<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
  <teiHeader>
      <fileDesc>
         <titleStmt>
            <title type="main">The sentiments of a British American</title>
            <author>Thacher, Oxenbridge, 1719-1765</author>
         </titleStmt>
         <publicationStmt>
            <authority xml:id="TRIJE1">deposited by<name type="person">Triggs, Jeffery</name>
               <address>
                  <addrLine>North American Reading Project</addrLine>
                  <addrLine>Oxford University Press (NY)</addrLine>
                  <addrLine>c/o Bellcore</addrLine>
                  <addrLine>
                     <name type="email">triggs@bellcore.com</name>
                  </addrLine>
               </address>
            </authority>
            <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/20.500.14106/3133</idno>
            <idno type="isbn10">110600132X</idno>
            <idno type="isbn13">9781106001320</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/2202"/>
            </bibl>
            <biblFull>
               <titleStmt>
                  <title>The sentiments of a British American</title>
                  <title level="m">Pamphlets of the American Revolution : 1750-1776</title>
                  <author>Thacher, Oxenbridge, 1719-1765</author>
                  <editor>Bailyn, Bernard</editor>
               </titleStmt>
               <publicationStmt>
                  <publisher>Belknap Press of Harvard University Press</publisher>
                  <pubPlace>Cambridge [MA]</pubPlace>
                  <date>1965</date>
               </publicationStmt>
               <seriesStmt>
                  <p>John Harvard library</p>
               </seriesStmt>
               <notesStmt>
                  <note>First published in 1764</note>
               </notesStmt>
            </biblFull>
         </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="1764"/>
         </creation>
         <langUsage>
            <language ident="eng">English</language>
         </langUsage>
         <textClass>
            <keywords scheme="#LCSH">
               <term type="genre">United States -- History -- Revolution, 1775-1783</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 Sentiments of a British American</title>
               </titlePart>
            </docTitle>
            <byline>by 
<docAuthor>Oxenbridge Thacher</docAuthor>
            </byline>
            <docImprint>from “Pamphlets of the American Revolution,” ed. by Bernard Bailyn</docImprint>
         </titlePage>
      </front>
      <body>
         <div type="main">
            <head>I — SENTIMENTS of a British American</head>
            <p>IT WELL becomes the wisdom of a great nation, having 
been highly successful in their foreign wars and added a large 
extent of country to their dominions, to consider with a 
critical attention their internal state lest their prosperity 
should destroy them. 
</p>
            <p>Great Britain at this day is arrived to an heighth of 
glory and wealth which no European nation hath ever reached 
since the decline of the Roman Empire. Everybody knows that it 
is not indebted to itself alone for this envied power: that its 
colonies, placed in a distant quarter of the earth, have had 
their share of efficiency in its late successes, as indeed they 
have also contributed to the advancing and increasing its 
grandeur from their very first beginnings. 
</p>
            <p>In the forming and settling, therefore, the internal 
polity of the kingdom, these have reason to expect that <hi>their</hi>
interest should be considered and attended to, that <hi>their</hi>
rights, if they have any, should be preserved to them, and that 
<hi>they</hi> should have no reason to complain that they have been 
lavish of their blood and treasure in the late war only to bind 
the shackles of slavery on themselves and their children. No 
people have been more wisely jealous of their liberties and 
privileges than the British nation.  It is observed by Vattel 
that “their present happy condition hath cost them seas of 
blood; but they have not purchased it too dear.” 
</p>
            <p>The colonies, making a part of this great empire, having 
the same British rights inherent in them as the inhabitants of 
the island itself, they cannot be disfranchised or wounded in 
their privileges but the whole body politic must in the end feel 
with them. 
</p>
            <p>The writer of this, being a native of an English colony, 
will take it for granted that the colonies are not the mere 
property of the mother state; that they have the same rights as 
other British subjects. He will also suppose that no design is 
formed to enslave them, and that the justice of the British 
Parliament will finally do right to every part of their 
dominions. 
</p>
            <p>These things presupposed, he intends to consider the 
late act made in the fourth year of his present Majesty entitled 
An Act for Granting Certain Duties in the British Colonies and 
Plantations in America, etc., to show the real subjects of 
grievance therein to the colonists, and that the interest of 
Great Britain itself may finally be greatly affected thereby. 
