the case, I cannot think it just, that these colonies, labouring under so many misfortunes, should be loaded with taxes, to maintain countries not only not useful, but hurtful to them. The support of Canada and Florida cost yearly, it is said, half a million sterling. From hence we may make some guess of the load that is to be laid upon us; for we are not only to "defend, protect, and secure" them, but also to make "an adequate provision for defraying the charge of the administration of justice and the support of civil government, in such provinces where it shall be found necessary."

Not one of the provinces of Canada, Nova-Scotia, or Florida, has ever defrayed these expences within itself: And if the duties imposed by the last statute are collected, all of them together, according to the best information I can get, will not pay one-quarter as much as Pennsylvania alone. So that the British colonies are to be drained of the rewards of their labour, to cherish the scorching sands of Florida, and the icy rocks of Canada and Nova-Scotia, which never will return to us one farthing that we send to them.

Great-Britain – I mean the ministry in Great-Britain, has cantoned Canada and Florida out into five or six governments, and may form as many more. She now has fourteen or fifteen regiments on this continent; and may send over as many more. To make "an adequate provision" for all these expences, is, no doubt, to be the inheritance of the colonies.

Can any man believe that the duties upon paper, &c. are the last that will be laid for these purposes? It is in vain to hope, that because it is imprudent to lay duties on the exportation of manufactures from a mother country to colonies, as it may promote manufactures among them, that this consideration will prevent them.

Ambitious, artful men have made the measure popular, and whatever injustice or destruction will attend it in the opinion of the colonists, at home it will be thought just and salutary.[36 - "So credulous, as well as obstinate, are the people in believing every thing, which flatters their prevailing passion."Hume's Hist. of England.]

The people of Great-Britain will be told, and they have been told, that they are sinking under an immense debt – that great part of this debt has been contracted in defending the colonies – that these are so ungrateful and undutiful, that they will not contribute one mite to its payment – nor even to the support of the army now kept up for their "protection and security" – that they are rolling in wealth, and are of so bold and republican a spirit, that they are aiming at independence – that the only way to retain them in "obedience" is to keep a strict watch over them, and to draw off part of their riches in taxes – and that every burden laid upon them is taking off so much from Great-Britain – These assertions will be generally believed, and the people will be persuaded that they cannot be too angry with their colonies, as that anger will be profitable to themselves.