rid abuses; which the meanest deputy of a deputy's deputy might practise with impunity, upon a merchant or gentleman of the first character; and there would be the greater danger of such abuses, by reason of the immense distance of the scene of action from the seat of government. The voice of the complainant would not be heard three thousand miles off, after the servants of government had deafened the ears of administration by misrepresentations. From this period may be dated the fixed, uniform, and growing opposition which was made to the ministerial plans of encroaching upon the original rights and long established customs of the colony. In 1761, the officers of the customs applied to the superior courts for such writs. The great opposition that was made to it, and the arguments of Mr. Otis, disposed the court to a refusal; but Mr. Hutchinson, who had obtained the place of chief justice, prevailed with his brethren to continue the cause till next term; and in the mean time wrote to England, and procured a copy of the writ, and sufficient evidence of the practice of the exchequer there, after which, like writs were granted. But before this was effected, Mr. Otis was chosen one of the representatives for Boston, by the influence of the friends to liberty; whose jealousies there and elsewhere, afterward increased apace, upon hearing that the British officers insisted frequently upon the necessity of regulating and reforming, as they stiled it, the colonial governments; and that certain travellers were introduced to particular persons [1762.] with a"This is a gentleman employed by the earl of Bute to travel the country, and learn what may be proper to be done in the grand plan of reforming the American governments." It was understood that their business was to make thorough observation upon the state of the country, that so the ministry might be enabled to judge what regulations and alterations could safely be made in the police and government of the colonies, in order to their being brought more effectually under the government of parliament. They were also, as much as possible, to conciliate capital and influential characters, to ministerial measures speedily to be adopted. The British ministry have been greatly mistaken, in supposing it is the same in America as in their own country. Do they gain over a gentleman of note and eminence in the colonies, they make no considerable acquisition. He takes few or none with him; and is rather despised than adhered to by fermer friends. He has not, as in Britain, dependants who must act in conformity to his nod. In New-England especially, individuals are so independent of each other, that though there may be an inequality in rank and fortune, every one can act freely according to his own judgment. But ty." Remember also, that the bishop of Landaff in his sermon of 1766, assures us, that the establishment of episcopacy being ob tained, "the American church will grow out of its infant state, be able to stand upon its own legs, and without foreign help, support and spread itself, and then this society will be brought to the happy issue intended." Mr. Whitefield said upon it, in his letter to Mr. Durell, "supposing his lordship's assertions true, then I fear it will follow, that a society, which since its first institution hath been looked upon as a society for propagating the gospel, hath been all the while rather a society for propagating episcopacy in foreign parts: This letter will close with a few more articles of information. Among the original instructions to Benning Wentworth, esq. governor of New-Hampshire, signed June 30th, 1761, the 27th says, "you are not to give your assent to, or pass. any law imposing duties on negroes imported into New-Hampshire:" some of the colonies were for discouraging the introduction of negroes -for which purpose they wished to lay a duty upon them. The 69th contains the following direction, "No school-master to be henceforth permitted to come from England without the licence of the bishop; and no other person now there, or that shall come from other parts, shall be admitted to keep school without your licence first obtained." [Feb. 1762.] A law passed in the Massachusetts, entitled, "An act to incorporate certain persons, by the name of The society for promoting Christian knowledge among the Indians in North America; but was disallowed at the court of St. James's the 20th of May, 1763. Mr. Jasper Mauduit, in his letter to Mr. Bowdoin of April 7, 1763, writes, "So long ago as the 10th of December, I was told at the plantation-office, that this act was opposed by the archbishop and the society for propaga ting the gospel. Mr. Pownall told me that the bill would not pass; that the lords would not dispute the laudableness of the design, but there were political reasons for not confirming it; that the people might apply the money to oppose the missionaries of the church of England. I answered, I wished that the society for propagating the gospel had employed their missionaries more among the Indians than they had hitherto done in North America." From what passed, the real reasons for disallowing the bill may be gathered. LETTER LETTER III. Roxbury, December 24, 1772. [1763.] MR. Israel Mauduit, the Massachusetts agent, gave early notice of the ministerial intentions to tax the colonies; but the general court not being called together till the latter end of the year, instructions to the agent, though solicit ed by him, could not be sent in season. [1764.] The house of representatives came to the following resolutions-"That the sole right of giving and granting the mo→ ney of the people of that province, was vested in them as their legal representatives; and that the imposition of duties and taxes by the parliament of Great-Britain, upon a people who are not represented in the house of commons, is absolutely irreconcile→ able with their rights.' "That no man can justly take the property of another without his consent; upon which original principle, the right of representation in the same body which exercises the power of making laws for levying taxes, one of the main pillars of the British constitution, is evidently founded." These resolutions were occasioned by intelligence of what had been done in the British house 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 single person present ventured to controvert the right. Soon after, the sugar or molasses act was passed; [April 5.] and "it is certainly true, that till then, no act avowedly for the purpose of revenue, and with the ordinary title and recital taken together, is found in the statute book. All before stood on commercial regulations and restraints."