There is the more reason that this freedom should be indulged 
after the act is passed inasmuch as the colonies, though greatly 
interested therein, had no opportunity of being heard while it 
was pending. 
</p>
            <p>[1.] The first objection is that a tax is thereby laid 
on several commodities, to be raised and levied in the 
plantations, and to be remitted home to England. This is 
esteemed a grievance inasmuch as the same are laid without the 
consent of the representatives of the colonists. It is esteemed 
an essential British right that no person shall be subject to 
any tax but what in person or by his representative he hath a 
voice in laying. The British Parliament have many times 
vindicated this right against the attempts of Kings to invade 
it. And though perhaps it may be said that the House of Commons, 
in a large sense, are the representatives of the colonies as 
well as of the people of Great Britain, yet it is certain that 
these have no voice in their election. Nor can it be any 
alleviation of their unhappiness that if this right is taken 
from them, it is taken by that body who have been the great 
patrons and defenders of it in the people of Great Britain. 
</p>
            <p>Besides, the colonies have ever supported a subordinate 
government among themselves. 
</p>
            <p>Being placed at such a distance from the capital, it is 
absolutely impossible they should continue a part of the kingdom 
in the same sense as the corporations there are. For this 
reason, from their beginning there hath been a subordinate 
legislature among them subject to the control of the mother 
state; and from the necessity of the case there must have been 
such, their circumstances and situation being in many respects 
so different from that of the parent state they could not have 
subsisted without this. Now the colonies have always been taxed 
by their own representatives and in their respective 
legislatures, and have supported an entire domestic government 
among themselves. Is it just, then, they should be doubly taxed? 
That they should be obliged to bear the whole charges of their 
domestic government, and should be as subject to the taxes of 
the British Parliament as those who have no domestic government 
to support ? 
</p>
            <p>The reason given for this extraordinary taxation? 
namely, that this war was undertaken for the security of the 
colonies, and that they ought therefore to be taxed to pay the 
charge thereby incurred, it is humbly apprehended is without 
foundation. For 
</p>
            <p>(I) It was of no less consequence to Great Britain than 
it was to the colonies that these should not be overrun and 
conquered by the French. Suppose they had prevailed and gotten 
all the English colonies into their possession: how long would 
Great Britain have survived their fate! Put the case that the 
town of Portsmouth or any other seaport had been besieged and 
the like sums expended in its defense, could any have thought 
that town ought to be charged with the expense? 
</p>
            <p>(2) The colonies contributed their full proportion to 
those conquests which adorn and dignify the late and present 
reign. One of them in particular raised in one year seven 
thousand men to be commanded by His Majesty's general, besides 
maintaining many guards and garrisons on their own frontiers. 
All of them by their expenses and exertions in the late war have 
incurred heavy debts, which it will take them many years to pay. 
</p>
            <p>(3) The colonies are no particular gainers by these 
acquisitions. None of the conquered territory is annexed to 
them. All are acquisitions accruing to the crown. On account of 
their <hi>commerce</hi>, they are no gainers: the northern colonies are 
even <hi>sufferers</hi> by these cessions. [I desire this may not be 
misunderstood. In this view I suppose them sufferers, namely 
that as the West Indies were not large enough to take off the 
produce the northern colonies could export to them before the 
conquest of Canada, now [that] that country is added it makes 
the disproportional much greate].  It is true they have more 
security from having their throats cut by the French while the 
peace lasts; but so have also all His Majesty's subjects. 
</p>
            <p>(4) Great Britain gaineth immensely by these 
acquisitions. The command of the whole American fur trade and 
the increased demand for their woolen manufactures from their 
numerous new subjects in a country too cold to keep sheep: these 
are such immense gains as in a commercial light would refund the 
kingdom, if every farthing of the expense of reducing Canada 
were paid out of the exchequer. 
