Letter 1.

LETTER 1.

The doctrine of taxation, maintained by the author of the Calm Address, is rational, Scriptural, and constitutional.

REVEREND SIR, - Thankful for the religious and civil liberty which I enjoy as a subject of Great Britain; persuaded that many warm, well - meaning men mistake an unreasonable opposition to the king and the minister, for true patriotism; sensible of the sad consequences of national misunderstandings; ardently wishing that all things may be so ordered and settled upon the best and surest foundation, (which, if I mistake not, are reason, Scripture, and our excellent constitution,) that peace and harmony may, for all generations, be established between Great Britain and her flourishing colonies; and desirous to inspire you, sir, and my dissatisfied, dissenting brethren, with the same loyal sentiments, I take the pen to expostulate with you about the system of politics which you recommend to the public in your “Letter to the Rev. Mr. Wesley, occasioned by his Calm Address to the American Colonies.”

It is at this time peculiarly needful to throw light upon the question debated between Mr. Wesley and you; for if you are in the right, the sovereign is a tyrant; taxing the colonists is robbery; and enforcing such taxation by the sword is murder. We cannot hold up the hands of our soldiers by prayer, without committing sin: nor can they fight with Christian courage, which is inseparable from a good conscience, if they suspect that they are sent to rob good men of their properties, liberties, and lives.

Mr. Wesley asserts, “That the supreme power in England has a legal right of laying any tax [I would say any proportionable tax] upon the American colonies, for any end beneficial to the whole empire, with or without their consent.” And you reply, “If the Americans are indeed subject to such a power as this, their condition differs not from that of the most abject slaves in the universe.”

Sir, I venture to assert that you are mistaken, and that Mr. Wesley’s proposition is rational, Scriptural, and constitutional. And, promising you to show in another letter the absurdity of your proposition, I enter upon the proof of any assertion, by an appeal to reason, Scripture, and your own letter. In following this method, I shall address you as a man, a divine, and a controvertist. First, as a man: -

Does not your mistake spring from your inattention to the nature of civil government? You represent the power which the king and parliament claim of disposing of some of the money of the colonists without their consent, as an encroachment upon British liberty; as an unjust, tyrannical pretension; nay, as a species of “robbery.” But did you never consider, sir, that in the nature of things our sovereign in England, (I mean by this word the king and his parliament, first jointly making laws not contrary to the laws of God, whose supreme dominion must always be submitted to by all created lawgivers; and secondly, executing the laws which they have made, by imparting to magistrates and other officers of justice a sufficient power to put them in force;) did you never consider, I say, that our sovereign, whether we have a vote for parliament men or not, has both a right and a power to dispose, not only of our money, but also of our liberties and lives; so far as that disposal may answer ends agreeable to the law of God, beneficial to the peace of society, and conducive to the general good? If this political doctrine be explained, you will, I am persuaded, assent to it, as an indubitable truth.

Could the sovereign rule and protect us, if he had not this right and this power? I injure your property, or, what is worse, your reputation. You sue me for damages; but how can the sovereign act the part of protector of your property and good name, if he cannot command my property, and take from me by force what I unjustly detain from you, and what may make you satisfaction for the injury done to your character? And suppose you had wronged me, how could the sovereign protect me, if he could not dispose of your property without your consent?

This is exactly the case with respect to liberty. If you stop me on the road, and unjustly deprive me of the liberty of going about my business, can the sovereign protect me, unless he has a right of depriving you of your lawless liberty, that I may quietly enjoy my lawful liberty? And does not equity demand, that if I am the petty tyrant, who pretend to the liberty of tar feathering you, the sovereign should have the same power of protecting you, by binding me to my good behaviour, or by ordering me to the stocks or to jail?

This power extends to life as well as liberty. I demand your money or your life. How can the sovereign secure you more effectually than by taking my life for having attempted to take yours? By the rule of reciprocation, if you endeavour to take away my life, I cannot be protected; and if you murder me, my blood cannot be properly avenged, unless the sovereign has power to pus you to death. Hence it is, that prosecutions for capital offences are carried on in the name of the king, who is the head of the legislative power, and who, as he insists (in his capacity of lawgiver and protector of his subjects) upon the infliction of capital punishments, has also the royal prerogative of pardoning criminals condemned to die.

