<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
  <teiHeader>
      <fileDesc>
         <titleStmt>
            <title type="main">The Late Regulations Respecting the British Colonies</title>
            <author>Dickinson, John</author>
         </titleStmt>
         <publicationStmt>
            <distributor>
               <name>University of Oxford Text Archive</name>
               <address>
                  <addrLine>Oxford University Computing Services</addrLine>
                  <addrLine>13 Banbury Road</addrLine>
                  <addrLine>Oxford</addrLine>
                  <addrLine>OX2 6NN</addrLine>
               </address>
            </distributor>
            <idno type="ota">https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14106/3085</idno>
            <idno type="isbn10">1106000846</idno>
            <idno type="isbn13">9781106000842</idno>
            <availability status="free">
               <licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">
	Distributed by the University of Oxford under a Creative Commons
	Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License
      </licence>
            </availability>
         </publicationStmt>
         <sourceDesc>
            <bibl>Revised version of  <relatedItem type="older" target="http://ota.ox.ac.uk/id/2132"/>
            </bibl>
         </sourceDesc>
      </fileDesc>
      <encodingDesc>
         <classDecl>
            <taxonomy xml:id="OTASH">
               <bibl>University of Oxford Text Archive Subject Headings</bibl>
            </taxonomy>
            <taxonomy xml:id="LCSH">
               <bibl>Library of Congress Subject Headings</bibl>
            </taxonomy>
         </classDecl>
      </encodingDesc>
      <profileDesc>
         <creation>
            <date notAfter="1765"/>
         </creation>
         <langUsage>
            <language ident="eng">English</language>
         </langUsage>
         <textClass>
            <keywords scheme="#LCSH">
               <term>Unclassified</term>
            </keywords>
         </textClass>
      </profileDesc>
      <revisionDesc>
         <change when="2010-09-27">Header normalised</change>
      </revisionDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <text>
      <front>
         <titlePage>
            <docTitle>
               <titlePart type="main">
                  <title type="main">The Late Regulations Respecting the British Colonies</title>
               </titlePart>
            </docTitle>
            <byline>by 
<docAuthor>John Dickinson</docAuthor>
            </byline>
            <docImprint>From “Pamphlets of the American Revolution”, Ed. by Bernard Bailyn</docImprint>
         </titlePage>
      </front>
      <body>
         <div xml:id="c1" type="chapter">
            <head>I — THE LATE REGULATIONS</head>
            <p>Sir, 
</p>
            <p>When I last wrote to you and said “that the late 
measures respecting America would not only be extremely 
injurious to the colonies but also to Great Britain,” 
I little thought I was entering into an engagement which 
would oblige me to exceed the usual limits of a letter; but 
since you desire to have at large the reasons in support of 
this opinion, and I always think it my duty to comply with 
your requests, I will endeavor in the clearest manner I can 
to lay my sentiments before you. 
</p>
            <p>The American continental colonies are inhabited by persons 
of small fortune, who are so closely employed in subduing a 
wild country for their subsistence and who <hi>would</hi> labor 
under such difficulties in contending with old and 
populous countries which must exceed them in workmanship and 
cheapness, that they have not time nor any temptation to apply 
themselves to manufactures. 
</p>
            <p>Hence arises the importance [It has been said in the 
House of Commons, when complaints have been made of the decay of 
trade to any part of Europe, “that such things here not worth 
regard, as Great Britain was possessed of colonies that could 
consume more of her manufactures than she was able to supply 
them with.” 
</p>
            <p>“As the case now stands, we shall show that the 
plantations are a spring of <hi>wealth</hi> to this nation, that they 
<hi>work</hi> for us, that their treasure <hi>centers all here</hi> and that 
the laws have tied them fast enough to us; so that it must be 
through our own fault and mismanagement if they become 
independent of England.” Davenant on the plantation trade 
</p>
            <p>“It is better that the islands should be supplied from 
the northern colonies than from England for this reason the 
provisions we might send to Barbados, Jamaica, etc., would be 
<hi>unimproved</hi> product of the earth, as grain of all kinds, or 
such product where there is little got by the improvement, as 
malt, salt, beef, and pork; indeed, the exportation of salt fish 
thither would be more advantageous, but the goods which we send 
to the northern colonies are such whose <hi>improvement</hi> may be 
justly said one with another to be near <hi>four fifths</hi> of the 
value of the <hi>whole commodity</hi>, as apparel, household furniture, 
and many other things.Idem . 
</p>
            <p>“New England is the most prejudicial plantation to the 
kingdom of England; and yet, to do right to that most 
industrious English colony, I must confess that though we lose 
by their unlimited trade with other foreign plantations, yet we 
are very great gainers by their direct trade to and from Old 
England. Our yearly exportations of English manufacture, malt, 
and other goods, from hence thither, amounting, in my opinion, 
to <hi>ten times the value</hi> of what is imported from thence; which 
calculation I do not make at random, but upon mature 
consideration, and, peradventure, upon as much experience in 
this very trade as any other person will pretend to; and 
therefore, whatever reformation of our correspondency in trade 
with that people shall he thought on. it will, in my poor 
judgment, require GREAT TENDERNESS and VERY SERIOUS 
CIRCUMSPECTION.” Sir Josiah Child's A Discourse on Trade. 
</p>
            <p>“Our plantations spend mostly our English manufactures, 
and those <hi>of all sorts almost imaginable in egregious 
quantities</hi> and employ near <hi>two thirds of our English 
shipping;</hi> so that we have <hi>more people</hi> in England by reason of 
our plantations in America.” Idem. 
</p>
            <p>Sir Joseph Child says, in another part of his work, 
“That not more than fifty families are maintained in England by 
the refining of sugar.” From whence, and from what Davenant 
says, it is plain that the advantages here said to be derived 
from the plantations by England must be meant chiefly of the 
continental colonies. 
</p>
            <p>“I shall sum up my whole remarks on our American 
colonies with this observation, that as they are a certain 
annual revenue of several millions sterling to their mother 
country, they ought carefully to be protected, duly encouraged, 
and every opportunity that presents improved for their increment 
and advantage, as every one they can possibly reap must at last 
return to us with interest.” Beawes's Lex Merc. Red. 
</p>
            <p>“We may safely advance that our trade and navigation are 
greatly increased by our colonies, and that they really are a 
source of treasure and naval power to this kingdom, since <hi>they 
work for us and their treasure centers here.</hi> Before their 
settlement, our manufactures were few, and those but 
indifferent; the number of English merchants very small, and the 
whole shipping of the nation much inferior to what now belongs 
to the northern colonies only. <hi>These are certain facts.</hi> But 
since their establishment, our condition has altered for the 
better, almost to a degree beyond credibility. Our MANUFACTURES 
are prodigiously increased, chiefly by the demand for them in 
the plantations, where they AT LEAST TAKE OFF ONE HALF, and 
supply us with many valuable commodities for exportation, which 
is as great all emolument to the mother kingdom as to the 
plantations themselves.” Postlethwayt's Univ. Dict. of Trade and 
Commerce.] of the colonies to Great Britain. Her prosperity 
depends on her commerce; her commerce on her manufactures; her 
manufactures on the markets for them; and the most constant and 
advantageous markets are afforded by the colonies, as in all 
others the rest of Europe [“Most of the nations of Europe have 
interfered with us, more or less, in divers of our staple 
manufactures, within half a century, not only in our woolen but 
in our lead and tin manufactures as well as our fisheries.” 