</p>
            <p>But to say the truth, it is not only by the taxation 
itself that the colonists deem themselves aggrieved by the act 
we are considering. For— 
</p>
            <p>II. The power therein given to courts of admiralty 
alarms them greatly. The common law is the birthright of every 
subject, and trial by jury a most de planted. Many struggles had 
they with courts of admiralty, which, like the element they take 
theirarling privilege. So deemed our ancestors in ancient times, 
long before the colonies were begun to be planted . Many 
struggles had they with their copurts of admiralty, which, like 
the element they take their name from, have divers times 
attempted to innundate the land. Hence the statutes of Richard 
II, of Henry IV, and divers other public acts. Hence the 
watchful eye the reverend sages of the common law have kept over 
these courts. —Now by the act we are considering, the colonists 
are deprived of these privileges: of the common law, for these 
judges are supposed to be connusant only of the civil law; of 
juries, for all here is put in the breast of one man. He judges 
both law and fact, and his decree is final; at least it cannot 
be reversed on this side the Atlantic. In this particular the 
colonists are put under a quite different law from all the rest 
of the King's subjects: jurisdiction is nowhere else given to 
courts of admiralty of matters so foreign from their connusance. 
In some things the colonists have been long subject to this 
cruel yoke, and have indeed fully experienced its galling 
nature. Loud complaints have been long made by them of the 
oppressions of these courts, their exhorbitant fees, and the 
little justice the subject may expect from them in cases of 
seizures. Let me mention one thing that is notorious: these 
courts have assumed (I know not by what law) a commission of 
five per cent to the judge on all seizures condemned. What 
chance does the subject stand for his right upon the best claim 
when the judge, condemning, is to have an hundred or perhaps 
five hundred pounds, and acquitting, less than twenty shillings? 
If the colonists should be thought partial witnesses in this 
case, let those of the inhabitants of Great Britain who have had 
the misfortune to be suitors or to have any business in these 
dreadful courts be inquired of. 
</p>
            <p>There have been times when the legislature of Great 
Britain appeared to be as sensible of the bad conduct of these 
courts as we are now. I Mean when the statute of 6 Anne c. 37 
and some later ones to the same purpose were made, wherein the 
remedy they have given is as extraordinary as the power given 
those courts. For in those statutes the judge of admiralty is 
subjected to a penalty of five hundred pounds, to be recovered 
by the aggrieved suitor at common law. These only refer to cases 
of prizes, and give no remedy in cases of seizures, where their 
power is not only decisive but in many respects uncontrollable. 
Meantime, can the colonists help wondering and grieving that the 
British legislature should vest with such high powers <hi>over 
them</hi> courts in whom they appear to have so little confidence? 
</p>
            <p>But in the act we are considering, the power of these 
courts is even much enlarged and made still more grievous. For 
it is thereby enacted that the seizor may inform in any court of 
admiralty for the particular colony, or in any court of 
admiralty to be appointed over all America, at his pleasure. 
Thus a malicious seizor may take the goods of any man, ever so 
lawfully and duly imported, and carry the trial of the cause to 
a thousand miles distance, where for mere want of ability to 
follow, the claimer shall be incapable of defending his right. 
At the same time an hardship is laid upon the claimer; his claim 
is not to be admitted] or heard until he find sureties to 
prosecute, who are to be of known ability in the place where 
security is given. And he, being unknown in a place so distance 
from home, whatever be his estate, shall be incapable of 
producing such sureties. 
</p>
            <p>III. The empowering commanders of the King's ships to 
seize and implead, as is done in this act and a former act and 
by special commission from the commissioners of the customs, is 
another great hardship on the colonies. The knowledge of all the 
statutes relating to the customs, of all  the prohibitions on 
exports and imports, and of various intricate cases arising on 
them, requires a good lawyer. How can this science ever be 
expected from men educated in a totally different way, brought 
up upon the boisterous element and knowing no law aboard their 
ships but their own will? Here perhaps it will be said, this is 
not peculiar to the colonies. The power to these commanders is 
given in all parts of the dominions as well as in the colonies: 
why should they complain of being under the same law as the 
other subject.? I answer, There is this great essential 
difference between the cases: in Great Britain no jurisdiction 
is given to any other than the common law courts; there too the 
subjects are near the throne, where, when they are oppressed, 
their complaints may soon be heard and redressed; but with 
respect to the colonies, far different is the case!  Here it is 
their own courts that try the cause! Here the subject is far 
distant from the throne! His complaints cannot soon be heard and 
redressed. The boisterous commander may take for his motto, 
<hi>Procul a Jove, a fulmine procul</hi>. 