Come we now to taxes. If the sovereign rules and protects his subjects; and if it is his office to avert the dangers which threatened them, and to see that justice be done to the oppressed; he has his noble, I had almost said his Divine business; and he has a right to live by his business: yea, to live in a manner which may answer to the importance and dignity of his business. Hence it follows, that he is not only as much entitled to a royal sustenance from his subjects, as a school master is entitled to a school master’s maintenance from his scholars; or a minister to a pastoral supply from his flock; but that his right is so much the more conspicuous as his rank is higher than theirs. Now this royal sustenance chiefly arises from custom and taxes. Hence it is evident, that to deny proper taxes to the sovereign who protects and defends us, is, at least, as gross an act of injustice, as to reap the benefit of a lawyer’s study, a physician’s attendance, a nurse’s care, and a master’s instructions, and then to cheat them of the emolument which such study, attendance, care, and instructions reasonably entitle them to. This is not all.

In a vast empire, where the sovereign uses thousands of officers to keep the peace and administer justice, there is absolute need of a great revenue for the maintenance of those officers; and the collecting of this revenue is the employment of thousands more. If the state is in danger from external or internal foes; a sufficient force in constant readiness is absolutely necessary to suppress seditions, quell rebellions, obtain restitutions, prevent invasions, and hinder encroachments. Hence the need of a navy, an army, a militia. Hence the need of sea ports, docks, fortifications, garrisons, convoys, fleets of observation, ministers at foreign courts, arms, artillery, ammunition, magazines, and warlike stores without end: hence, in short, prodigious expenses. Now, as all these expenses are incurred for the protection and dignity of the whole empire, do not reason and conscience dictate,

(1.) That all those who share in the protection and dignity of the empire should contribute in due proportion toward defraying the national expense:

(2.) That, of consequence, the supreme power has an indubitable right of laying moderate taxes upon the subjects for any end beneficial to the whole empire:

(3.) That subjects have absolutely no right to complain of taxation, unless they are taxed exorbitantly, or without due proportion:

(4.) That if colonies of subjects, settled by a grant from the sovereign, within the limits of the empire, have been spared in their state of infancy, either to encourage their growth, or because the revenue, which might have arisen from taxing them at first, would hardly have defrayed the expense of raising taxes; it by no means follows that, when such colonies have gathered strength, and are as well able to bear a share in the national burden as the mother country, they should still be excused: and lastly, that to say, “You shall not tax me without my consent,” is as improper a speech from a subject to his sovereign as to say, “You shall not protect the empire without my consent; if I steal, you shall not send me to jail without my consent; if I raise a rebellion, you shall not hang me unless I give you leave; you shall not dispose of my property without my permission; although (by the by) I will dispose of the property of my fellow subjects, not only without their permission, but also in full opposition to your authority:” an absurd, unjust disposition this, which too many of the Bostonian patriots evidenced when they imperiously disposed of the cargo of our ships, forcibly threw the goods of our merchants into the sea, to the amount of many thousand pounds, and set all America in a flame, as soon as the sovereign insisted that the port of Boston should be shut up, till the perpetrators of this daring act were delivered to justice, or, at least, till satisfaction was made to his oppressed subjects, whose ships have been boarded in a piratical manner, and whose property has been feloniously destroyed, when they quietly traded under the sanction of English laws, and the protection of the British flag; trusting to the faith of Christians; depending on Protestant usage in the harbour of a Protestant city; expecting brotherly love, or at least common honesty, from the sons of pious Englishmen; little thinking - but enough of this black scene: may it be palliated by a speedy restitution, and a lasting repentance! I hope, sir, that the preceding remarks, which naturally flow from the principles of reason and humanity, recommend themselves to your conscience; and having thus addressed you as a rational creature, I take the liberty to address you next as a Christian; yea, a preacher of the Gospel of Christ. As such, you will not wonder at my producing a passage or two from the venerable book, which ought to be the rule of our conduct, sermons, and publications. “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, [in lawful things,] resisteth the power, [which Providence calls him to obey,] resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation, &c. Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For, for this cause, pay you tribute [that is, taxes] also, &c. Render, therefore, to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom,” Romans 13:1, &c.

I need not remind you, reverend sir, that our Lord himself scrupulously followed this doctrine; setting us an example that we should follow his steps. For although no Jew had a representative in the Roman senate; although the emperor of Rome had not half the right of taxing the Jews which our Protestant king has of taxing the colonists, who are his natural subjects; although none of that emperor’s predecessors had made the Jews a grant of their country; although Christ could have insisted on being exempted, as the Son of God and the King of kings; yea, although he could have pleaded absolute indigence as the Son of man: yea, rather than set a pattern which Christians might have abused in after ages, he unveiled his Godhead; his omniscience searched the depth of the sea, his omnipotence inverted the course of nature: he called the animal creation to his assistance: he wrought a miracle to pay his tax. And to whom? To a foreign power; to a heathen prince; to a bloody tyrant; to Tiberius, who was the third of the Cesars.