Postlethwayt, ibid.] interferes with her, and various accidents 
may interrupt them. The benefit from hence is at <hi>present</hi>
immense; but in future times when America shall be more fully 
peopled, must exceed with prudent management the warmest wishes 
of a British patriot. 
</p>
            <p>Our chief productions are provisions, naval stores, 
furs, linen, and lumber. A few colonies yield tobacco and 
indigo. Many of these commodities are necessary to Great 
Britain; but all that she requires are vastly insufficient to 
pay for her manufactures which we want. The productions of some 
of the southern colonies may perhaps be equal to their demands, 
but the case is widely different with the northern; for in 
these, the importations from Great Britain are computed to be 
generally more than double the value of their immediate 
exhortations to that kingdom. 
</p>
            <p>The only expedient left us for making, our remittances 
is to carry on some other trade, whereby we can obtain silver 
and gold, which our own country does not afford. Hence it is 
evident that if our taking of and paying for her manufactures is 
beneficial to Great Britain the channels by which we acquire 
money for that purpose ought to be industriously kept open and 
uninterrupted. 
</p>
            <p>Our trade with Spain, Portugal, and the foreign 
plantations in the West Indies have chiefly answered this and, 
though with much difficulty the mother country having long since 
drawn the commercial cords [As far as regulations are requisite 
to confine the commerce of the colonies to British subjects and 
to British ships; to give Great Britain the preference in being 
supplied with naval shores, so essential to her strength at sea; 
with commodities necessary for carrying on her woolen 
manufactures, or such articles as can bear high duties upon 
them, and thereby make a considerable addition to the revenue; 
or as far as they are requisite to prevent the colonies from 
being supplied with anything in the place of British 
manufactures, they may be reasonable. These regulations, it is 
apprehended, establish the basis of the British power, and form 
such a firm connection between the mother country and her 
colonies as will produce all the advantages she ought to wish 
for, or that they can afford her. Any further attempt to shackle 
<hi>some</hi> of the colonies in favor of others, or to advance the 
revenue in America by restraining its trade, is but regulating 
by a severe exercise of power what wants no regulation, and 
losing by too much haste to gain. Unnecessary and <hi>irritating</hi>
restrictions will at last cast <hi>contempt</hi> and <hi>hatred</hi>
on those <hi>substantial</hi> ones that length of time and the 
natural reverence of colonies for their mother country would have 
consecrated, for discontented minds are not apt to distinguish. 
“Narrow-limited notions in trade and planting are only 
advanced by, and can only be of use to, <hi>particular</hi> persons, 
but are always injurious to the <hi>public</hi> interests in 
preventing the full employment of our own people, and giving 
our rivals and competitors in trade the opportunity of employing 
greater numbers of theirs, producing greater quantities of 
merchandises, and underselling us at foreign markets.” 
Postlethwayt's Univ. Dict. of Trade and Commerce.] with 
which the colonies are bound extremely tight upon them. Every 
thing produced <hi>here</hi> that Great Britain chooses to take 
to herself must be carried to that kingdom only. [Montesquieu, 
speaking of the contract made by Poland for selling <hi>all</hi>
her corn to Danzig ONLY, and another of the like nature between 
some Indian princes and the Dutch for spices, says: “These 
agreements are proper for a poor nation, whose inhabitants are 
satisfied to <hi>forego the hopes of enriching themselves provided 
they can be secure of a certain subsistence,</hi> or for nations 
whose SLAVERY consists either <hi>in renouncing the use of those 
things which nature has given them</hi>, or in being OBLIGED TO 
SUBMIT TO A DISADVANTAGEOUS COMMERCE.”] Everything we 
choose to import from Europe must be shipped in Great Britain. 
[Except salt from any part of Europe for the fisheries of 
Newfoundland, New England, New York and Pennsylvania; and a few 
things from Ireland.] Heavy duties have been laid on our 
importations from the foreign plantations. 
</p>
            <p>However, under all these restraints and some others that 
have been imposed on us, we have not till lately been unhappy. 
Our spirits were not depressed. We apprehended no design formed 
against our liberty. We for a long time enjoyed peace, and were 
quite free from any heavy debt, either internal or external. We 
had a paper currency which serves as a medium of domestic 
commerce and permitted us to employ all the gold and silver we 
could acquire in trade abroad. We had a multitude of markets 
for our provisions, lumber, and iron. These allowed liberties, 
with some others we assumed, enabled us to collect considerable 
sums of money for the joint benefit of ourselves and our mother 
country. 
</p>
            <p>But the modern regulations are in every circumstance 
afflicting. The remittances we have been able to make to Great 
Britain, with all the license hitherto granted or taken and all 
the money brought among us in the course of the late war, have 
not been sufficient to pay her what we owe; but there still 
remains due, according to a late calculation made by the English 
merchants, the sum of four millions sterling. Besides this, we 
are and have been for many years heavily taxed for the payment 
of the debts contracted by our efforts against the common enemy. 
These seem to be difficulties severe enough for young colonies 
to contend with. The last sinks our paper currency very fast. 
[While the quantity of paper currency is proportioned to the 
uses for it, it must be beneficial; and therefore to sink it 
below that quantity must be prejudicial.] The former sweeps off 
our silver and gold in a torrent to Great Britain and leaves us 
continually toiling to supply from a number of distant springs 
the continually wasting stream. 
</p>
            <p>Thus drained, we are prohibited by new and stricter 
restraints being laid on our trade from procuring these coins as 
we used to do and from instituting among ourselves bills of 
credit in the place of such portion of them as are required in 
our internal traffic; and in this exhausted condition, our 
languishing country is to strive to take up and to totter under 
the additional burden of the STAMP ACT. 
</p>
            <p>In defense of the prohibition to institute <hi>bills of 
credit</hi> it may be said, “that some few colonies, by injurious 
emissions of paper currency, did great injury to individuals.” 
It is true: But it is as true that others [No attempt was ever 
made in this province and some others to pay English debts any 
otherwise than according to the rate of exchange; and no 
complaint was ever made of injustice from the depreciation of 
the currency.] always supported the credit of their bills in 
such a manner that their emissions were of vast benefit both to 
the provinces and to Great Britain. The inconveniences under 
which the colonies labored before these emissions are well 
remembered and were produced by the same cause that distresses 
us at this time, that is, by Great Britain's taking off all our 
gold and silver. There was then so little money among several of 
them that a stop was put in a manner to buying and selling, and 
then shopkeepers were obliged to barter their goods for food. 
The effect produced by these emissions was surprising. Trade 
revived and the remarkable and immediate increase [Value of 
the exports from England to Pennsylvania at different periods. 
</p>
            <p> In 1723 they were £l5,992:l9:4 1730 
£48.592: 7: 5 1737         £56,690: 6: 7 1742 
£75,295: 3: 4 
</p>
            <p>In the year 1723 the first bills of credit were emitted 
in Pennsylvania to the value of £45,000. In 1728, part of the 
first emission being then sunk, 30,000 more were emitted. It 
appears from the account above that in seven years from 1723 to 
1730 the exports increased 32,599:8:1 sterling. In 1738, great 
part of the preceding emissions being then sunk, there was an 
emission and re-emission amounting in the whole to £80,000. In 
five years afterwards, it appears by the account above, the 
exports increased over £20,000 sterling. 