</p>
            <p>The present decree, however unjust, deprives him even of 
the means of seeking redress. The judge with his troop and the 
proud captain have divided his wealth; and he hath nothing to do 
but to hang himself or to go a-begging in a country of beggars. 
</p>
            <p>There is yet another very great objection the colonists 
make to this act, of no less weight than the other three. It is 
this: 
</p>
            <p>IV. Whereas it is good law that all officers seizing 
goods seize at their peril, and if the goods they seize are not 
liable to forfeiture they must pay the claimant his cost, and 
are liable to his action besides, which two things have been 
looked upon as proper checks of exorbitant wanton power in the 
officer: both these checks are taken off. They, the officers, 
may charge the revenue with the cost, with the consent of four 
of the commissioners of the customs. And if the judge of 
admiralty will certify that there was probable cause of seizure, 
no action shall be maintained by the claimant though his goods 
on trial appear to be ever so duly imported and liable to no 
sort of forfeiture, and he hath been forced to expend ever so 
much in the defense of them. This last regulation is in the act 
peculiarly confined to America. 
</p>
            <p>Much more might be said on these subjects, but I aim at 
brevity. 
</p>
            <p>Let it now be observed that the interest of Great 
Britain is finally greatly affected by these new regulations. We 
will not here insist on the parental tenderness due from Great 
Britain to us and suggest she must suffer from sympathy with her 
children, who have been guilty of no undutiful behavior towards 
her but on the contrary have greatly increased her wealth and 
grandeur and in the last war have impoverished themselves in 
fighting her battles. We will suppose her for this little moment 
to have forgot the bowels of a mother. 
</p>
            <p>Neither will we dwell long on the importance of the 
precedent. The consideration of a million and half of British 
subjects disfranchised or put under regulations alien from our 
happy constitution: what pretense it may afford to after 
ministers to treat the inhabitants of the island itself after 
the same manner.  We will suppose for the present that at a 
thousand leagues distance, across the water, the inhabitants of 
the capital will not be endangered by a conflagration of all the 
colonies. 
</p>
            <p>Nor will we mention any possible danger from the 
alienation of the affections of the colonies from their mother 
country in case of a new war. We will suppose them to have that 
reverence for the English name they are allowed to retain that 
they will be as lavish of what blood and treasure remains to 
them now they are cut off from all these privileges as when they 
could please themselves with the surest hope of holding them 
inviolable. 
</p>
            <p>What we are now considering is how the mere present 
self-interest of Great Britain is affected by these new 
regulations. 
</p>
            <p>Now everybody knows that the greatest part of the trade 
of Great Britain is with her colonies.  This she enjoyeth, 
exclusive of any other European country, and hath entirely at 
her own command.  Further, it may be made out that the greatest 
part of the profits of the trade of the colonies, at least on 
the continent, centers in Great Britain. The colonists, settled 
in a wide and sparse manner, are perpetually demanding the 
linen, woolen and other manufactures of Great Britain. They are 
not yet settled in so contiguous a manner as to be able to 
manufacture sufficient for their own supplies. And while they 
can pay for those of Great Britain with any proper remittances, 
their demands will be perpetually increasing. Great Britain, 
besides, is the mart which supplieth the colonies with all the 
produce of the other countries in Europe which the colonies use. 
</p>
            <p>Considering the vast numbers supported by these 
manufactures vended in the colonies, and by the articles of 
foreign trade brought into the kingdom and thence exported and 
consumed in the plantations, doubtless even the luxury of the 
colonists is the gain of Great Britain. So thought wise 
ministers in the late reign: on which ground they repealed two 
or three sumptuary laws made in the colonies for restraining 
that luxury. 