Nor was our Lord’s doctrine less loyal than his practice. His words are as strong as those of St. Paul: “The Herodians said to him, Master, we know that thou teachest the way of God in truth, &c. Tell us, therefore, what thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute to Cesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money. And they brought to him a penny. And he said to them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say to him, Cesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s,” Matthew 22:16, &c.

Permit me, sir, to clothe this Christian doctrine in language adapted to our controversy. The colonists ask you, Shall we pay, to the king and parliament of Great Britain, taxes which they have laid upon us without our consent? You answer, Show me some of your lawful money newly coined, that I may see who rules and protects you now. They bring to you a guinea, with a royal head on one side, and the British arms on the other. You say to them, Whose is this image and superscription? They reply, King George’s; and they read this motto, “George III, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain,” &c. Now, reverend sir, unless you will coin new money, together with a new Gospel, as you regard the word and authority of Jesus Christ, you are bound to answer the colonists as he answered the Herodians: and, in this case, instead of imposing upon them the Antinomian paradoxes of your letter, and throwing oil upon the flame of revolt, you will say, “Render, therefore, to George III,” as head of the legislative protective power of Great Britain, “the things which are his;” that is, pay to him, by his officers, the reasonable taxes which are laid upon you; for in so doing you only give him his due. You owe him obedience and taxes, as your supreme governor and protector. Hence it appears that Mr. Wesley only unfolds our Lord’s doctrine, when he says, “The reception of any law draws after it, by a chain which cannot be broken, the necessity of admitting taxation.” The primary right of taxation is inseparable from the supreme power, and if our respective parishes at home, and our colonies abroad, have a right to cess themselves, with respect to their private expenses; it is only a delegated, subordinate right, which by no means exempts them from the taxes laid upon them to defray the general expense of the government. And, therefore, to pretend that parish rates, and colony rates, ought to supersede taxation by the sovereign in a body political, is as absurd as to affirm that the pulses in the human body ought to supersede the vital motion, or capital beating of the heart. Having expostulated with you as with a conscientious man and a minister of the Gospel, permit me, sir, to address you, thirdly, as a consistent writer. You give us to understand that the act of parliament, by which the colonists are taxed, is an unconstitutional act; because the colonists, as inheriting the privileges of Britons, cannot be constitutionally taxed by a parliament to which they are not allowed to send representatives. But do you not, in your very letter to Sir. W., overthrow this grand plea? Do you not grant the very truth, on which he rests his doctrine of the constitutional reasonableness of the taxation you represent as tyrannical? Undoubtedly you do: for, considering that many large towns, as Birmingham, &c, send no representative to parliament, when the hill called Old Sarum sends two; and that myriads of men, who have their fortune in ready money, in goods, in trade, or in the stocks, have no right to vote for parliament men, because they have no freehold; when a poor man, who has a mortgaged freehold on which he starves, has a right to choose his representative; considering this, I say, you tell Mr. W., “In England - the people are by no means equally represented.”

We thank you, sir, for this concession, which (by the by) you could not help making. You grant then that the constitution allows of unequal representation; since it allows that some towns, and some men, shall send representatives to parliament, when other towns and other men are not permitted to send any. And in granting this, you indirectly grant that Boston may be constitutionally taxed without a peculiar representative, as well as Birmingham; and that the rich merchants of Boston may be as legally taxed, as the rich merchants of Birmingham, who are not entitled to a vote. Now, sir, if the constitution allows of unequal representation, and if the taxation of myriads of men, who send no representatives to the house of commons, is constitutional I ask, in the name of consistency, why do you represent such taxation as unconstitutional with respect to the colonists?

You reply: “This is an acknowledged defect of the constitution.” So, sir, your zeal for the constitution throws off the mask, and you impeach the constitution! Might you not have said at once, The parliament may indeed constitutionally tax the colonists, for it taxes millions of Britons who have no vote for parliament men; but the constitution is defective, and we patriots, we friends of the constitution, will avowedly find fault with the constitution till we can find an opportunity of casting it into a new mould? And what this mould is, which, I fear, rash patriots are getting ready as fast as they can, and into which they hope to cast the inflamed minds of the populace, you, sir, help us to guess, where you say, “It is glaringly evident,” (to such good friends of the constitution as you are,) “it is glaringly evident, that there is not a man in England, who is able to boil a pot, in ever so despicable a hovel, but may, if he pleases, have a voice in the disposal of his property.” That is, in laying on or taking off taxes, or (which comes to the same) in making and repealing laws. Sir, I would no more encourage a tyrannical monarch, and an oppressive parliament, than you: but supposing our mild king were a tyrant, and his parliament consisted of three hundred and ninety - nine little tyrants, would it not be better, upon the whole, to be ruled by four hundred tyrants, than to be at the mercy of four hundred thousand? If you calmly weigh this question, I am persuaded, sir, that your prejudices will subside. In the meantime remember, that if you are right as a patriot, you are wrong not only as a man and a Christian, but also as a controvertist; and that, whether the constitution is defective or not, and whether you can mend it or not, you have granted that unequal representation is constitutional, and of consequence that the taxation of myriads of Britons in England, and sons of Britons in America, who send no representatives to parliament, is perfectly agreeable to the constitution.