</p>
            <p>In later times when larger emissions have been made, the 
exports have proportionately increased. In 1755 £55,000 were 
emitted, and in 1756 £30,000. In 1757 the exports amounted to 
268,426:6:6. Afterwards our emissions were still greater, and in 
one year of the war, the exports rose to more than £700,000 
sterling. 
</p>
            <p>It is not pretended that the increase of our 
importations is <hi>solely</hi> owing to the emissions of paper money; 
but it is thought to be a very great cause of that increase. It 
is undoubtedly owing in part to the increase of people by 
propagation and the influx of foreigners. But such <hi>great</hi> and 
<hi>sudden</hi> increases as have been mentioned in the short space of 
seven or five years, from 1723 to 1730 and from 1737 to 1742, 
could not in any great degree proceed from the increase by 
propagation; and at that time I think foreigners did not flow in 
upon us in such numbers as they since have done. In the war 
large sums were brought among us for the maintenance of the 
fleets and armies, it is true; but that our currency was then of 
great utility is evident, because when the greatest quantity of 
is was passing, bills of exchange were lower than they were for 
a long time before, or have been since. 
</p>
            <p>It may be objected that the complaint of the scarcity of 
money in America, particularly in this province, cannot be well 
founded, as we have lately had such large emissions. I am very 
sensible how liable persons are to errors in questions of this 
nature, and therefore I think myself obliged to speak with 
diffidence on the subject. Perhaps the following observations 
may in some measure answer the objection. 1st. About one half of 
the emissions is sunk. 2nd. A very great part of the bills now 
circulating are passing in the neighboring provinces. 3dly. Our 
gold and silver are sent to Great Britain, so that but small 
quantities thereof are now current among us—and therefore we 
must almost entirely rely on our paper for the medium of 
domestic commerce. Lastly, it does not seem probable that we 
should have heard such great complaints of the scarcity of money 
if the extreme restrictions of our commerce had not so generally 
prevented our usual methods of acquiring it.] of our 
importations showed how advantageous they were <hi>to</hi> Great 
Britain. If any inconveniences were feared from this kind of 
currency, means might have been found to prevent them without 
utterly abolishing it; but now the apprehension of mischiefs 
that might have been more easily obviated has deprived us of 
real benefits. 
</p>
            <p>Perhaps no mode could be devised more advantageous to 
the public, or to individuals, than our method of emitting bills 
in this province for our own use. They are lent out upon good 
security, chiefly real, at the interest of <hi>five per cent.</hi> The 
borrowers are allowed a long term for payment, and the sums 
borrowed being divided into equal portions, they are obliged to 
pay one of these, with the interest of the whole, every year 
during the term. This renders the payments very easy; and as no 
person is permitted to borrow a large sum, a great number are 
accommodated. The consequences of such regulations are 
obvious. These bills represent money in the same manner that 
money represents other things. As long therefore as the quantity 
is proportioned to the uses, these emissions have the same 
effects that the gradual introduction of additional sums of 
money would have. People of very small fortunes are enabled to 
purchase and cultivate land, which is of so much consequence in 
settling new countries, or to carry on some business that 
without such assistance they would be incapable of managing: 
for no private person would lend money on such favorable terms. 
From the borrowers the currency passes into other hands, 
increases consumption, raises the prices of commodities, 
quickens circulation, and communicating a vigor to all kinds of 
industry, returns in its course into the possession of the 
borrowers to repay them for that labor which it may properly 
be said to have produced. They deliver it, according to the 
original contracts, into the treasury, where the interest raises 
a fund, without the imposition of taxes, for the public use. 
</p>
            <p>While emissions are thus conducted with prudence, they 
may be compared to springs whose water an industrious and 
knowing farmer spreads in many meandering rivulets through his 
gardens and meadows, and after it has refreshed all the 
vegetable tribes it meets with and has set them a-growing, 
leads it into a reservoir where it answers some new purpose. 
</p>
            <p>If it could be possible to establish a currency 
throughout the colonies on some foundation of this kind, perhaps 
greater benefits might be derived from it than would be 
generally believed without the trial. 
</p>
            <p>With respect to the restrictions laid on our trade in 
foreign plantations, it has been alleged as a reason for them, 
“that our islands ought to be encouraged.” They ought to be; but 
should the interest of one colony be preferred to that of 
another? Should the welfare of millions be sacrificed to the 
magnificence of a few? If the exorbitant profits of one colony 
must arise from the depression of another, should not such 
injustice be redressed ? 
</p>
            <p>There is a vast difference to be made in calculating the 
gains of any particular branch of business to the <hi>public</hi> and 
to <hi>individuals.</hi> The advantages to the last may be small, and 
yet great to the first, or the reverse. The statutes made to 
restrain the trade of the continent in favor of the islands seem 
to tend rather towards promoting <hi>partial</hi> than <hi>general</hi>
interests, and it appears to me no paradox to say that the 
public would be a great gainer if estates there were so moderate 
that not a tenth part of the West India gentlemen that now sit 
in the House of Commons could obtain that frequently expensive 
honor. [A great advantage which the French have over the English 
in their sugar colonies is their agrarian <hi>law</hi>, whereby 
monopolists are prevented from engrossing too much land; so that 
the number of whites is greatly increased  the land improved, 
more commodities raised, the planters <hi>obliged to a more frugal 
way of living, and all things rendered cheaper.</hi> By these means 
Martinque can muster 16,000 fighting man, but Jamaica, which is 
near three times as large, only 4,000.” Tucker on trade.] 
[“The agents for New York, in their contest with the sugar 
colonies, affirmed that their winters being severe, obliged them 
to take off more of the woollen manufactures of the kingdom <hi>(for 
which they remitted gold and silver than all the islands (Jamaica 
excepted) put together;</hi> and which I believe has remained 
uncontradicted.” Beawes's Lex Merc. Red. 
</p>
            <p>It one province then exceeded all our West Indies except 
Jamaica, in this particular, what proportion would that single 
island bear NOW to <hi>all the rest of the continental colonists?</hi>
            </p>
            <p>The following account of the exports from ENGLAND to the 
northern colonies and to the West India islands will show they 
were nearly equal some time ago; that those to the northern 
colonies now vastly exceed, and are prodigiously increasing, 
while those to the islands have continued nearly the Same. 
<gap>
                  <desc>List of tables and figures</desc>
               </gap>
            </p>
            <p>The difference between the employment afforded to the 
manufacturers of England by the northern colonies and by the 
West India islands is still greater than it may appear to be 
from the first view of the preceding account, for a much greater 
quantity of East India goods is exported to the last than to the 
first; and the English manufactures consumed by them generally 
derive their value from the richness of the materials, many of 
which are brought from foreign countries, but those we consume 
chiefly derive their value from the work bestowed upon them.] 