</p>
            <p>Now as the colonies have no gold or silver mines in 
them, it is certain that all their remittances they make must be 
from their trade. And it is obvious that when the sources of 
their remittances are cut off, the demands for these goods, by 
which so many thousands are supported, must cease. And whoever 
considereth with any degree of attention the new regulations and 
is acquainted with the state of the colonies must see that the 
evident tendency of them is to cut off all these sources and to 
destroy altogether the trade of the colonists. 
</p>
            <p>One grand source of these remittances is the fishery, 
which by the duty of three pence a gallon on molasses must 
entirely be at an end. That branch can never bear the high 
duties imposed, nor subsist with- out the molasses which the 
trade to the foreign islands furnisheth. Not only by their 
connection with this but by the mere effect of the new 
regulations, all the other trade of the colonists must be at an 
end. These regulations must break and subdue the hearts of the 
traders here. TRADE is a nice and delicate lady; she must be 
courted and won by soft and fair addresses. She will not bear 
the rude hand of a ravisher. Penalties increased, heavy taxes 
laid on, the checks of oppression and violence removed; these 
things must drive her from her present abode. 
</p>
            <p>Hence, one or other of these consequences will follow: 
either (1) the colonies will universally go into such 
manufactures as they are capable of doing within themselves, or 
(2) they will do without them, and being reduced to mere 
necessaries, will be clothed like their predecessors the Indians 
with the skins of beasts, and sink into like barbarism. They 
must then adopt Jack Straw's verses. 
</p>
            <p>
               <hi>When Adam delved, and Eve span, Who was then the 
gentleman?</hi>
            </p>
            <p>[I imagine many sanguine readers on the British side the 
water will think this is all exaggeration.  Such may be informed 
that even now these things begin to appear. For two or three 
years past, exchange from the Massachusetts to England has been 
above par, and bills earnestly bought up. Now the bills the 
government have to dispose of, though set at a less exchange 
than the last year and though certain advice is received that 
the money is in the bank, cannot vend.] 
</p>
            <p>Now, either of these events taking place, how will it 
affect the island of Great Britain? The answer is obvious. The 
exports to the colonies wholly stopped or greatly diminished, 
the demands for those manufactures in Great Britain must be in 
proportion lessened. The substance of those manufacturers, 
merchants, and traders whom this demand supports is then gone. 
They who live from supplying these manufacturers, etc., must 
decay and die with them. Lastly, as trade may be compared to a 
grand chain made up of innumerable links, it is doubtful whether 
the British trade, great as it is, can bear the striking out so 
many without greatly endangering the whole. 
</p>
            <p>What now is the equivalent for all this to the nation? A 
tenth part of one year's tax, at the extent two years' tax upon 
the colonies (for after that time all their money will be gone) 
to be lodged in the exchequer and thence issued as the 
Parliament shall direct. Doth not this resemble the conduct of 
the good wife in the fable who killed her hen that every day 
laid her a <hi>golden egg?</hi>
            </p>
            <p>THESE are the sentiments of a British American, which he 
ventures to expose to the public with an honest well meant 
freedom. Born in one of the colonies and descended from 
ancestors who were among the first planters of that colony, he 
is not ashamed to avow a love to the country that gave him 
birth; yet he hath ever exulted in the name of Briton. He hath 
ever thought all the inhabitants in the remotest dominions of 
Great Britain interested in the wealth, the prosperity, and the 
glory of the capital. And he desireth ever to retain these 
filial sentiments. 
</p>
            <p>If the objections he proposeth are of any weight, he 
trusts the meanness and distance of the proposer shall not 
diminish that weight that those great minds who can comprehend 
the whole vast machine in one view will not deem it below them 
to inspect a single small wheel that is out of order. 
</p>
            <p>He concludes all with his most ardent wishes that the 
happy island of Great Britain may grow in wealth, in power, and 
glory to yet greater degrees; that the conquests it makes over 
foreign enemies may serve the more to protect the internal 
liberties of its subjects; that her colonies now happily 
extended may grow in filial affection and dutiful submission to 
her their mother; and that she in return may never forget her 
parental affections. That the whole English empire, united by 
the strongest bands of love and interest, formidable to the 
tyrants and oppressors of the earth, may retain its own virtue, 
and happily possess immortality. 
</p>
         </div>
      </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
