gating the gospel had employed their miffionaries more among the Indians, than they had hitherto done in North America." From what paffed, the real reasons -for difallowing the bill may be gathered.

1763.

LETTER III.

Roxbury, Dec. 24, 1772.

MR. Ifrael Mauduit, the Massachusetts agent, gave early
M

notice of the ministerial intentions to tax the colonies; but the general court not being called together till the latter end of the year, inftructions to the agent, though folicited by him, could not be sent in season. 1764. The house of representatives came to the following refolutions" That the fole right of giving and granting the money of the people of that province, was vested in them as their legal reprefentatives; and that the impofition of duties and taxes by the parliament of Great Britain, upon a people who are not represented in the house of commons, is abfolutely irreconcileable with their rights."-"That no man can juftly take the property of another without his confent; upon which original principle, the right of reprefentation in the fame body which exercises the power of making laws for levying taxes, one of the main pillars of the Briti conflitution, is evidently founded."

1

Thefe

These refolutions were occafioned by intelligence of what had been done in the British houfe of commons. It had been there debated in March, whether they had: a right to tax the Americans they not being represented, and determined unanimously in the affirmative. Not a fingle person present ventured to controvert the right. Soon after, the fugar or molaffes act was paffed: and April "it is certainly true, that till then, no act avowedly for 5. the purpose of revenue, and with the ordinary title and recital taken together, is found in the ftatute book. All before stood on commercial regulation and restraints." It is ftiled" an act for granting certain duties in the. British colonies and plantations in America, for continuing amending and making perpetual an act paffed· in the fixth year of George the fecond, (entitled an act for the better fecuring and encouraging the trade of his majesty's colonies in America) for applying the produce of fuch duties, &c." From its perpetuating the fugar act of George II. it is called the fugar or molaffes act. It runs thus, "Whereas it is expedient, that new provifions and regulations fhould be established in improving the revenue of this kingdom, and for extending and securing the navigation and commerce between Great Britain and your majefty's dominions in America-And whereas it is juft and neceffary, that a revenue be raised in America for defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and fecuring the fame-We the commons, &c. toward raifing the fame, give and grant unto your majefty after the 29th of September 1764, upon clayed fugar, indigo and coffee of foreign produce upon all wines except French-upon all

* Mr. Burke's fpeech on American taxation, April 19, 1774.

wrought filks, Bengals and ftuffs mixed with filk of Perfia, China, or Eaft-India manufacture-and all callicoes painted, printed, or stained there (certain fpecified duties)-upon every gallon of molaffes and firups, being the produce of a colony not under the dominion of his majesty, the fum of three-pence the monies arifing, after charges of raifing, collecting, &c. are to be paid into the receipt of his majefty's Exchequer➡ fhall be entered feparate, and be reserved to be disposed of by parliament, toward defraying the neceffary expences of defending &c. the British colonies." The wording of the act might induce the colonies to view it as the beginning of forrows; and they might fear that the parliament would go on in charging them with fuch taxes as it pleased, for fuch military force as it fhould think proper. This ill prospect seemed to the Americans, boundless in extent, and endless in duration.

They objected not to the parliament's right of laying duties to regulate commerce: but the right of taxing them. was not admitted. The ministerial plan, fent to Mr. Shirley in 1754, occafioned much converfation on the fubject, and the common opinion was, that the parlia→ ment could not tax them, till duly reprefented in that body, because it was not just, nor agreeable to the nature of the English conftitution. But though few or none were willing to admit the right; the generality were cautious how they denied the power, or the obligation to fubmit on the part of the Americans, when the power was exercised. Even Mr. Otis tells us, "We muft and ought to yield obedience to an act of parlia

ment,

"The power

ment, though erroneous, till repealed."
of parliament is uncontrollable, but by themselves, and
we must obey. There would be an end of all govern-
ment, if one or a number of fubordinate provinces
fhould take upon themselves, fo far to judge of the
justice of an act of parliament, as to refuse obedience
to it. If there was nothing else to reftrain fuch a step,
prudence ought to do it, for forcibly refifting the par
liament and the king's laws is high treafon. There-
fore let the parliament lay what burthens they please
upon us, we muft, it is our duty to fubmit, and pati
ently to bear them, till they will be pleafed to relieve
us t." He went fo far as to publish, "It is certain that
the parliament of Great Britain has a juft and equitable
right, power and authority, to impofe taxes on the co-
lonies, internal and external, on lands as well as on
trade ‡.” “The supreme legislative represents the whole
fociety or community, as well the dominions as the
realm. This is implied in the idea of a fupreme
power; and if the parliament had not fuch an autho
rity, the colonies would be independent §.". But the
two laft quotations were extorted from him, through
fear of being called to an account for the part he had
acted, or for what he had before advanced in print,
converfation, or debate. His firft pamphlet, The rights
of the BRITISH colonies, which had been twice read over
in the house of affembly within the space of five days,
though guarded by fome expreffions, had a strong ten-
dency to excite a powerful oppofition to minifterial
plans; efpecially where he fays, "I cannot but obferve

Otis's Rights of the British Colonies, p. 57-
His Vindication of the British Colonies, p. 4.

L 4

+ Ibid. p. 59.

Ibid. p. 21.

here,

here, that if the parliament have an equitable right to tax our trade, it is indifputable, that they have as good a one to tax the lands and every thing elfe. There is no foundation for the diftinction fome make in England, between an internal and external tax on the colonies *." These expreffions could not but spread a general alarm through the country, and inflame every planter against parliamentary taxation. The houfe had fo high an opinion of this pamphlet, that they ordered it to be fent over to Mr. Mauduit with a letter, wherein they inftructed him to ufe his endeavours to obtain a repeal of the fugar act, and to exert himself to prevent a ftamp act, or any other impofitions and taxes, upon this and the other American provinces. They do not appear to have made any particular objection to the term revenue introduced into the fugar act; but to have confined their objections to the laying on of the duty, when they were not represented.

The act difgufted the more, because of its being fo unfeafonable. The duties were to be paid in fpecie, while the old means of procuring it were cut off. The ministry, refolved to prevent fmuggling, obliged all fea officers ftationed on the American coafts, to act in the capacity of the meaneft revenue officers, making them fubmit to the ufual custom-house oaths and regulations for that purpose. This proved a great grievance to the American merchants and traders. Gentlemen of the navy were unacquainted with custom-houfe laws. Many illegal feizures were made. No redrefs could be had but from Britain; which it was tedious and difficult to obtain, Befide, the American trade with the Spaniards, Otis's Rights of the British Colonies. p. 63.

by