</p>
            <p>It is allowed by those well acquainted with the islands 
that they cannot supply Great Britain and these colonies with 
sugar and other articles, and that they can by no means consume 
the productions of these colonies; yet in favor to them we are 
almost entirely prevented from sending these productions to any 
other markets. [It is recited in the 6th of Geo. 1I c. I3, now 
made perpetual, “that the sugar colonies could not carry on 
their trade ON AN EQUAL footing with the foreign sugar colonies 
without some <hi>advantage</hi> and relief given to them by Great 
Britain.” That <hi>advantage</hi> GIVEN by Great Britain was to compel 
the continental colonies to take their productions at any price 
they please to ask. In short, to grant them a MONOPOLY for 
sugars. This was taking from one indeed to give to <hi>another,</hi>
but goes not to the root of the evil, as the next preceding note 
evidently shows. For if Great Britain should sacrifice her own 
interests and those of her continental colonies still more, <hi>if 
it be possible,</hi> to the interest of these islanders, <hi>they never 
will</hi> “carry on their trade ON AN EQUAL FOOTING with the foreign 
sugar colonies” until there is the same moderation in their 
estates and the same frugality in their living. By a very 
singular disposition of affairs the colonists of an <hi>absolute 
monarchy</hi> are settled on a <hi>republican principle,</hi> while those 
of a kingdom in many respects <hi>resembling a commonwealth</hi> are 
cantoned out among <hi>a few lords</hi> vested with despotic power over 
<hi>myriads of vassals and</hi> supported in the pomp of <hi>bassas</hi> by 
their slavery.] Hence it follows that we are frequently obliged 
to sell our commodities to them as so low a price as not to pay 
the first cost and freight, while we, being in a manner 
prohibited from getting the West Indies productions for which we 
have occasion anywhere else but from them, must pay 
extravagantly for them. 
</p>
            <p>Nor is this management attended, as it is presumed, with 
any benefit to the mother country, but with a disadvantage, 
either where the productions of the foreign plantations are 
consumed among us or re-exported to Europe. By the compulsion 
on us to take from our islands, the price of their productions 
is raise on the people of Great Britain. The revenue would be 
increased by this restriction being taken off, as we should 
willingly pay a moderate duty upon importations from the French 
and Spaniards without attempting to run them, while a very 
considerable duty would be paid on the sugars [The restriction 
on the trade of the colonies to foreign plantations for molasses 
is particularly grievous and impolitic as the molasses brought 
from thence was distilled for the fisheries, the Indian and 
Guinea trades, the profit of which centered in Great Britain. It 
is said our vessels now have spirituous liquors on the coast of 
Guinea from the Dutch.] of our islands, which, instead of coming 
to us, would then go to Great Britain. Besides, whatever 
extraordinary price we pay for the productions of our own 
islands must lessen our demand for  British manufactures, since 
it is an undeniable [This cannot he disputed by any one who is 
acquainted with America. This increase of a man's wealth there 
shows itself in a great consumption of British manufactures of 
all kinds. This reasoning in favor of the continental colonies 
trade with foreign plantations is confirmed by what Sir Josiah 
Child mentions of New England. He says, “England loses by the 
unlimited bade of this colony to other foreign plantations but 
gains by her direct trade to Old England, from whence she 
exports manufactures to ten times the value of her imports.” 
(See the note to page 4.) What was it then that enabled New 
England to pay ten times the value of her imports to England but 
the profit of her trade to foreign plantations? This appears 
to be a direct authority in support of the arguments hereafter 
used. It seems therefore that Great Britain of late through too 
great eagerness to gather golden fruits, has shaken the tree 
before they were full grown. With a little patience they would 
ripen and then of themselves drop into her lap. 
</p>
            <p>“The inhabitants of our colonies, by carrying on a trade 
with their <hi>foreign neighbors,</hi> do not only occasion <hi>a greater 
quantity of the goods and merchandises of Europe being sent from 
hence to them,</hi> and a greater quantity of the product of 
<hi>America to</hi> be sent from them hither, <hi>which would otherwise be 
carried from and brought to Europe by foreigners,</hi> but an 
increase of the seamen and navigation in those parts, which is 
of great strength and security as well as of great advantage to 
our plantations in general And though <hi>some of our colonies</hi> are 
not only for preventing the <hi>importation of all goods of the 
same species they produce</hi> but suffer particular planters to 
<hi>keep great runs of land in their possession uncultivated </hi>with 
design to prevent new settlements, whereby they imagine the 
prices of their commodities may be affected, yet if it be 
considered that the markets of Great Britain depend on the 
markets of ALL Europe <hi>in general,</hi> and that the European 
markets <hi>in general</hi> depend on the proportion between the 
<hi>annual consumption</hi> and the <hi>whole quantity</hi> of each species 
<hi>annually produced</hi> by ALL <hi>nations</hi>, it must follow that 
whether we or foreigners are the producers, <hi>carriers</hi>, 
importers, and exporters of American produce, yet their 
respective prices in <hi>each colony</hi> (the difference of freight, 
customs, and importations considered) will always bear 
proportion to the <hi>general consumption</hi> of the <hi>whole 
quantity</hi> of each sort <hi>produced in all colonies</hi> and 
<hi>in all parts,</hi> allowing only for the usual contingencies 
that trade and commerce, agriculture and manufactures are liable 
to in all countries.” Postlethwayt's Univ. Dict. of Trade and 
Commerce.] truth that what we should save in that way would be 
chiefly spent in this. It may also justly be added that our commerce 
with the foreign plantations carries to them very considerable 
quantities of British manufactures for their consumption. 
</p>
            <p>If our importations from them should be re-exported to 
Europe, the profits could center in Great Britain according to 
the usual course of our trade. The statute passed in the 
twenty-fifth year of Charles the Second indeed mentions this 
practice as injurious. It might be so, if regarded without its 
attendant circumstances; but if <hi>they</hi> are taken into view, and 
it be considered that if <hi>we</hi> do not carry these productions to 
Europe <hi>foreigners will,</hi> no mischief seems likely to ensue from 
our becoming the carriers. 
</p>
            <p>The restriction also with regard to our iron is thought 
particularly severe. Whenever we can get a better price in Great 
Britain than elsewhere, it is unnecessary; whenever we can get 
a better price in other places, it is prejudical. [If Great 
Britain really takes of from Sweden iron to the value of 
£200,000, according, to the calculation that has been made, yet 
she does not lose all that sum. Not to insist on the merely 
political advantage of having a commerce with that <hi>Protestant 
kingdom,</hi> which by being beneficial to her may more firmly 
attach her to our interest, it may be observe that the trade of 
Great Britain to Sweden, it is for iron in the gross, which is 
afterwards worked up, and large quantities of it re-exported: 
so that money may thereby be brought into the kingdom, and a 
great number of hands is employed. There is a vast difference 
between this trade and that to France, from whence the 
importations into Great Britain are merely for consumption, 
without affording any employment to her people or any profit by 
re-exportation. Besides, if the colonies can get more by 
carrying their iron to foreign ports than to Great Britain (and 
if they cannot, there is no occasion of a law to compel them to 
carry it to Great Britain) they will be more able to make larger 
demands of British manufactures, so that Great Britain will gain 
the profits of our iron, to make up her loss by what she takes 
from Sweden.]  Cargoes composed of this metal, provisions, and 
lumber, have been found to answer very well at the Portuguese 
and some other markets; and as the last articles are frequently 
very low and our foreign trade is reduced to so few commodities, 
the taking away any one of them must be hurtful to us. Indeed, 
to require us to send all our iron to Great Britain is, in the 
opinion of some of our most judicious merchants, to require an 
impossibility. For us this article is so heavy and such small 
quantities can be sent in one vessel, they assert that we cannot 
find freight directly home for one half of it. 