* It is stiled It runs an act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America, for continuing, amending, and making perpetual, an act passed in the sixth year of George the second (entitled an act for the better securing and encouraging the trade of his majesty's colonies in America) for applying the produce of such duties, &c." From its perpetuating the sugar act of George II. it is called the sugar or molasses act. thus, "Whereas it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established in improving the revenue of this kingdom, and for extending and securing the navigation and commerce between Great-Britain and your majesty's dominions * Mr. Burke's fpeech on American taxation, April 19, 1774 VOL. I Q in in America-And whereas it is just and necessary, that a revenue be raised in America for defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the same-We, the commons, &c. toward raising the same, give and grant unto your majesty, after the 29th of September, 1764, upon clayed sugar, indigo and coffee of foreign produce-upon all wines, except French-upon all wrought silks, Bengals and stuffs mixed with silk of Persia, China, or East-India manufacture-and all calicoes painted, printed or stained there (certain specified duties)-upon every gallon of molasses and syrups, being the produce of a colony not under the dominion of his majesty, the sum of three-pence-the monies arising, after charges of raising, collecting, &c. are to be paid into the receipt of his majesty's exchequer-shall be entered separate, and be reserved to be disposed of by parliament, toward defraying the necessary expences of defending, &c. the British colonies.' The wording of the act might induce the colonies to view it as the beginning of sorrows; and they might fear that the parliament would go on in charging them with such taxes as it pleased, for such military forces as it should 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 sent to Mr. Shirley in 1754, occasioned much conversation. on the subject, and the common opinion was, that the parliament could not tax them till duly represented in that body, because it was not just, nor agreeable to the nature of the. English constitution. But though few or none were willing to admit the right, the generality were cautious, how they denied the power, or the obligation to submit on the part of the Americans, when. the power was exercised. Even Mr. Otis tells us, "we must and ought to yield obedience to an act of parliament, though erroneous, till repealed." "The power of parliament, is uncontrolable, but by themselves, and we must obey. There would be an end of all government, if one or a number of subordinate provinces should take upon themselves so far as to judge of the justice of an act of parliament, as to refuse obedience to it. If their was nothing else to restrain such a step, prudence ought to do it; for forcibly resisting the parliament and the king's law is high treason. Therefore let the parliament lay what burthens they please upon us we must, it is our duty to submit, and patiently to bear them, till they will be pleased to relieve us." He went so far as to publish "It is 米 Otis's Rights of the British Colonies, p. 57. † Ibid, p. 59. certain certain that the parliament of Great-Britain has a just and equitable right, power and authority, to impose taxes on the colonies, internal and external, on lands as well as on trade."* "The supreme legislative represents the whole society or community, as well the dominions as the realm. This is implied in the idea of a supreme power; and if the parliament had not such an authority, the colonies would be independent."+ But the two last 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, conversation or debate. His first pan-phlet, The Rights of the BRITISH Colonies, which had been twice read over in the house of assembly within the space of five days, though guarded by some expressions, had a strong tendency to excite a powerful opposition to ministerial plans; especially where he says, "I cannot but observe here, that if the parliament have an equitable right to tax our trade, it is indisputable, that they have as good a one to tax the lands and every thing else. There is no foundation for the distinction some make in England, between an internal and external tax on the colonies." expressions could not but spread a general alarm through the country, and enflame every planter against parliamentary taxation. The house had so high an opinion of this pamphlet, that they ordered it to be sent over to Mr. Mauduit, with a letter, wherein they instructed him to use his indeavours to obtain a repeal of the sugar act, and to exert himself to prevent a stamp act, or any other imposition 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 su gar act; but to have confined their objections to the laying on of the duty, when they were not represented. These The act disgusted the more, because of its being so unseasonable. The duties were to be paid in specie, while the old means of procuring it were cut off. The ministry, resolved to prevent smuggling, obliged all sea officers, stationed on the American coasts, to act in the capacity of the meanest revenue officers, making them submit to the usual 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-house laws. Many illegal seizures were made. No redress could be had but from Britain, which it was tedious and difficult to obtain. Beside, the American trade with the Spaniards by which the British manufactures were vended in return (for gold and siver in coin or bullion, *Otis's Vindication of the British Colonies, p. 57. Ibid. p. 59. His Rights of the British Colonies, p. 63, cochineal, |