You strengthen your cause by quoting a French and an English judge. As Mr. Wesley has taken particular notice of these quotations in the last edition of his Address, I shall only transcribe his answers. You write, “All the inhabitants,” &c, says Montesquieu, speaking of the English constitution, “ought to have a right of voting at the election of a representative, except such as are so mean as to be deemed to have no will of their own.” Nay, (answers Mr. W.,) “If all have a right to vote that have a will of their own, certainly this right belongs to every man, woman, and child in England. A man has a will of his own, whether he be twenty or thirty years old, and whether he have forty pence or forty shillings a year.” One quotation more. Judge Blackstone says, “In a free state, every man, who is supposed to be a free agent, ought in some measure to be his own governor; therefore one branch at least of the legislative power should reside in the whole body of the people.” Mr. Wesley answers: “But who are the whole body of the people? According to him, every free agent. Then the argument proves too much; for are not women free agents? Yea, and poor as well as rich men? According to this argument, there is no free state under the sun.” From these just answers it is evident that your scheme drives at putting the legislative power in every body’s hands, that is, at crowning king mob.

To conclude: Upon the force of the preceding arguments, I ask, first, is not the demand of proportionable moderate taxes, which the sovereign of Great Britain has upon our wealthy fellow subjects settled in the British dominions on the continent, both rational, Scriptural, and constitutional? Rational, as being founded upon a reasonable, self - evident right, flowing from the nature and fitness of things, and acknowledged by every civilized nation under heaven? Scriptural, as being supported by the explicit commands of St. Paul, and Christ himself? And constitutional, since the constitution enjoins that millions of Britons at home, who have no voice at elections, or are represented by men whom they voted against; and that myriads of Britons abroad, whether they are freeholders or not, (and some of them are not only freeholders, but members of parliament also,) shall be all taxed without their consent?

I flatter myself, sir, that this appeal to your conscience, your Bible, and your legal patriotism, will soften your prejudices, and prepare your mind for my next letter. In the meantime I earnestly recommend to your thankful admiration, the excellence of the British government, which equally guards our properties, liberties, and lives, against the tyranny of unjust, arbitrary, or cruel monarchs; and against the ferocity of that Cerberus, that hydra, that Briareus, that many - headed monster, a mob of ungrateful, uneasy, restless men, who despise dominion; speak evil of dignities; give to illiberal behaviour, scurrilous insolence, and disloyalty unmasked, the perverted name of patriotism; commit enormities under pretence of redressing grievances; and set up the ensign of devastation wherever they erect their standard of lawless liberty. Hoping, sir, that a panic fear of a virtuous king, a lawful parliament, and a conscientious minister, whose crime is only that of making a constitutional stand against the boisterous overflowings of civil Antinomianism; hoping, I say, that such an absurd fear will never hurry you into groundless discontent, and unguarded publications; entreating you to take no step which may countenance King Mob, his merciless minister, Rapine, and his riotous parliament summoned from the “most despicable hovels;” requesting you to exalt our Divine Lawgiver, who sums up his law of liberty in these precious statutes, “Render to Cesar the things which are Cesar’s, and to God the things which are God’s. A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another, as I have loved you;” wishing you, sir, all Scriptural success in the Gospel, which says, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake; whether it be to the king, as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well:” ardently praying that when the governors, generals, and forces going to America, shall land there, our disobedient fellow subjects may be found doing well, that is, penitently submitting themselves to their sovereign, that the threatened punishment may be turned into deserved praise: and begging you would take in good part the freedom of this well - meant expostulation, I declare that I am as much in love with liberty as with loyalty; and that I write a heart - felt truth, when I subscribe myself, reverend sir, your affectionate fellow labourer in the Gospel, a republican by birth and education, and a subject of Great Britain by love of liberty and free choice,

J. FLETCHER.

MADELEY, Nov. 15, 1776.