</p>
            <p>Besides the circumstances already mentioned to prove the 
injurious consequences of the late restrictions, there is 
another, which has great force in persuading me that our trade 
ought by all means to be more encouraged and extended at this 
time than was formerly necessary. Our settlements then only 
comprehended a narrow strip along the shore of the ocean; they 
were less populous, and their distance from the seaport being 
small, they were supplied with everything they wanted from 
thence without any length of inland carriage. But now we have 
penetrated boundless forests, have passed over immense 
mountains, and are daily pushing further and further into the 
wilderness, the inhabitants of these remote regions must of 
necessity hold very little intercourse with those which are near 
the sea, unless a very extensive commerce shall enable these 
to supply them with such quantities of foreign commodities as 
they want, and at such prices as they can afford to pay. [It is 
apprehended, that if the greatest part of the commodities 
demanded by the back country should not be British but West 
Indian, yet it must be beneficial to Great Britain to promote 
this trade by all means. For if the country nearer the sea grows 
rich by supplying them with the productions of the West Indies, 
these will certainly consume greater quantities of British 
manufactures.] Every restriction on our trade seems to be a 
restriction on this intercourse and must gradually cut off the 
connection of the interior parts with the maritime and the 
mother country. 
</p>
            <p>But it is unnecessary to endeavor to prove by reasoning on 
these things that we <hi>shall suffer,</hi> for we <hi>already 
suffer.</hi> Trade is decaying, and all credit is expiring. Money 
is become so extremely scarce that reputable freeholders find it 
impossible to pay debts which are trifling in comparison to 
their estates. [It is said that in Virginia the sheriffs, 
instead of raising the annual levies, have been obliged to make 
returns into the treasury of effects which they have taken in 
execution but could not sell, as there were no bidders for ready 
money.]  If creditors sue and take out executions, the lands and 
personal estate, as the sale must be for ready money, are sold 
for a small part of what they were worth when the debts were 
contracted. The debtors are ruined. The creditors get but part 
of their debts, and that ruins them. Thus the consumers break 
the shopkeepers; they break the merchants; and the shock must be 
felt as far as London. Fortunate indeed is the man who can get 
satisfaction <hi>in money</hi> for any part of his debt in some 
counties; for in many instances, after lands and goods have been 
repeatedly advertised in the public gazettes and exposed to 
sale, not a buyer appears. 
</p>
            <p>By these means multitudes are already ruined, and the 
estates of others are melting away in the same manner. It must 
strike any one with great surprise and concern to hear of the 
number of debtors discharged every court by our insolvent act. 
Though our courts are held every quarter, yet at the last term 
for the county of Philadelphia alone no less than thirty-five 
persons applied for the benefit of that act. If it be considered 
that this law extends only to those who do not owe any single 
debt above 150 pounds, that many are daily released by the 
lenity of their creditors, and that many more remove without 
their knowledge, it will not be difficult to form a judgment of 
the condition to which the people arc reduced. 
</p>
            <p>If these effects are produced already, what can we 
expect when the same cause shall have operated longer? What can 
we expect when the exhausted colonies shall feel the STAMP ACT 
drawing off, as it were, the last drops of their blood? From 
whence is the silver to come with which the taxes imposed by 
this act and the duties imposed by other late acts are to be 
paid? Or how will our <hi>merchants</hi> and the <hi>lower ranks of 
people,</hi> on whom the force of these regulations will fall first 
and with the greatest violence, bear this additional load ? 
</p>
            <p>These last are to be considered in a very different 
light from those of the same classes in Great Britain. There the 
nature of their employments and the plenty of money gives them 
very little occasion to make contracts in writing; but <hi>here</hi>
they are continually making them, and are obliged to do so. The 
STAMP ACT, therefore, will be severely felt by <hi>these</hi>, in whose 
welfare the prosperity of a state is always so much interested; 
and transfers of property that ought, in new countries 
particularly, to be made as easy as possible will be much 
discouraged. [In the present scarcity of money, the sellers of 
lands, Negroes, etc., etc., always insist on having part of the 
purchase money in hand. The buyers, unless they happen to be 
rich men, find it impossible to comply with this term unless 
they borrow money, which cannot now be done but in very small 
parcels from different persons. Each of these must have a bond; 
and each of those bonds must pay a stamp duty of one shilling 
sterling, if the sum be above ten pounds and under twenty—and 
if above twenty pounds and under forty, one shilling and six 
pence sterling—besides a duty on the original contract.] From 
the necessity they are under of making contracts to <hi>be executed 
afterwards</hi> the lower ranks of people here are frequently 
engaged in law suits; and as the law is already a very heavy tax 
on the subject in all parts of the British dominions, this act 
will render it destructive here; for the necessaries, the 
follies, and the passions of mankind will not suffer them to 
cease from harassing one another in that way. 
</p>
            <p>Neither are the merchants here by any means able to bear 
taxes as they do at home. A very great number of them there put 
such stocks into trade as would be thought large fortunes among 
us; and our merchants would think themselves very happy to leave 
off business with such estates as the others begin with. I speak 
of the merchants in general, for we have on the continent 
individuals who are rich, but their number is too inconsiderable 
to deserve any notice on this occasion. Besides, the interest 
of money being lower at home than it is here, those who trade on 
borrowed stocks can do it to much greater advantage there than 
we can. Indeed, among us it is almost impossible to get money to 
trade upon at any rate. How unequal, under the present 
disadvantages, a merchant's commerce will be to the payment of 
all the taxes imposed by the STAMP ACT on his policies, fees 
with clerks, charter parties, protests, his other notarial acts, 
his letters, and even his advertisements, experience, I am 
afraid, will unhappily prove. 
</p>
            <p>Thus I apprehend that this act will be extremely heavy 
on those who are least able to bear it; and if our merchants and 
people of little substance languish under it, all others must 
be affected. Our mode of taxation hath always been by making 
as exact an estimate as could be formed of each man's estate; by 
which means our taxes have been proportional to the abilities of 
those who were to pay them. Few persons are employed in the 
collection of them; their allowance is very moderate, and 
therefore the expense is small. No excessive penalties, no 
tribes of informers, no dreadful and detestable courts are 
necessary. This I imagine is the mode of taxation which in young 
colonies will be found to be least oppressive and destructive, 
and certainly the most equal. But by the STAMP ACT, the wealthy, 
[If a rich man buys land, it is generally from the distressed, 
and therefore the seller's situation will oblige him to pay for 
the deed, when the other insists on it; and when a man borrows 
money, everybody knows who pays for the bonds and mortgages.] , 
who have money to let out at interest or to make purchases and 
undoubtedly ought to pay the most towards the public charges, 
will escape these taxes, while the whole weight of them will 
fall on the necessitous and industrious, who most of all require 
relief and encouragement. 
</p>
            <p>But it may be said, “that the merchants will not be 
affected by these taxes because they will raise the prices of 
their goods in proportion, and that at length <hi>all taxes must 
arise from lands.”</hi>
            </p>
            <p>This rule seems more applicable to very populous and 
rich countries where the manufacturers and landholders, through 
necessity or the force of fashions, have pressing demands upon 
the merchants, than to such a country as this, where a great 
majority of the people live on their lands in a very plain way. 
For by practising a strict frugality and industry, <hi>we</hi> may 
render ourselves more independent of the merchants than the 
circumstances of more populous and wealthy states will permit 
the other classes of their people to be. The high prices, 
therefore, which our merchants impose upon their goods will 
discourage the sale of them, and consequently they must “be 
affected by the taxes,” which oblige them to raise the prices in 
this manner. 
</p>
            <p>However, granting that all taxes must arise from lands, 
it follows that where the profits of the lands are small they 
can bear but small taxes. The more labor is bestowed on them, 
the greater the profits <hi>will</hi> be, and the taxes may <hi>be</hi>. In 
old populous countries there is an opportunity of bestowing this 
labor, and the manner of doing it is well understood. Thus in 
England the profits of land are so great as to support a very 
large number of nobility and gentry in splendour, and to afford 
means of raising taxes to an amazing amount. Nor are the workers 
of the land unrewarded, for the farmers have such long leases 
and other encouragements that they thrive and live comfortably, 
and many of them are very wealthy. 
</p>
            <p>How different is the case in America. The inhabitants 
being scattered thin through the country and laborers being very 
scarce, they think themselves fortunate if they can clear their 
land, fence it, and anyhow put their grain into the ground in 
season. Manuring or improving soils is not known, [Further, it 
may be observed that our lands are not sufficiently cultivated, 
even where they are capable of great improvement. Hence large 
tracts serve only to maintain a small number of people. If we 
ask, why our lands (meaning in Scotland) are so ill cultivated, 
besides the OBVIOUS CAUSES arising from the POVERTY and 
UNSKILLFULNESS of many of our farmers, the SHORTNESS OF THEIR 
LEASES, and other things which will occur upon the least 
reflection, it is not a little owing to a want of inclination 
for agriculture, etc.” Dissertation on the Numbers of Mankind.] 
except in some small closes near cities; but everyone must be 
content with what his land will yield of itself. With this it 
must be considered that at least four fifths of the people in 
America live upon farms either of their own or rented, and spend 
their small profits in maintaining their families; and it 
frequently happens from the length and severity of our winters 
that the whole produce of a man's farm is not sufficient to 
maintain his family and stock. [Small as the value of our land 
is, it is still daily decreasing, by the number of markets for 
their produce being lessened; which must in time give the people 
an inclination to try what they can make by manufactures. 
</p>
            <p>The <hi>riches</hi> of a people are always in proportion to the 
number of hands employed in works of SKILL and LABOR. Where 
these are few, there can be but little wealth; and where there 
is little wealth, but very small taxes can be borne.] 
</p>
            <p>We are informed, that an opinion has been industriously 
propagated in Great Britain that the colonies are wallowing in 
wealth and luxury [“It is certain that from the very time Sir 
Walter Raleigh, the father of our English colonies, and his 
associates first projected these establishments, there have been 
persons who have found an interest in <hi>misrepresenting</hi> or 
lessening the value of them. The attempts were called chimerical 
and dangerous. Afterwards many malignant suggestions were made 
about sacrificing so many Englishmen to the obstinate desire of 
settling colonies in countries which then produced very little 
advantage. But as these difficulties were gradually surmounted, 
those complaints vanished. No sooner were <hi>these lamentations</hi>
over but <hi>others</hi> arose in their stead; when it could no longer 
be said that the colonies were <hi>useless,</hi> it was alleged that 
they were not <hi>useful enough</hi> to their mother country; that 
while we were loaded with taxes, they were absolutely free; that 
the <hi>planters</hi> lived like princes, while the inhabitants of 
England labored hard for a tolerable subsistence. This produced 
customs and impositions which, if grievous to the plantations, 
must turn to our disadvantage as well as theirs, and 
consequently become detrimental to both.” Postlethwayt's Univ. 
Dict. of Trade and Commerce. 
</p>
            <p>In pursuance of this design to bring down the pride of 
these PRINCELY PLANTERS, such heavy impositions were laid in 
Great Britain on tobacco that the inhabitants of Maryland and 
Virginia over discouraged from raising it. Then the mother 
country FELT her error, and these PRINCES were found to be very 
poor people. The same <hi>unhappy spirit is now</hi> producing the same 
mistake. There wants but a very little more weight upon Maryland 
and Virginia to prevent their raising tobacco, and so make them 
and all their sister colonies sink under their multiplied 
burthens.] while she is laboring under an enormous load of debt. 
Never was there a greater mistake. This opinion has arisen from 
slight observations made in our cities during the late war, when 
large sums of money were spent here in support of fleets and 
armies. Our productions were then in great demand, and trade 
flourished. Having a number of strangers among us, the people, 
naturally not ungenerous or inhospitable, indulged themselves in 
many uncommon expenses. But the cause of this gaiety has ceased, 
and all the effect remaining is that we are to be treated as a 
rich people when we are really poor. Tully mentions a man who 
lost an honourable office by the homely entertainment he gave 
the people of Rome when he could have afforded a better; but we 
have lost vastly more by the imprudent excess of kindness with 
which we have treated the people of Great Britain who have come 
among us, at an expense that did not suit our fortunes. 
</p>
            <p>To all the disadvantages that have been mentioned, it 
must he added that our markets are much more precarious than 
those at home. It is computed that one half of the people there 
live in cities, and consequently there must he a perpetual 
domestic demand for the productions of the earth; and foreign 
markets are not far distant for the overplus. Here the quantity 
sold for consumption among us is small, and most of the foreign 
markets are very remote. 
</p>
            <p>These reasons induce me to think that the colonies, 
unless some fortunate event, not to be expected, should 
happen, cannot bear the restrictions and taxations laid upon 
them by the mother country without suffering very severely. What 
then can we do? Which way shall we turn ourselves? How may we 
mitigate the miseries of our country? Great Britain gives us an 
example to guide us. SHE TEACHES US TO MAKE A DISTINCTION 
BETWEEN HER INTERESTS AND OUR OWN. Teaches! She requires— 
commands—insists upon 
it—threatens—compels—and even 
distresses us into it. 
</p>
            <p>We have our choice of these two things—to continue our 
present limited and disadvantageous commerce—or to promote 
manufactures among ourselves, with a habit of economy, and 
thereby remove the necessity we are now under of being 
supplied by Great Britain. 
</p>
            <p>It is not difficult to determine which of these things 
is most eligible. Could the last of them be only so far executed 
as to bring our demand for British manufactures below the 
profits of our foreign trade, and the amount of our commodities 
immediately remitted home, these colonies might revive and 
flourish. States and families are enriched by the same means; 
that is, by being so industrious and frugal as to spend less 
than what they raise can pay for. 
</p>
            <p>We have examples in this province, which, if imitated by 
others, must unavoidably produce the most happy effects for us: 
I mean the example of the industrious, frugal, honest Germans. 
Their lands are as well cultivated as they can be in this new 
country, and they have the good sense to require very little 
provisions and clothes more than they can get from their own 
farms and make with their own hands. If we only consider for a 
moment the consequences of such a conduct, should it he general, 
must be convinced it must produce commerce, since all 
superfluities would be exported, and the owners having few 
demands in return, <hi>that commerce</hi> would of course produce 
wealth. 
</p>
            <p>Indeed we shall be compelled, I apprehend, generally to 
imitate these examples. The late regulations and our constant 
remittances to Great Britain have extremely lessened the 
quantity of money among us, ant yet these remittances are not 
sufficient to pay for those things we want from home. Necessity 
will teach us two ways to relieve ourselves. The one is to keep 
the British manufactures we purchase longer in use for we than 
we have been accustomed to do. The other is to supply their 
place by manufactures of our own. I don't suppose our 
difficulties will <hi>immediately</hi> produce expert artists among us; 
but as the inhabitants he generally reside on their lands and 
live in a plain rustic way, the will be able to supply 
themselves with many articles. Some author, and I think Keysler, 
says that in Switzerland every family has all the trade in it 
that are necessary for its use. Their work is not, it may be 
presume at all in the taste of London or Paris, but it serves 
their purpose; and the coarse clothes and simple furniture 
enable them to live in plenty, and defend their liberty. 
Something of this kind will be, nay, already is, practiced by 
us. It is surprising to see the linen and cloth that have been 
lately made among us. Many gentlemen in this city dress now in 
suits produced, manufactured, and made up in this province. The 
cloth not equal in fineness to the best broadcloth, but it is 
warm, strong, are not very homely; and when the British workmen 
understand that the may meet with better encouragement here than 
they do at home, I believe in a few years we shall have very 
different kinds of cloth among us from these we now make. 
Instances are not wanting to justify the most sanguine 
expectations on this head. Spain used formerly to be entirely 
supplied with cloths from England; but in the reigns only of 
their two last kings, Philip the Fifth and Ferdinand the Sixth, 
their manufacturs have been improved to such a degree, even by 
that proud and indolent people, that this commerce has entirely 
ceased in most parts of that kingdom. The same thing has 
happened in France, notwithstanding the destructive wars in 
which she has been continually involved. Switzerland some time 
ago spent large sums of money in foreign commodities; but now 
they make excellent cloths and good silks, though the scheme at 
first labored under very great difficulties. The country used 
also to be supplied by Savoy with wine; but the duke laying a 
duty upon it, the Switzers remonstrated; but in vain. At last 
some of the principal men promoted the cultivation of vines, 
though their predecessors had never planted any. The result 
exceeded their hopes. “The demand for the Savoyard wine daily 
decreased, and instead of the precarious advantage arising 
from this <hi>impolitic duty,</hi> the certain revenue was 
<hi>irretrievably lost,</hi> and the industrious subject deprived of 
the benefit of his labor.” 
</p>
            <p>“Before the settlement of these colonies,” says 
Postlethwayt, “our manufactures were few, and those but 
indifferent. In those days we had not only our naval stores, but 
our ships from our neighbors. Germany furnished us with all 
things made of metal, even to nails. Wine, paper, linens, and a 
thousand other things came from France. Portugal supplied us 
with sugar; all the products of America were poured into us from 
Spain; and the Venetians and Genoese retailed to us the 
commodities of the East Indies at their own price.” 
</p>
            <p>The astonishing alterations in all these particulars are 
too well known to need enumeration. 
</p>
            <p>These instances, and many others that might be 
mentioned, may convince us that nothing is too difficult for 
men to effect whose hearts are filled with a generous love of 
their Country; and they may convince the world of the dangers 
that attend provoking innovations in commerce. A branch of trade 
once lost is lost for ever. In short, so strong a spirit is 
raised in these colonies by late measures' and such successful 
efforts are already made among us that it cannot be doubted that 
before the end of this century the modern regulations will teach 
America that she has resources within herself of which she never 
otherwise would have thought. Individuals, perhaps, may find 
their benefit in opposing her use of these resources; but I hope 
very, very few will wish to receive benefits by such means. The 
man who would promote his own interests by injuring his country 
is unworthy of the blessings of society. 
</p>
            <p>It has hitherto been thought by the people of Great 
Britain, and I hope it will still be thought, that sufficient 
advantages are derived by her from the colonies without laying 
taxes upon them. To represent them as an “expensive appendage of 
the British Empire that can no other way repay the trouble and 
treasure they cost her” is certainly one of the greatest 
errors; and to spend much time in refuting this notion would be 
unnecessary. Every advantage accruing to the colonies by their 
connection with the mother country is <hi>amply—dearly—</hi>
paid for by the benefits derived to her from them and by the 
restrictions of their commerce. These benefits have been allowed 
by the best writers to be immense, and consist [Chiefly; even 
the supplying her with naval stores, etc., being inconsiderable 
when compared with the other advantages.] in the various 
employment and the support they afford her people. If the 
colonies enable <hi>her</hi> to pay taxes, is it not as useful to her 
as if <hi>they</hi> paid them? Or, indeed, may not the colonies with 
the strictest propriety be said to pay a great part of those 
taxes when they consume the British manufactures loaded with the 
advanced prices occasioned by such taxes? [If it be asked, 
whether foreigners, for what goods they take of us, do not pay 
on <hi>that consumption</hi> a great portion of our taxes, it is 
admitted they do.” Postlethwayt's Great Britain's True System. 
</p>
            <p>By the consumption of British manufactures in America, 
we pay a heavier tax to Great Britain than if they were consumed 
at home. For in the bringing them here a vast number of 
merchants, factors, brokers, and seamen are employed, every one 
of which must have such a profit as will enable him to support 
himself and his family, if he has any, in a country where 
everything is dear by reason of the high taxes. 
</p>
            <p>So far was the Parliament from thinking in the last war 
that any further taxes should be laid on the colonies, so 
convinced indeed were they that we had exceeded our abilities in 
the supplies we gave to the crown, that several sums of money 
were granted to us as indemnifications for the too heavy 
expenses in which we held involved ourselves. 
</p>
            <p>The sums thus given paid part of our debts, but we are 
still laboring under the remainder.] Or, further, as the 
colonies are compelled to take those manufactures thus loaded 
when they might furnish themselves so much cheaper from other 
countries, may not the difference between these prices be called 
an <hi>enormous tax</hi> paid by them to Great Britain? May they not 
also be said to pay <hi>an enormous tax</hi> to her by being compelled 
to carry their most valuable productions to <hi>her alone</hi> and to 
receive what she pleases to give for them when they might sell 
them at other markets to much greater advantage? Lastly, may 
they not be said to pay a heavy tax to her in being prohibited 
from carrying on such manufactures as they could have employed 
themselves in with advantage, and thus being obliged to resort 
to her for those things with which they might supply themselves? 
If these things are true, and can they be denied! may not the 
mother country more justly be called <hi>expensive</hi> to her colonies 
than they can be called <hi>expensive</hi> to her? 
</p>
            <p>What would France give for such <hi>extensive</hi> dominions? 
Would she refuse the empire of North America unless the 
inhabitants would submit to any taxes she should please to 
impose? Or would she not rather afford them her utmost 
protection, if ever they should be wretched enough to require 
it, for one half of the emoluments Great Britain receives from 
them? In short, the amazing increase of the wealth and strength 
of this kingdom since the reign of Queen Elizabeth, in whose 
time the colonies began to be settled, appears to be a 
sufficient proof of their importance and therefore I think it 
may justly be said that THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE POWER AND GLORY 
OF GREAT BRITAIN ARE LAID IN AMERICA. 
</p>
            <p>When the advantages derived by the mother country from 
her colonies are so <hi>important</hi>  and <hi>evident</hi>, it is amazing 
that any persons should venture to assert “that she poured out 
her wealth and blood in the late war <hi>only for their defense and 
benefit,</hi> and that she cannot be recompensed for this expense 
and loss <hi>but by taxing them.”</hi>
            </p>
            <p>If any man who does not choose to spend much time in 
considering this subject would only read the speeches from the 
throne during that period, with the addresses in answer to them, 
he will soon be convinced <hi>for whose benefit</hi> Great Britain 
thought she was exerting herself. For my part, I should not now 
be surprised if those who maintain the above-mentioned 
assertions should contend that Great Britain ought to tax 
Portugal. For was not that kingdom “defended by the troops and 
treasure of Great Britain”? And how can she be “otherwise 
recompensed for this expense and loss”? If the protection of 
Portugal, though no taxes are received from thence, was 
beneficial to Great Britain, infinitely more so was the 
protection of the colonies. 
</p>
            <p>So far I must beg leave to dissent from these gentlemen 
that if the colonies by an increase of industry and frugality 
should become able to bear this taxation, it will, in my 
apprehension, notwithstanding be injurious to Great Britain. If 
the sum be trifling, it cannot be worth the discontent and 
unhappiness the taking it will produce among so many faithful 
subjects of His Majesty. If it be considerable, it must also be 
hurtful in another respect. 
</p>
            <p>It must be granted that it is not merely the bringing 
money into a nation that makes it wealthy, but the bringing 
money into it by the general industry of its inhabitants. A 
country may perpetually receive vast sums and yet be perpetually 
poor. It must also be granted that almost all the money acquired 
by the colonies in their other branches of trade is spent by 
them in Great Britain, and finds employment for her people. 
Whatever then lessens the sum so spent, must lessen that 
employment. This I think will be one consequence of the STAMP 
ACT: for our demand will be as much less for British 
manufactures as the amount of the sums raised by the taxes. So 
much the fewer British merchants, artists, seamen, and ships 
will be employed by us, and so much the more distressed at 
first, and afterwards so much the more frugal, ingenious, 
laborious, and independent will the colonists become. [Great 
Britain will not only lose in such case the annual amount of the 
taxes, but the people of America, establishing manufuctures 
through discontent, will <hi>in time</hi> entirely withdraw their 
intercourse with her. And therefore her loss of the whole 
American trade may be justly attributed to this inauspicious 
beginning.] 
</p>
            <p>It is evident from the concurrent testimony of her own 
most noted authors on this subject that Great Britain is sure of 
having our money at last; and it appears no difficult matter to 
determine whether it is better to take it in taxes or trade. 
Suppose the STAMP ACT, enforced by uncommon penalties and 
unheard-of jurisdictions, should pick up every piece of gold 
and silver that shall wander into the plantations, what would 
Great Britain gain by this measure? Or rather what would she not 
lose by attempting to advance her revenue by means so 
distressing to commerce? 
</p>
            <p>But if the late restrictions shall not prove 
<hi>profitable,</hi> perhaps they may by some be called <hi>prudent</hi> for 
another reason. We are informed that many persons at home affect 
to speak of the colonists as of a people designing and 
encleavoring to render themselves independent, and therefore it 
may be said to be proper as much as possible to depress them. 
This method for securing obedience has been tried by many 
powerful nations and seen to be the constant policy of 
commonwealths; but the attempt in almost every instance, from 
Athens down to Genoa, has been unsuccessful. Many states and 
kingdoms have lost their dominions by severity and an unjust 
jealousy. I remember none that have been lost by kindness and a 
generous confidence. Evils are frequently precipitated by 
imprudent attempts to prevent them. In short, we never can be 
made an independent people except it be by Great Britain 
herself;  and the only way for her to do it is to make us 
frugal, ingenious, united, and discontented. 
</p>
            <p>But if this event shall ever happen, which Providence I 
hope will never permit, it must when the present generation and 
the present set of sentiments are extinct. Late measures have 
indeed excited an universal and unexampled grief and indignation 
throughout the colonies. What man who wishes the welfare of 
America can view without pity, without passion, her restricted 
and almost stagnated trade, with its numerous train of evils— 
taxes torn from her without her consent—her legislative 
Assemblies, the principal pillars of her liberty, crushed into 
insignificance—a formidable force established in the midst of 
peace, to bleed her into obedience—the sacred right of trial 
by jury violated by the erection of arbitrary and 
unconstitutional jurisdictions—and general poverty, 
discontent, and despondence stretching themselves over his 
unoffending country? 
</p>
            <p>The reflections of the colonists on these melancholy 
subjects are not a little embittered by a firm persuasion that 
they never would have been treated as they are if Canada still 
continued in the hands of the French. Thus their hearts, glowing 
with every sentiment of duty and affection towards their mother 
country and expecting, not unreasonably perhaps, some mark of 
tenderness in return, are pierced by a fatal discovery that the 
vigorous assistance which they faithfully afforded her in 
extending her domains has only proved the glorious but 
destructive cause of the calamities they now deplore and resent. 
</p>
            <p>Yet still their resentment is but the resentment of 
dutiful children who have received unmerited blows from a 
beloved parent. Their obedience to Great Britain is secured by 
the best and strongest ties, those of affection, which alone 
can, and I hope will, form an everlasting union between her and 
her colonies. May no successes or suspicions ever tempt her to 
deviate from the natural generosity of her spirit. And may no 
dreadful revolution of sentiments ever teach them to fear her 
victories or to repine at her glories. 
</p>
            <p>I am, etc. 
</p>
         </div>
         <div xml:id="c2" type="chapter">
            <head>II — POSTSCRIPT</head>
            <p>I have omitted mentioning one thing that seems to be 
connected with the foregoing subject. 
</p>
            <p>With a vast expense of blood and wealth we fought our 
way in the late war up the doors of the Spanish treasuries, and 
by the possession of Florida, might obtain some recompense for 
that expense. Pensacola and the other ports in that country are 
convenient places where the Spaniards might meet us, and 
exchange their silver for the manufactures of Great Britain and 
the provisions of these colonies. By this means a commerce 
inconceivably beneficial to the British subjects might be 
carried on. This commerce the Spaniards wish and have endeavored 
to carry on. Many hundred thousand dollars have been brought by 
them to Pensacola to lay out there; but the men-of-war at that 
station have compelled them to take back their cargoes, <hi>the 
receipt of which,</hi> it may from thence be presumed, <hi>would be 
destructive to the interests of Great Britain.</hi> Thus we receive 
less advantage from Florida, now it belongs to us, than we did 
when it was possessed by our enemies; for then, by permission 
from the Spanish governors to trade there, we deprived 
considerable emoluments from our intercourse with them. 
</p>
            <p>Upon what reasons this conduct is founded is not easy to 
determine. Sure no one considers Florida in the same light with 
these colonies and thinks that no vessels should be permitted to 
trade there but British shipping. This would be to apply the 
acts of navigation to purposes directly opposite to the spirit 
of them. They were intended to preserve an intercourse between 
the mother country and her colonies, and thus to cultivate a 
<hi>mutual affection;</hi> to promote the interests of <hi>both</hi> by an 
exchange of <hi>their</hi> most valuable productions for <hi>her</hi>
manufactures, thereby to increase the shipping of both, and thus 
render them capable of affording aid to each other. Which of 
these purposes is answered by prohibiting a commerce that can be 
no other way carried on? That is, by forbidding the Spaniards to 
bring their wealth <hi>for us to</hi> Florida, which is an unhealthy 
sandbank held by a garrison at a great expense of money and a 
greater of lives, that cannot for ages, if ever it will, yield a 
single advantage to Great Britain but <hi>that</hi> she refuses to 
enjoy. 
</p>
         </div>
      </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
